Out with the Old... Network Rail tell businesses to vacate Atlantic Road arches
- Thread starter :-D
- Start date
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Not Helen Hayes biggest fan obviously, but she seems to give a good soundbite and comes across as sensitive in the arches bit.
The Peckham Arch - WELL - typical of Southwark Council. Having spend years tarting up the shopping centre at the Elelphant and Castle making it all multi cultural and community oriented, they decide to demolish it.
Now they are entertaining ideas of "regenerating" the Arch.
Southwark Council have all the community spirit of a subsidiary of Network Rail!
Baron
Active Member
Lambeth and NR asked us to help clean up Brixton 15 years ago. Now we have helped they are pushing us out. Makes me feel sick. When you put your life and your family's lives into a business like mine and then have it taken like this it makes people think the worse. Network Rail are a national disgrace.
Baron
Active Member
We are looking for someone who can help with the on line side of things. Some of us are not quite experienced in this field. Someone who can update our web page with appropriate links. Nothing too time consuming, promise. If you feel you can help please pop into THE BARON, 23 Atlantic Road. Ask for Ric. Many thanks.
editor
hiraethified
I'll try and pop over later
Rushy
basically a scrotum
There are a few regular posters with some experience in different areas though none specifically in retail that springs to mind. Are you looking to answer specific questions?
Baron
Active Member
We need the public to post their opposition to the planning department via the Lambeth web site giving the correct reference number. This must be done before March 10.
Goto
www.lambeth.gov.uk/planningdatabase
Quoting reference 16/00868/FUL
OR EMAIL
Planning@lambeth.gov.uk
Giving your name and address. Quote the same reference as above.
You must give a valid reason why you object. Have a look at some of the others already given if your not sure.
Many thanks.
Goto
www.lambeth.gov.uk/planningdatabase
Quoting reference 16/00868/FUL
OR EMAIL
Planning@lambeth.gov.uk
Giving your name and address. Quote the same reference as above.
You must give a valid reason why you object. Have a look at some of the others already given if your not sure.
Many thanks.
newbie
undisambiguated
If the pawnbroker and bookies are not being evicted why is the use category for both units being changed?
Both are currently A2 - Financial and Professional Service. The application is for the bookies to become A1 (shop) and the pawnbroker to be (optionally) split into two A3, yet more food & drink, though the AR side could be an A1 shop.
In the new plans there is no A2. While ethically there's no argument with the comment Carpetman made to Brixton Blog “The most morally decrepit businesses, the ones that leech off the poor, are the ones that are staying in the Railway Arches?” it's also plain and obvious those those businesses exist in poor areas because sufficient local people want them and use them. Tourists don't, the food and drink outlets that proliferate in the new scheme are aimed at them.
E2A I don't know if the money shop and estate agents fully qualify as morally decrepit (great phrase
) but again, they're there primarily for locals not tourists.
Both are currently A2 - Financial and Professional Service. The application is for the bookies to become A1 (shop) and the pawnbroker to be (optionally) split into two A3, yet more food & drink, though the AR side could be an A1 shop.
In the new plans there is no A2. While ethically there's no argument with the comment Carpetman made to Brixton Blog “The most morally decrepit businesses, the ones that leech off the poor, are the ones that are staying in the Railway Arches?” it's also plain and obvious those those businesses exist in poor areas because sufficient local people want them and use them. Tourists don't, the food and drink outlets that proliferate in the new scheme are aimed at them.
E2A I don't know if the money shop and estate agents fully qualify as morally decrepit (great phrase
) but again, they're there primarily for locals not tourists.
Last edited:
Rushy
basically a scrotum
I think that under new planning rules A3 can now be changed back to A1 or A2 without requiring full permission (prior approval).If the pawnbroker and bookies are not being evicted why is the use category for both units being changed?
Both are currently A2 - Financial and Professional Service. The application is for the bookies to become A1 (shop) and the pawnbroker to be (optionally) split into two A3, yet more food & drink, though the AR side could be an A1 shop.
In the new plans there is no A2. While ethically there's no argument with the comment Carpetman made to Brixton Blog “The most morally decrepit businesses, the ones that leech off the poor, are the ones that are staying in the Railway Arches?” it's also plain and obvious those those businesses exist in poor areas because sufficient local people want them and use them. Tourists don't, the food and drink outlets that proliferate in the new scheme are aimed at them.
E2A I don't know if the money shop and estate agents fully qualify as morally decrepit (great phrase
However, betting shops and money lending specifically no longer fall within A2 are now classified as sui generis so would require permission.
Angellic
Well-Known Member
newbie
undisambiguated
Thanks, your expertise is much appreciated.
So the fact that permission is being sought for an increase in the number of A3 food/drink outlets doesn't necessarily mean that's what will happen? Does that in turn mean that an objection on the basis that Brixton's economy is already too heavily reliant on booze & scoff will be of no consequence?
I had to look it up, sui generis = "in a class or group of its own : not like anything else" but gives no clues about what that means in planning terms.
If I'm reading you right, whether or not their leases continue, under the planning proposal in order to continue to trade the bookies and pawnbokers would need to apply for planning permission? Can estate agents set up in any A1 shop or A3 food/drink or do they need specific permission?
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Very kind reference to my expertise but I'm only really skating on the surface!
Sui generis is exactly what you said - pretty much anything which does not fit into or is expressly excluded from one of the main categories. In planning terms it will be treated on it's own merits depending on the Local Plan - they can't be installed by permitted development. Betting shops and pay day loan shops (this was originally expected to cover pawn brokers - but on checking I'm no longer sure that it does) were taken out of A2 to give planners more control over their proliferation.
On the face of the application I don't understand how the betting shop is being catered for within the site. Maybe they have been offered a better arch nearby?
I think the pawn shop could continue using permitted development if, as I suspect, it has not become a sui generis use. But then why not apply for A2 if they are staying?
And yes, any A3 could become an estate agent.
But I'm just speculating based on a fairly superficial understanding.
Last edited:
newbie
undisambiguated
cheers.
I suppose I should be grateful they've not all been designated for food and drink as there's little longterm prospects for a local economy based on the current trend for wasting disposable income on such transient pleasures.
Baron
Active Member
I feel the need to get a pint across.
The real reason Network Rail are pushing forward with their regeneration plan is nothing to do with Brixton.
Network Rail are the Biggest commercial landlord in the UK. Currently running their company at a £50bn loss I read.
They are the owners of hundreds of railway arches that hold up the train lines. These arches were never designed to be used as commercial retail units. Originally changed from empty arches to a place to keep livestock, especially in Brixton where the horses from the rich in central London kept their horses and carriages.
Now Brixton is in "prime location" hotspot. New development pushing up the national average on house prices and thus commercial property.
Network rail always prided theirs selves as "the small business landlord". This is due to affordable rents on a arch that is not designed for the purpose it is now being used.
Now they are turning on their own motto. The affordable rents given to small independent business are no longer acceptable to them. Most of us are given a long lease of 20 years on average. This was to tie us into the units and give Network Rail some stability of tenants. In this lease there are 2 reasons to end the lease giving six months notice.
1, is for structural repair.
2, is for regeneration.
When we lose our current lease then we lose all rights to our current rents paid. THIS IS THE MAIN REASON NETWORK RAIL WANT OUR LEASE BACK. But they have to prove regeneration. First of all early 2015 the said the main reason was for the safety of the trains. Then when asked to prove that structural repairs were required they then changed their reason to serve notice for regeneration.
They have told us we can come back ( only verbally ) but up much increased rents. 350% increase to our current rents. Giving us back our own units we have looked after and taken care off as a completely shell. The tiny compensation offered is supposed to pay for storage of our goods, look after our family's for over a year while they do "their work needed" and pay for a new shop fit to our empty shell. All this for £20k!!
NETWORK RAIL ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THE FUTURE OF BRIXTON. They have been absent landlords for over 20 years. Many of the repairs to the outside structure could have been done 20 years ago but Brixton was just a run down centre full of problems and drugs. Now it's desirable they want it back.
When Brixton was bad we were good. Now Brixton is good we are bad.
Lambeth are in bed with Network Rail totally because this increased rents will increase the business rates payable. Extra revenue for no extra money spent by Lambeth.
It's all about the money. Nothing to do with improvements.
People need to be aware of how they are stabbing their loyal tenants in the back.
The real reason Network Rail are pushing forward with their regeneration plan is nothing to do with Brixton.
Network Rail are the Biggest commercial landlord in the UK. Currently running their company at a £50bn loss I read.
They are the owners of hundreds of railway arches that hold up the train lines. These arches were never designed to be used as commercial retail units. Originally changed from empty arches to a place to keep livestock, especially in Brixton where the horses from the rich in central London kept their horses and carriages.
Now Brixton is in "prime location" hotspot. New development pushing up the national average on house prices and thus commercial property.
Network rail always prided theirs selves as "the small business landlord". This is due to affordable rents on a arch that is not designed for the purpose it is now being used.
Now they are turning on their own motto. The affordable rents given to small independent business are no longer acceptable to them. Most of us are given a long lease of 20 years on average. This was to tie us into the units and give Network Rail some stability of tenants. In this lease there are 2 reasons to end the lease giving six months notice.
1, is for structural repair.
2, is for regeneration.
When we lose our current lease then we lose all rights to our current rents paid. THIS IS THE MAIN REASON NETWORK RAIL WANT OUR LEASE BACK. But they have to prove regeneration. First of all early 2015 the said the main reason was for the safety of the trains. Then when asked to prove that structural repairs were required they then changed their reason to serve notice for regeneration.
They have told us we can come back ( only verbally ) but up much increased rents. 350% increase to our current rents. Giving us back our own units we have looked after and taken care off as a completely shell. The tiny compensation offered is supposed to pay for storage of our goods, look after our family's for over a year while they do "their work needed" and pay for a new shop fit to our empty shell. All this for £20k!!
NETWORK RAIL ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THE FUTURE OF BRIXTON. They have been absent landlords for over 20 years. Many of the repairs to the outside structure could have been done 20 years ago but Brixton was just a run down centre full of problems and drugs. Now it's desirable they want it back.
When Brixton was bad we were good. Now Brixton is good we are bad.
Lambeth are in bed with Network Rail totally because this increased rents will increase the business rates payable. Extra revenue for no extra money spent by Lambeth.
It's all about the money. Nothing to do with improvements.
People need to be aware of how they are stabbing their loyal tenants in the back.
Carpet man
Active Member
It's n
Family owned businesses will be a thing of the past in Brixton if no one steps up to help us out !
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
The comments I am putting in about the planning application.
My comments on the NR planning application for the arches.
First a comment on basic principles. The Brixton Masterplan and the Brixton SPD were decided after a great deal of consultation with residents. The Future Brixton page on the Masterplan and SPD say:
Future Brixton
“The two main issues raised were that people wanted the character of Brixton to be respected and did not want local residents and businesses priced out.”
And
“Vision statement: Brixton will be proud of its history, comfortable with its present and ambitious for its future. It will reject the ordinary, the lower quality and standard forms of new development.
“Whatever regeneration goes forward we need to keep the local character and keep local businesses – don’t make it just another clean and tidy town centre”, local resident.”
It is my contention that NR proposals for the arches go against the spirit of the wishes of Brixton residents as taken aboard in the Masterplan and Brixton SPD.
I refer to the Planning Statement in these comments. Quotes are from the Planning Statement.
7.6 “Formal pre application advice was sought from Lambeth in August 2014 and written advice was provided on 9th October 2014 (reference 14/04957/PREAPP). General support was given to the principle of the proposed development “
-
Why was general support given? During this time local residents and business were being consulted about a Brixton Central Masterplan. The “reference group” for this was never told about NR plans for the arches. At the consultation events it was made clear that people wanted to see existing business to be kept.
So why with no consultation with the Brixton Central Masterplan reference group did the Council planners support in principle the proposed development?
This shows the lack of real consultation on this issue.
8.4
At the time of writing, 18 of the 21 existing tenants have indicated a preference to return to a redeveloped unit. Network Rail is delighted to see that so many tenants have opted to return.
This says “preference”. That means little. My talks with traders indicate few will be able to come back in practise.
9.9 states that One Planet Living principles have been adopted as integral part of the Brixton Masterplan and in the Brixton SPD.
http://www.bioregional.co.uk/oneplanetliving/
(Bioregional advised the Council on the take up of OPL principles.)
This proposed development goes against two of the principles
Equity and Local Economy and in particular Culture and Community:
“Respecting and reviving local identity, wisdom and culture; encouraging the involvement of people in shaping their community and creating a new culture of sustainability”
This proposed development will destroy local identity, has ignored the wishes of local people and does not create sustainable development. It creates a new development to bring in increased revenue for NR not sustaining and building on local culture and wisdom. Its in effect razing the existing identity and culture to make a new one.
For that reason this application should be rejected.
11.1
Paragraph 23 of the NPPF stipulates that local planning authorities should recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their viability and vitality
This application goes contrary to recognising the town centre as the heart of the community and should be rejected.
15.0
Equalities
15.1 Policy 3.1–Ensuring Equal Life Chances for All of the FALP states that
‘Development proposals should protect and enhance facilities and services that meet the needs of particular groups and communities’.
15.2
Lambeth’s Strategic Objective E in the Local Plan stresses the need to develop and sustainstable neighbourhoods to ensure community cohesion and safe, liveable Neighbourhoods
This proposed development will not protect or enhance. The shops in Brixton Station road and Atlantic road provide affordable retail and cafes for many ethnic groups. Its a place where local people of all backgrounds mix. The redevelopment of the arches and increase in rents will lead to loss of services and facilities for different ethnic groups and the less well off.
The effect of the redevelopment will not develop or sustain community cohesion or stable neighbourhoods. It will displace a neighbourhood for the sole reason to increase rents.
Also the way the proposed development is planned by getting vacant possession of all the arches at once will disrupt the existing small business. This disruption will damage there business and led to many I believe not coming back. In effect this scheme is destroying small business. Its for this reason not ensuring community cohesion. The way its being planned to be undertaken will also adversely affect the street market in Brixton Station road.
Therefore this application should be rejected.
15.5 Equality is at the centre of Network Rail’s principles and working practice, and Network Rail is cognisant of the impact of activities from the operational railway and commercial property activity.
This is meaningless. There is no definition of what this means.
My comments on the NR planning application for the arches.
First a comment on basic principles. The Brixton Masterplan and the Brixton SPD were decided after a great deal of consultation with residents. The Future Brixton page on the Masterplan and SPD say:
Future Brixton
“The two main issues raised were that people wanted the character of Brixton to be respected and did not want local residents and businesses priced out.”
And
“Vision statement: Brixton will be proud of its history, comfortable with its present and ambitious for its future. It will reject the ordinary, the lower quality and standard forms of new development.
“Whatever regeneration goes forward we need to keep the local character and keep local businesses – don’t make it just another clean and tidy town centre”, local resident.”
It is my contention that NR proposals for the arches go against the spirit of the wishes of Brixton residents as taken aboard in the Masterplan and Brixton SPD.
I refer to the Planning Statement in these comments. Quotes are from the Planning Statement.
7.6 “Formal pre application advice was sought from Lambeth in August 2014 and written advice was provided on 9th October 2014 (reference 14/04957/PREAPP). General support was given to the principle of the proposed development “
-
Why was general support given? During this time local residents and business were being consulted about a Brixton Central Masterplan. The “reference group” for this was never told about NR plans for the arches. At the consultation events it was made clear that people wanted to see existing business to be kept.
So why with no consultation with the Brixton Central Masterplan reference group did the Council planners support in principle the proposed development?
This shows the lack of real consultation on this issue.
8.4
At the time of writing, 18 of the 21 existing tenants have indicated a preference to return to a redeveloped unit. Network Rail is delighted to see that so many tenants have opted to return.
This says “preference”. That means little. My talks with traders indicate few will be able to come back in practise.
9.9 states that One Planet Living principles have been adopted as integral part of the Brixton Masterplan and in the Brixton SPD.
http://www.bioregional.co.uk/oneplanetliving/
(Bioregional advised the Council on the take up of OPL principles.)
This proposed development goes against two of the principles
Equity and Local Economy and in particular Culture and Community:
“Respecting and reviving local identity, wisdom and culture; encouraging the involvement of people in shaping their community and creating a new culture of sustainability”
This proposed development will destroy local identity, has ignored the wishes of local people and does not create sustainable development. It creates a new development to bring in increased revenue for NR not sustaining and building on local culture and wisdom. Its in effect razing the existing identity and culture to make a new one.
For that reason this application should be rejected.
11.1
Paragraph 23 of the NPPF stipulates that local planning authorities should recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their viability and vitality
This application goes contrary to recognising the town centre as the heart of the community and should be rejected.
15.0
Equalities
15.1 Policy 3.1–Ensuring Equal Life Chances for All of the FALP states that
‘Development proposals should protect and enhance facilities and services that meet the needs of particular groups and communities’.
15.2
Lambeth’s Strategic Objective E in the Local Plan stresses the need to develop and sustainstable neighbourhoods to ensure community cohesion and safe, liveable Neighbourhoods
This proposed development will not protect or enhance. The shops in Brixton Station road and Atlantic road provide affordable retail and cafes for many ethnic groups. Its a place where local people of all backgrounds mix. The redevelopment of the arches and increase in rents will lead to loss of services and facilities for different ethnic groups and the less well off.
The effect of the redevelopment will not develop or sustain community cohesion or stable neighbourhoods. It will displace a neighbourhood for the sole reason to increase rents.
Also the way the proposed development is planned by getting vacant possession of all the arches at once will disrupt the existing small business. This disruption will damage there business and led to many I believe not coming back. In effect this scheme is destroying small business. Its for this reason not ensuring community cohesion. The way its being planned to be undertaken will also adversely affect the street market in Brixton Station road.
Therefore this application should be rejected.
15.5 Equality is at the centre of Network Rail’s principles and working practice, and Network Rail is cognisant of the impact of activities from the operational railway and commercial property activity.
This is meaningless. There is no definition of what this means.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
see comments in post above.
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
Has there been any announcement on who the new businesses will be? Perhaps too early
newbie
undisambiguated
So I went to the Make a Comment page, filled in the details and settled down to write my objection. Pressed go and got told my session had expired and I should start again. I heart Lambeth!
3 days to go people, 129 objections so far, get yours in before Thursday.
3 days to go people, 129 objections so far, get yours in before Thursday.
Baron
Active Member
I have just put this up on Facebook - and linked this to our Twitter page too:
Security Check Required
Security Check Required
Baron
Active Member
"I object to this planning application in light of the following policies from the Lambeth Local Plan:
- PN3, limiting the proportion of restaurant/ bar/ takeaway uses (A3/A4/A5 use classes) in major centres. At least 60% of the units should remain mainstream retail (class A1) and Network Rail's proposals disrupt this balance;
- ED6, seeking to retain smaller shop units and at affordable rents - Network Rail's proposals do not meet this policy."
- PN3, limiting the proportion of restaurant/ bar/ takeaway uses (A3/A4/A5 use classes) in major centres. At least 60% of the units should remain mainstream retail (class A1) and Network Rail's proposals disrupt this balance;
- ED6, seeking to retain smaller shop units and at affordable rents - Network Rail's proposals do not meet this policy."
