Pop Brixton (formerly Grow Brixton) Pope's Road development

[snowy_again]

Which as we've agreed is entirely in line with what EBS were proposing - its stated in their proposals.

 

[editor]

Which as we've agreed is entirely in line with what EBS were proposing - its stated in their proposals.

You think EBS would agree that Pop Brixton has turned exactly as they planned with Grow Brixton?

 

[snowy_again]

No I'm not saying that and you know it.

 

[T & P]

Or they could have just built something a lot less trendy and expensive with cheaper rents, not got arch capitalists The Collective onboard and not made it something that had to be guarded by over £120,000 of security.

The free activities and events - the kind of thing that goes on in venues all over Lambeth every week without the need for fanfare - cost very little to put on, by the way, and also generate income for the food and bar stalls (and publicity, natch), so that's one almighty strawman you're putting up there.

But do tell me how impressed you are with that massive £250 charitable donation they managed to scrape together in relation to the £375,029 they received in rent from tenants on their rent-free gift of a site. Real community stuff there, eh?

As you well know they've done a lot more than the donation you mention, such as various funding activities as well as giveaways.

And with regard to the set up costs, if you have any evidence to suggest that the original Grow plans would have been any cheaper to set up, please do let us know.

 

[editor]

As you well know they've done a lot more than the donation you mention, such as various funding activities as well as giveaways.

Loads of venues and spaces around Brixton have been hosting innumerable charity fundraisers. Some have been doing it for decades. That doesn't exclude them from criticism, but when something is set up as project for the community and gifted rent-free land, then it's only right people should put them under extra scrutiny. If you think a £250 donation and a return to taxpayers of just £48,000 after all this time is admirable stuff, then that's fine. I'm not impressed though.

And with regard to the set up costs, if you have any evidence to suggest that the original Grow plans would have been any cheaper to set up, please do let us know.

They were much smaller, for a start, and I doubt if they would have had to spend £120k on security.

 

[snowy_again]

Loads of venues and spaces around Brixton have been hosting innumerable charity fundraisers. Some have been doing it for decades. That doesn't exclude them from criticism, but when something is set up as project for the community and gifted rent-free land, then it's only right people should put them under extra scrutiny.

Agree with all of that - I'm still waiting for the scrutiny though - the BB piece doesn't do any of that - there's no scrutiny apart from putting the word absorb into quotes, allowing people to misinterpret what "absorb" means, incorrectly implying that pop benefited. You've got a local prospective councillor thinking that Lambeth council tax payers are paying for all of this on a daily basis; and that it's still losing £1k per day of actual cash as opposed to numbers on a balance sheet. Does anyone know this? Probably only the people running it as the information won't be public, or wont' be released until it gets to the cycles of financial reporting set out by Companies House.

Then highlighting that they paid security costs [which i guess for a place with a licensing requirement open about 12 hours per day, some days of the week is probably compulsory, and isn't a cost they can avoid is it]? If it was smaller, you'd still need to have a SIA person on an entrance - irrespective of the size of the site inside. Perhaps you can clarify how you'd do it?

If you think a £250 donation and a return to taxpayers of just £48,000 after all this time is admirable stuff, then that's fine. I'm not impressed though.

Firstly, it's not after "all this time" - the accounts as you'll know, only run up until January of this year. So it doesn't cover 7 months of the busiest opening period.

Secondly, i'm not sure where either EBS or this incarnation was ever there to generate funds to donate directly to charity? Do you? That would reduce the amount of cash it can return to LBL as part of the agreed profit share, and reduce the amount of turnover they'd have to support the mix of social (ie. charitable) and commercial activity.

There's a hundred and one reasons to knock PB, and some evidence of community space hire / community benefit going on. The latest thing about the accounts is just a half hearted dig - you'd be better asking someone with an accounting background to review them and then comment.

 

[editor]

There's a hundred and one reasons to knock PB, and some evidence of community space hire / community benefit going on. The latest thing about the accounts is just a half hearted dig - you'd be better asking someone with an accounting background to review them and then comment.

Or maybe Pop should take the time to explain to the public what is going on, given that they've been given the land rent free and seem to have blown an awful lot of money on what is supposed to be a temporary venture that appears to be giving very little back. I don't think you need an accountancy background to raise an eyebrow at a £1.5m build cost for something made of old shipping containers that isn't going to be around for very long.

I didn't write the article, by the way.

 

[teuchter]

Agree with all of that - I'm still waiting for the scrutiny though - the BB piece doesn't do any of that - there's no scrutiny apart from putting the word absorb into quotes, allowing people to misinterpret what "absorb" means, incorrectly implying that pop benefited. You've got a local prospective councillor thinking that Lambeth council tax payers are paying for all of this on a daily basis; and that it's still losing £1k per day of actual cash as opposed to numbers on a balance sheet. Does anyone know this? Probably only the people running it as the information won't be public, or wont' be released until it gets to the cycles of financial reporting set out by Companies House.

Then highlighting that they paid security costs [which i guess for a place with a licensing requirement open about 12 hours per day, some days of the week is probably compulsory, and isn't a cost they can avoid is it]? If it was smaller, you'd still need to have a SIA person on an entrance - irrespective of the size of the site inside. Perhaps you can clarify how you'd do it?



Firstly, it's not after "all this time" - the accounts as you'll know, only run up until January of this year. So it doesn't cover 7 months of the busiest opening period.

Secondly, i'm not sure where either EBS or this incarnation was ever there to generate funds to donate directly to charity? Do you? That would reduce the amount of cash it can return to LBL as part of the agreed profit share, and reduce the amount of turnover they'd have to support the mix of social (ie. charitable) and commercial activity.

There's a hundred and one reasons to knock PB, and some evidence of community space hire / community benefit going on. The latest thing about the accounts is just a half hearted dig - you'd be better asking someone with an accounting background to review them and then comment.

Hear, hear.

There's potentially some interesting info in the accounts. And some useful info to be gained from a proper commentary, from someone who knows what they are doing. For example, I'd be interested to know what the council could have earned from simply letting out the land for the same period of time that the pop project is intended to run, and how this might compare with the projected profit share. It is also interesting now to see the amount ofmoney gained from the adidas event, in the context of overall costs. As you say the seemingly high security costs need to be put into context.

An article full of scare quotes and figures without context is what I would expect from one of the crappy tabloids.

And that the build costs might provoke raised eyebrows from people who know nothing about construction costs is non-information.

 

[Nanker Phelge]

Is the security for manned security only or for security systems maintenance and management and monitoring as well?

 

[editor]

Is the security for manned security only or for security systems maintenance and management and monitoring as well?

Their statement includes £121,975 for security plus an additional £64,619 under 'caretaker.'

Repairs and maintenance account for a separate £10,262.

 

[Nanker Phelge]

Ah ok. I suspect security systems maintenance and monitoring comes under the security budget alongside manned provision. That's the norm.

I wonder if they have a night guard.

 

[editor]

Ah ok. I suspect security systems maintenance and monitoring comes under the security budget alongside manned provision. That's the norm.

I wonder if they have a night guard.

I wonder how their security bill stacks up against similar 'community-minded' projects on rent-free land.

 

[Rushy]

Frankly there should not being any charitable donations from Pop because charitable donations were never in its remit. It may as well be criticised for not finding a cure for hemorroides.

There is a full time caretaker (an eccentric chap who during the reclaim q&a announced that if you don't know him you're not "true Brixton". )On top of his salary they're will be NI and pension contributions, as well as possibly recruitment costs. An individual's salary can account for only a fraction of the cost of employing them.

There appear to be about four security on at a time at peak times. And at least one or two the rest of the time. Mounts up pretty quickly. Especially if you get your security through a contractor.

Shit is expensive. And on projects that size you can't cut corners because insurers, licensing, lenders, professional bodies, etc.. demand it.

 

[Angellic]

There will be a copy of the Premises Licence displayed somewhere in PB. It should show the level of security staffing required.

 

[Nanker Phelge]

Points 8 & 9

https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s75718/Draft reasons-Pop Brixton.pdf

The last statement in point 9 is rather interesting....

 

[Nanker Phelge]

Also:

. The Premises Licence Holder shall ensure the following provision of site security:

Monday to Wednesday  8am to 5pm 1 SIA qualified care taker  5pm to closing + 1hour (Security & Caretakers will stay on hour after closing) 2 SIA qualified care taker and 2 SIA security agents;

Thursday  8am to 5pm 1 SIA qualified care taker  5pm to closing + 1hour (Security & Caretakers will stay on hour after closing) 2 SIA qualified care taker and 3 SIA security agents;

Friday to Sunday  8am to 11 am 1 SIA qualified care taker  11am to 1pm 2 SIA qualified care taker  1pm to closing + 1hour (Security & Caretakers will stay on hour after closing) 2 SIA qualified care taker and 3 SIA security agents.

 

[teuchter]

Also:

. The Premises Licence Holder shall ensure the following provision of site security:

Monday to Wednesday  8am to 5pm 1 SIA qualified care taker  5pm to closing + 1hour (Security & Caretakers will stay on hour after closing) 2 SIA qualified care taker and 2 SIA security agents;

Thursday  8am to 5pm 1 SIA qualified care taker  5pm to closing + 1hour (Security & Caretakers will stay on hour after closing) 2 SIA qualified care taker and 3 SIA security agents;

Friday to Sunday  8am to 11 am 1 SIA qualified care taker  11am to 1pm 2 SIA qualified care taker  1pm to closing + 1hour (Security & Caretakers will stay on hour after closing) 2 SIA qualified care taker and 3 SIA security agents.

I make that 364 person-hours per week which means about 9 40-hour working weeks so effectively requires the employment of 9 full time positions.

Have I got that right?

 

[Rushy]

I make that 364 person-hours per week which means about 9 40-hour working weeks so effectively requires the employment of 9 full time positions.

Have I got that right?

Not to mention any security they either choose or are required to have outside those licensed hours. E.g. Night time, for insurance, etc...

 

[Nanker Phelge]

which would be about 190k for 52 weeks with an average £10hr pay.....(including the caretaker fee)

 

[Rushy]

Plus NIC, sick leave, holiday pay, training, recruitment, maternity/paternity, insurance, overtime, etc...

 

[teuchter]

So the question is actually: how is Pop Brixton spending so little on security?

(although I don't know if those "draft reasons" are the actual licensing requirements imposed)

 

[Nanker Phelge]

So the question is actually: how is Pop Brixton spending so little on security?

(although I don't know if those "draft reasons" are the actual licensing requirements imposed)

Probably not paying the tenner an hour....more likely 7.50.....

'at risk' guards (i.e. the one handling cash in vans only get £12.50 with g4s), so Pop's blokes are probably on peanuts.

I pay my guards £20 an hour midnight til 8am. £17 an 6pm til midnight. but they only do a couple of hours at the beginning and end of day, so it has to be worth their while...

 

[Rushy]

Not to mention that it was only trading for 8 months of that accounting period, and for some of that time it was only partially operational.

 

[editor]

Points 8 & 9

https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s75718/Draft reasons-Pop Brixton.pdf

The last statement in point 9 is rather interesting....

The security company being used was a local firm with fifteen years’ experience. The use of SIA staff would be kept under review. However, the premises was not a party area.

Bwahahaha!

 

[snowy_again]

Ain't no party like an S(ia) Club Party.

 

[editor]

Just to repeat:

The accounts explain that Pop Brixton hopes to break even by the summer of 2018. The project is due to come to a close in October 2018. A net profit of £98,000 is predicted by then. This will be split evenly between the shareholders and Lambeth Council.

So that's just £49,000 going back to the local taxpayers in exchange for Pop Brixton enjoying THREE years of rent-free trading, with the shareholders pocketing the rest.

So that's £16,000 a year in exchange for that juicy, rent-free prime site in the heart of Brixton. Not exactly a runaway, soaraway success is it?

 

[editor]

This sounds suspiciously like a party to me:

As believers in hedonism and happiness we think dancing shouldn’t just be confined to sticky dance floors in the small hours of the weekend – so WNDC is about recreating the best bits of a weekend party, on a week night.

 

[Rushy]

There's no scandal in it not returning a lot of money for Lambeth. It was never meant to. Lambeth wanted to create jobs and opportunities and they have done.

What would be a scandal would be if Lambeth has entered into a joint project in which they get a 50% profit share, but the structure allows funds to be taken out by other parties in perhaps fees or interest before the profit is calculated.

I've not seen anything to suggest that is the case but I do wonder what was in this for The Collective if they invested £1,500,000 to walk away with only a portion of £48,000 in three years.

Mind you, if it carries on just one more year than expected (and I suspect that it will), the profits will be significant because all the up front costs will have been accounted for.

Reputation and experience wise, this has been a big deal for CTA so worth all the hassle even if they only make a very modest amount of money.

 

[Winot]

Reputation and experience wise, this has been a big deal for CTA so worth all the hassle even if they only make a very modest amount of money.

Yep, could be seen as a loss leader (didn't they get the gig in Peckham off the back of Pop?).

 

[snowy_again]

Just to repeat: "the accounts explain that Pop Brixton hopes to break even by the summer of 2018. [etc. etc. with the line following: The project is due to come to a close in October 2018. A net profit of £98,000 is predicted by then. This will be split evenly between the shareholders and Lambeth Council."

Where does it say that? Here are the accounts linked by Jason for the BB article PB: http://media.wix.com/ugd/7c8bd5_3933f26c3b1a412bb0948154d93296a0.pdf

It's only 14 pages, and there's barely a paragraph on each page, so you can read it quickly. Where does it give an income forecast?

This is the problem with this argument - you're in danger of just trotting out lines that you're told as if they're true.