Petition in favour of Brighton Terrace Drug Treatment centre

[pooka]

Like yourself, Resident27, I think it's a shame if this does become polarised between one group of residents against another. I think in fact it is less the case than might appear to be so here; a bulletin board is often by its nature oppositional and this particular forum has, for a variety of historic reasons, developed a certain 'robust' style.

Having said that, there is an underlying and unavoidable counterpoint - which is that of the general good against the particular interest, which is something we have to face up to and the planning process is meant to resolve. Some of the commentary from the opponents of the Brighton Terrace proosal appears to suggest that as those most immediately effected should have a veto on the development. Where do the rest of us get our say?

In terms of the specifics of your post:

By your description, Brighton Terrace/Trinity Gardens sounds grim indeed. Why is it such a popular place to live, and one in which the residents have a clear pride and ownership. Those properties that do go on the market for sale are, by most standards, overpriced for the immediate area. Why is that?

Accepting that the area is plagued by dealers and users, just how much worse might the proposed centre make it? If your expectation that a treatment centre invariably creates additional dealing activity in the area, do you not think that setting up in another location will only disperse the problem and lead to less, rather than more, effective enforcement?

SLaM (and their associates) have given, at length, their professional assessment of the viability of the proposal - it's what we pay them for. So have the planning officers. Are there other examples where they have got this sort of proposal seriously wrong?

The Segas site seems to come and go as a realistic possibility (it was granted planning approval at the November PAC for mixed office/workshop use to the present owner). It's very hard to see it as having anything like the transport of central Brixton, though.

I don't think it is fair to portray Brighton Terrace/Trinity Gardens residents as house-price obsessed NIMBYs - or no more so than any other group might be. Which is the core of the issue. Given the option between having something contentious on their doorstep or on someone else's, most people would opt for the latter. The BT/TG residents are no better or worse than anyone else for that.

 

[Resident27]

useful comments

Hi memespring
A few thoughts --
– yes it would be great to get stuff from Lambeth, but we’ve been agitating for better lighting for as long as I’ve lived here –20 years – so we don’t have a lot of faith . . .
‘Brixton centre is where the trouble is’ – well not really ... There are streets and estates all over Lambeth blighted by this.
Transport – I don’t know anyone who lives in Lambeth (who doesn’t live in Stockwell) who comes to Brixton on the tube. People use busses and the Northern line. Actually this is yet another good argument for NOT having a big centralised service, but more smaller local ones. There’s a lot of evidence that successful users of treatment are those who live a short walk away . . .
We suggested sites like Acre Lane because its on a main road with traffic going past. Most research suggests these are the best sites.

Dear Pooka
Although we obviously feel strongly about Brighton Terrace because it our community, in fact we think it’s a bad site in general terms -- I don’t think we should have a privileged veto. Our local neighbourhood police team have called the proposal ‘madness’ and agree with us that it will lead to an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour -- which is bad generally -- not just for us.
Agreed Trinity Gardens is v desirable because, druggies or no, it’s very pretty. Brighton Terrace, even though it’s a friendly community, is where the trouble is.
There are other good points you raise -- and I hope to have time later to reply to them

 

[Blagsta]

There is a move towards centralising services. At the moment, someone might get assessed in one place, have to see a doctor in another, pick up their script in yet another place and see a social worker or mental health worker in yet another place. Centralising makes sense - however the proposed centre will also provide services on other sites. I understand residents concerns but thay seem to be based on fear rather than anything concrete.

 

[Ol Nick]

Ignoring all the unpleasantness, mine and others', I would have preferred an enquiry of some sort to the planning process for this centre. As it stands, because an enquiry wasn't set up, it's yes or no, win or lose, us vs. them. I find it hard to believe that a better process than this couldn't have been found.

There's no incentive to compromise because the proposal will either be rejected outright or accepted outright. (Give or take the "outreach worker" and "warden" that have been offerred.)

So to return to the fight: come along tomorrow and watch the everyman of Brighton Terrace fight the bulldozer of the state. And no doubt, if the predictions are right, be comprehensively crushed.

 

[netbob]

Brighton Terrace, even though it’s a friendly community, is where the trouble is.

Really sorry Resident27, but that's absolute arse. You said yourself that roads and estates all over the borough have problems (try taking a trip to Electric Avenue or Rushcroft Road for a start). Lambeth as a whole has a problem with Crack & Heroin and Brighton Terrace isn't some kind of special case.

As far as local serverices vs centralisation goes I understand that 80% of Lambeths drug treatment services will remain distributed via GP's. Brighton Terraces' aim is top mop up those users not catered for by local services. (most of whom are in Brixton).

Finally, you mentioned lighting. Hasnt the NHS promised 50 grand for improved lighting in the Brighton Terrace/ Trinity Gardens area once planning permission has been given?

 

[netbob]

bulldozer of the state.

Is prezza comming?

 

[Kiddo-Whizz]

Is prezza comming?

yeah, he's driving a motherfucker JCB bulldozer. He's splitting blood and baying for Brighton terrace scalps for daring to challenge The STATE!!!

 

[happyshopper]

Brighton Terraces' aim is top mop up those users not catered for by local services. (most of whom are in Brixton).

(my emphasis)

How do you know most users potential clients for the centre live in Brixton? The community briefing paper issued by SLaM says "many" clients live in Brixton, while not giving any details. Most is not the same as many and this is the first time I have seen anyone suggest that most potential clients for the centre, i.e. not being treated by GPs, live in Brixton. Drug addition is a problem across Lambeth and there is nothing to suggest in any of the material we have been given that the majority of those who cannot get help from their GP live in Brixton.

Perhaps you have got information that we don't.

 

[netbob]

(my emphasis)

How do you know most users potential clients for the centre live in Brixton? The community briefing paper issued by SLaM says "many" clients live in Brixton, while not giving any details. Most is not the same as many and this is the first time I have seen anyone suggest that most potential clients for the centre, i.e. not being treated by GPs, live in Brixton. Drug addition is a problem across Lambeth and there is nothing to suggest in any of the material we have been given that the majority of those who cannot get help from their GP live in Brixton.

Perhaps you have got information that we don't.

No data only the blindingly obvious. You just dont see as many users in Streatham or Kennington or Clapham.

Doesnt the council estimates that only half of users who need treatment are getting it? I'd put money on most of those living in / using the Brixton area.

 

[nicebutdim]

Hasnt the NHS promised 50 grand for improved lighting in the Brighton Terrace/ Trinity Gardens area once planning permission has been given?

Yeah, under a section 106 agreement.

 

[IntoStella]

See you all tonight. This is going to be so much fun and it's not often you can say that about planning committee.

 

[lang rabbie]

From the report to tonight's committee meeting:

Apologies for lengthy c+p, but some people can't open pdfs from Lambeth's site.

At the Planning Applications Committee meeting held on the 6th September 2005 members raised concerns about the application and instructed officers to draft possible reasons for refusal based on these concerns. Members did not take a vote to refuse the application, and the application was deferred, to be considered again at a later committee meeting.
The following draft reason for refusal could be put forward:
‘The proposed development could result in a potential increase in crime and disorder and anti-social behaviour in the area, posing a threat to the safety of neighbouring residents to the detriment to residential amenity. As such the development is contrary to Policy 7 of the Lambeth Revised Deposit UDP (2004-2017)’.
The effectiveness of such a reason for refusal should be considered against a number of recent decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate in response to appeals against the refusal of planning permission by local planning authorities due to concerns over an increase in crime or fear of crime.
One example is an appeal made by SlaM against the London Borough of Bromley’s decision to refuse outline planning permission for the construction of an 89 bed mental healthcare unit. The appeal was allowed on the 6th June 2003 and planning permission granted. One of the issues cited by the Inspector when considering this appeal related to whether the development would harm the living conditions of local residents and others as a result of increased crime or fear of crime. As part of his assessment, the Inspector had regard to the weight given to the fear of crime in three other similar appeal cases in which local opposition as a result of the fear of crime was a consideration addressed by the Inspectors. Two of the appeals related to the provision of a new ‘Medium Secure Unit’ (MSU) in Burgess Hill and Pontypridd and one for an extension to an existing unit (Leicester). All three appeals were allowed. In the Burgess Hill case the Inspector concluded that ‘there are inadequate causal links between the anxiety expressed by the objectors and the proposed facility to lead to a conclusion that there would be demonstrable harm to residents’. In the Pontypridd case the Inspector concluded that ‘the proposal would not present a significant risk to public safety and while that may not dispel local anxiety and fear it reduces the weight that the objections should receive’. In the Leicester decision, the Inspector found ‘little justification for allocating significant weight to the objection based on the fear crime’. In the Bromley case the Inspector concluded that ‘the widespread fear and anxiety of local people is not well founded and should be given little weight in the balancing of planning considerations’.
Officers consider that the Inspectors conclusions in these appeal cases are transferable to the circumstances of the Brighton Terrace application, and it is questionable whether such a reason for refusal could be sustained.
With regard to the loss of the existing employment use of the property. The proposed development complies with Revised Deposit UDP Policy 23 in that the loss of employment floorspace is acceptable if a community use is proposed. Therefore a reason for refusal cannotbe drafted based on the loss of employment as the relevant policy allows an exemption. Consequently, such a reason for refusal would be very difficult to sustain.
Paragraphs 0.24 and 0.34 of the Adopted UDP were also cited as reasons for refusal by members, however these paragraphs form part of the UDP’s strategic aims and do not relate to any particular UDP policies and therefore cannot form part of a reason for refusal.

The following additional information, received by the Council since the 6th September 2005 committee meeting, is considered by officers to be material in the consideration of this application.

General Planning Guidance for Residential and Non Residential Drug Treatment Centres.
Clarification has been sought from the Council’s legal advisors with regard to the status of the document published jointly by the Home Office Drug Strategy Directorate and the OPDM, entitled ‘General Planning Guidance for Residential and Non Residential Drug Treatment Centres’. The Council has been advised that this document is no more than a general guidance document, it is not a Planning Policy Statement or statement of government planning policy. It will carry very little weight and should not be relied on in support of any reason for refusal. The introduction to the document makes its statue clear, It is’…intended for those involved in the setting up of both residential or non-residential (‘drop-in’) drug treatment centres. It is not intended to be a detailed or comprehensive guidance to planning’.
In addition, a letter has been received from the Director of the Drug Strategy Directorate at the Home Office who advises that the guidance has no statutory status. It was prepared to assist drug misuse service providers with their planning applications as a response to the evidence that a number were finding it difficult to persuade local authorities of their need. This in turn was hampering the Government’s objective to ensure that effective drug treatment is available to all who need it. The guidance was not produced to assist those responsible for making planning decisions.

Examples of Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centres in the London area that are located within or adjacent to residential areas.
SlaM have submitted a schedule of Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centres in the London area that are located within or adjacent to residential areas (see below). SlaM advise that their representatives are familiar with several of the centres listed and that no problems arise from their operation.

...list of 13 addresses...​

The Director of the Home Office Drug Strategy Directorate has also put forward an additional example located outside of London, which is the Waterloo Project, located in the heart of a 24-7 sex and class A drugs market in Cheetham Hill in North Manchester. The project is managed by Bolton, Salford and Trafford Menial Health Trust.
Letter of Support
A letter of support has been received from the Performance Improvement Team at the Home Office Drug Interventions Programme, who comment that ‘The Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) is a large-scale programme, established in April 2003 as a critical part of the Government’s Drug Strategy. Its principal focus is to reduce drug related crime by engaging with problematic drug users, moving them into appropriate treatment, retaining them in treatment and supporting them through and after treatment, whether in a custodial or community setting. Since the introduction of the programme there has been a noticeable reduction in acquisitive crime in the boroughs participating in this initiative. The numbers entering treatment has also risen from 400 a month to 1,800 across those boroughs. The governments target is for 1,000 drug-misusing offenders to be entering treatment a week by March 2008. To achieve this target each borough has had an uplift in government funding to increase their treatment capacity to cope with this increased demand. Lambeth is at the forefront of this initiative and has local targets to drive up the numbers entering treatment. The application to establish a new treatment service in Brighton Terrace, Brixton will allow more drug users to enter treatment. It will provide Lambeth residents with an easily accessible service in the community, which is close to transport links. It is unlikely to encourage open drug use; in fact experience has shown us that it is likely to reduce drug use in the area’.

Two further letters of support have been received, one from a local resident and one from a member of the Coldharbour / Angell Working Group - Brixton Area Forum.

Conclusion
Given the above considerations officers recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and the Section 106 agreement cited in the previous officers report put forward at the 6th September 2005 committee meeting. It is also considered that the management plan for the centre required by the Section 106 agreement should include details of the following measures which were presented by SlaM at the previous committee meeting:
 A warden proving high visibility to the area, who’s working hours would include one hour before and one hour after the opening hours of the centre. The warden’s area of patrol would be discussed with local residents.
 A member of staff would be assigned everyday to collect any discarded needles in the area of Brighton Terrace.
 An outreach worker would be employed to engage with the local community and allay future concerns once the centre was open.

 

[Ol Nick]

LR - are you going to post the objections too, or are you taking sides on this one?

 

[lang rabbie]

LR - are you going to post the objections too, or are you taking sides on this one?

All I have posted is the "new" information appearing at the start of the officer's report. Otherwise, the report (including summary of residents' objections) and the planning officers' recommendations appears to be the text from the previous meeting.

 

[tarannau]

LR - are you going to post the objections too, or are you taking sides on this one?

Are there any new objections then?

I don't know, but I suspect that the same old objections, with little additional supporting evidence, will raise their head. And I strongly suspect that's there's only one conclusion to this report....

Don't worry Old Nick; we'll leave the one-sided reporting and near hysterical-alarmist claptrap about the impact of this centre to you..

 

[nicebutdim]

What's funny about all this is that however the vote goes tonight, the centre is likely to be approved, either tonight or on appeal. That, at root, is what officers say in their report.

Which - given the proximity of the local elections and the heat generated - gives the politicians some room for manoeuvre this evening. Which isn't a bad thing.

It's going to be amusing to see how they position themselves.

 

[netbob]

Planning permission approved.

 

[Justice4all]

Planning permission approved.

Justice for All

 

[happyshopper]

Planning permission approved.

A travesty of justice

 

[gaijingirl]

Well done to all those who campaigned so hard for this!

 

[IntoStella]

Well done to all those who campaigned so hard for this!

Absolutely. I managed to do fuck all but turn up for the celebratory drink in the Albert and get ratarsed. I hope I wasn't rude to anyone this time.

Darren Saunders: he is a funny fellow, isn't he?

I have to say: New Labour: you are a disgrace

The day was won by two libs and a tory -- the estimable Janet Grigg. The Labour lot all either stayed away, abstained, or spoke, or voted, against. Well their cynical electioneering has backfired because they will certainly not be getting my vote.

But I'm very happy. I was certainly very happy last night.

 

[netbob]

I have to say: New Labour: you are a disgrace

The day was won by two libs and a tory -- the estimable Janet Grigg. The Labour lot all either stayed away, abstained, or spoke, or voted, against. Well their cynical electioneering has backfired because they will certainly not be getting my vote.

Yeah, huge support for the centre in Coldhabour and no Coldhabour councillors there to support it. Surely shum mishtake?

 

[nicebutdim]

the estimable Janet Grigg.

Who is one dangerous woman: a living, walking advert for voting Tory.

 

[Kiddo-Whizz]

Brighton Terrace

I am of course very pleased with the result. But I have to add a few comments. I thought Kate Hoey was a disgrace and a bully. I have great admiration for Councillor Palmer (Chair). He was fair, pragmatic, intelligent and very witty and I abolutely enjoyed his witty repart to Kate when he reminded her that this was not the House of Commons when she kept talking out of place.

The Labour have certainly not come out smelling of roses on this one. They put the interests of the few before the interests of the wider community. It is ironic that the vote was won by Lib Dem and a Tory, but hardly surprising now that we know the true nature of New Labour (or New Conservatives as they should rigthly be known as).

Well done everyone for a great result for the benefit of all of Lambeth and in particular Brixton.

Merry Xmas Everyone.

 

[Kiddo-Whizz]

Who is one dangerous woman: a living, walking advert for voting Tory.

Yeah, but after last night I would seriously consider voting for her. She can't be worse than Labour...surely

 

[Kiddo-Whizz]

New Labour: you are a disgrace

My sentiments entirely. Just wrote an e-mail to Kate Hoey to let her know I will never vote Labour again for as long as I live. and going a bit off subject, I also expressed my greatest wish of seeing one day both Jack Straw and Tony Blair face an International Crime Court on charges of War Crimes and Treason against the British People.

Merry Xmas everyone

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Yeah, but after last night I would seriously consider voting for her.

If you vote Conservative you get leprosy in your voting hand. Moral leprosy, anyway.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Jesus heals the Tory voters

Not that's what I call a treatment centre.

 

[nicebutdim]

If you vote Conservative you get leprosy in your voting hand. Moral leprosy, anyway.

That's the problem with La Grigg: she's a Tory who's also fully human. It's extremely confusing.

 

[Bob]

Indeed. I hope that some of you who are against will get involved in the other 'mybrixton' stuff - it's not just about this petition - and you're clearly interested in what's going on in central Brixton - mybrixton will hopefully be a good tool for organising people in favour of all sorts of positive things in Brixton. Some ideas I have at the moment that need people to organise them are:
Adopt a street - organising / finding people to look after a bit of their street and report problems to the relevant organisation

Adopt a ward - be the point of contact between the streets and ward councillors & candidates (since the May 2006 local elections are less than five months away)

Support the market - all the bits and pieces round the market

Brixton Rec watch - some poeple are worried about what's going to happen to it

Traffic on Brixton Hill - campaigning for the dodgy bits that cause accidents to be fixed

So anyone fancy volunteering themselves for small amounts of work?

PS double posted on the original mybrixton thread for obvious reasons.

Just to remind people - there are plenty of other things to sort out in Brixton - we now have a working website with a decent email list of people involved in local stuff - please do join in - it's up to you what happens...