Coverage in the Streatham Guardian:
http://www.streathamguardian.co.uk/news/8416575.Compromise_needed_over_Streatham_Hub_plan__says_MP/
http://www.streathamguardian.co.uk/news/8416575.Compromise_needed_over_Streatham_Hub_plan__says_MP/
Popes road car park to become temporary Ice Rink
- Thread starter Gramsci
- Start date
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
So the Council owned some of the land on the site but didnt seem to be able to use it as a bargaining chip.
I saw the exhibition in the Tate Library. It presents Tescos variation to the original agreement as the only option. There is nothing in the exhibition about ordinary peoples concerns. There is a potential conflict of interest between the Council ( who are elected to represent the people) and Tescos who are a private firm.
Seems to me that Tescos have cleverly used the recession to get an increase in there retail space and go back on there promise to keep the ice rink in use.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
From the article the local MP said,
"Mr Umunna said: “Whilst I have great sympathy with the SSS campaign objective to enforce the original s106 Agreement, I can not see how this can be done given what has come to pass and Tesco's position.”
Mr Umunna said the current proposals were “not ideal” but allowed the development to be “completed as soon as possible”. He said the majority of skaters and the ice hockey teams understood this and “the degree of compromise” needed, and negotiations were ongoing to improve the quality of the temporary facilities."
Seems to be the line that politicians are taking on this. Tescos are threatening to walk away from the deal. Really clever of Tescos as they know the Council need to get the new facilities built. Its blackmail by Tescos.
Cue lots of handwringing by local politicians
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
This is from Save Skating in Streatham facebook page. Seems the GLA ( Ken at the time) insisted on continuity of the old ice rink until the new one is built. The Mayor has a say in this as the Ice Rink isnt just for Lambeth but is an important asset for the whole of London
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=136&uid=133970333315344&ref=share
>So you’re campaigning against a temporary rink in Brixton: Don’t you want an ice-rink then?
Yes, of course we do. But not at any cost to the future of skating in Streatham. At the moment the Section 106 (which is what developments like this have to include in their application to provide improvements or facilities to the community) attached to the Tesco Streatham Hub development says that they (Tesco) must build a new rink whilst keeping the old one open (they own the Rink by the way) to ensure ‘Continuity of Provision’ on the site. This is something that then Mayor Ken Livingstone insisted on time and again, and bodies like Sport England, who the Government recommend are always consulted on this sort of issue, had asked for. You only have to look at the loss of the ice rink at Richmond following a similar development to see what happens when these sorts of protections are not insisted on (a supermarket chain developed a similar site and then failed to provide the replacement rink).
Once they’ve built the centre (which also includes a leisure centre to replace the old one now sadly closed) then can they knock down the old one. But only then.
>So why has Tesco changed their mind then?
Basically, because Tesco operate each development as a single ‘unit’, they must be self-financing. Whilst this may be a perfectly sensible attitude to take for a business like Tesco which undertakes massive building projects, they are now claiming that they cannot afford to do this on the Streatham Hub site because of the fall in property values and the recession. Yet they signed the Section 106 off in December 2008 when the recession had already hit, so it’s not as though they can claim they didn’t know the project might be affected; it’s just not possible for a company like Tesco to not know the conditions in the market. If they didn’t, then that’s extremely irresponsible. If they did, then you have to ask why they signed the deal in the first place. Remember, Tesco are there to make money, so why would they make silly, ill-thought-out decisions on big projects like this?
You also have to remember that not only are they asking to change the S106 (known as ‘varying’) but in another move they are also applying to expand the size of the supermarket before it’s even built by 56%!
>You need to learn to compromise – you want it all your own way.
Compromise is not allowing Tesco, a multinational supermarket with £3.5bn profits, to suddenly change its mind in this way when they knew what was happening in the economy. Compromise isn’t building a ‘temporary’ ice rink on an unsuitable site, almost totally opposed by local businesses in Brixton. Compromise is about give-and-take. This plan is not and never was part of the deal. Why should the users of the rink and the public of Streatham have to make up for a multi-billion pound supermarket’s mistakes?
The risk with these sorts of projects is that you end up either with nothing –like Richmond, a temporary ice rink that becomes permanent, or an ice rink that is a shadow of what you thought you were going to get.
>So what about what Ken Livingstone said then? Is new Boris Johnson going to let them change their plans?
Well that’s the $64,000 question: Boris Johnson is the person who is responsible for ‘Strategic Planning’ across London, a role which is about making sure London doesn’t lose important regional facilities like Streatham Ice Rink, for instance, so he will have a hugely important role, just like Ken Livingstone did when he insisted on this all important protection.
We have to remember that Streatham Ice Rink isn’t just used by Streathamites – but people from all over London. In fact it’s so popular, some people come all the way from the West Midlands regularly to use it!
>So why are Lambeth going along with it?
We don’t know for sure; perhaps you might like to ask Steve Reed, the Leader of Lambeth Council. We think it’s simply that they are fed up of dealing with this issue; the whole project started being drawn up in 2001, and it’s dragged on-and-on. Now they’ve decided that they want this project sorted with no more delays and are more willing to take a risk to see it completed. The problem is of course they aren’t thinking about the long-term consequences for skating in the area, and in the region.
>All the representatives of skaters and ice rink users are in favour of it a ‘temporary’ rink.
There is no definitive survey of their opinion or the public’s that tells us this is true.
In fact we believe the opposite to be true; that the vast majority oppose it. They’re just not heard because the Council has operated a pretty questionable series of ‘consultations’.
In these consultations there are no minutes taken and public no record of the meetings available – which can’t be right for a democratic body that describes itself as wanting to live ‘co-operative values’, and whose leader, Steve Reed, speaks of "fairness, accountability and responsibility”; this process is demonstrably not fair, totally unaccountable, and highly irresponsible, given the importance of this development.
The Council Officers, who have been charged to deliver the project, also seem a bit nervous about the whole thing. In fact, even a local Councillor – one of those supporting this campaign – was removed from a meeting on 20 September, completely contrary to the right of councillors to attend such meetings.
All we want is honesty, openness and transparency. All we seem to have at the moment is a plan sketched out on the back of a cigarette packet and a democratic body behaving like they’re operating in North Korea!
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=136&uid=133970333315344&ref=share
>So you’re campaigning against a temporary rink in Brixton: Don’t you want an ice-rink then?
Yes, of course we do. But not at any cost to the future of skating in Streatham. At the moment the Section 106 (which is what developments like this have to include in their application to provide improvements or facilities to the community) attached to the Tesco Streatham Hub development says that they (Tesco) must build a new rink whilst keeping the old one open (they own the Rink by the way) to ensure ‘Continuity of Provision’ on the site. This is something that then Mayor Ken Livingstone insisted on time and again, and bodies like Sport England, who the Government recommend are always consulted on this sort of issue, had asked for. You only have to look at the loss of the ice rink at Richmond following a similar development to see what happens when these sorts of protections are not insisted on (a supermarket chain developed a similar site and then failed to provide the replacement rink).
Once they’ve built the centre (which also includes a leisure centre to replace the old one now sadly closed) then can they knock down the old one. But only then.
>So why has Tesco changed their mind then?
Basically, because Tesco operate each development as a single ‘unit’, they must be self-financing. Whilst this may be a perfectly sensible attitude to take for a business like Tesco which undertakes massive building projects, they are now claiming that they cannot afford to do this on the Streatham Hub site because of the fall in property values and the recession. Yet they signed the Section 106 off in December 2008 when the recession had already hit, so it’s not as though they can claim they didn’t know the project might be affected; it’s just not possible for a company like Tesco to not know the conditions in the market. If they didn’t, then that’s extremely irresponsible. If they did, then you have to ask why they signed the deal in the first place. Remember, Tesco are there to make money, so why would they make silly, ill-thought-out decisions on big projects like this?
You also have to remember that not only are they asking to change the S106 (known as ‘varying’) but in another move they are also applying to expand the size of the supermarket before it’s even built by 56%!
>You need to learn to compromise – you want it all your own way.
Compromise is not allowing Tesco, a multinational supermarket with £3.5bn profits, to suddenly change its mind in this way when they knew what was happening in the economy. Compromise isn’t building a ‘temporary’ ice rink on an unsuitable site, almost totally opposed by local businesses in Brixton. Compromise is about give-and-take. This plan is not and never was part of the deal. Why should the users of the rink and the public of Streatham have to make up for a multi-billion pound supermarket’s mistakes?
The risk with these sorts of projects is that you end up either with nothing –like Richmond, a temporary ice rink that becomes permanent, or an ice rink that is a shadow of what you thought you were going to get.
>So what about what Ken Livingstone said then? Is new Boris Johnson going to let them change their plans?
Well that’s the $64,000 question: Boris Johnson is the person who is responsible for ‘Strategic Planning’ across London, a role which is about making sure London doesn’t lose important regional facilities like Streatham Ice Rink, for instance, so he will have a hugely important role, just like Ken Livingstone did when he insisted on this all important protection.
We have to remember that Streatham Ice Rink isn’t just used by Streathamites – but people from all over London. In fact it’s so popular, some people come all the way from the West Midlands regularly to use it!
>So why are Lambeth going along with it?
We don’t know for sure; perhaps you might like to ask Steve Reed, the Leader of Lambeth Council. We think it’s simply that they are fed up of dealing with this issue; the whole project started being drawn up in 2001, and it’s dragged on-and-on. Now they’ve decided that they want this project sorted with no more delays and are more willing to take a risk to see it completed. The problem is of course they aren’t thinking about the long-term consequences for skating in the area, and in the region.
>All the representatives of skaters and ice rink users are in favour of it a ‘temporary’ rink.
There is no definitive survey of their opinion or the public’s that tells us this is true.
In fact we believe the opposite to be true; that the vast majority oppose it. They’re just not heard because the Council has operated a pretty questionable series of ‘consultations’.
In these consultations there are no minutes taken and public no record of the meetings available – which can’t be right for a democratic body that describes itself as wanting to live ‘co-operative values’, and whose leader, Steve Reed, speaks of "fairness, accountability and responsibility”; this process is demonstrably not fair, totally unaccountable, and highly irresponsible, given the importance of this development.
The Council Officers, who have been charged to deliver the project, also seem a bit nervous about the whole thing. In fact, even a local Councillor – one of those supporting this campaign – was removed from a meeting on 20 September, completely contrary to the right of councillors to attend such meetings.
All we want is honesty, openness and transparency. All we seem to have at the moment is a plan sketched out on the back of a cigarette packet and a democratic body behaving like they’re operating in North Korea!
A long shot - but does anyone have a copy of an election leaflet from 2006 where Labour claimed that the LibDems/tories were going to knock-down the carpark and the Rec, and only Labour could save them? I seem to remember there was some fuss about it at the time. Anyone know any LibDem councillors who might have kept a copy?
More completely excellent analysis from Doublespeak blog...
http://honewiremuhekepokai.blogspot.com/
La crise dans Trixton - c'est tout merde!
Salut, and scuse my French! Just been doing a bit of lingua Franca and all that.
It's got rather nasty, hence the merde! The radicals of Trixton have decided that they don't like the idea of a giant wobbly mushroom perched on top of their precious, unused car-park, and are throwing their toys out of the pram.
My spies tell me that they took the action because the plans being professionally executed by Dambeth Council - loyally and self-sacrificially carried out under orders from Gruesome P. Silverblade, means that they lose a car-park that isn't even a car-park!
And now they're demanding that some new car-parking space be created so that people can lug a half-a-kilo of carrots home from the market. Hardly sustainable is it?
The solution? Easy! Some of the highly (and rightly so!) and well remunerated (and I might add, entirely polite!) officers at Dambeth have suggested an alternative to this silly market nonsense: Dig for Victory!
It's simple: get everyone to grow their own fruit and veg, just like in wartime Britain, and hey presto, no need for a market! After all, it's more sustainable, reduces traffic pollution, removes the need for all those stalls cluttering up a perfectly developable part of Trixton.
And yes, we can even grow mushrooms - giant, wobbly ones if you like: did you know they're fed on shit and kept in the dark? Sounds familiar!
Anyway, au revoir, and see you down Trixton: I'll be with Gruesome P. and Brother Cheetham measuring up that wretched cinema for a much-needed Nesco valuecornershop!
http://honewiremuhekepokai.blogspot.com/
La crise dans Trixton - c'est tout merde!
Salut, and scuse my French! Just been doing a bit of lingua Franca and all that.
It's got rather nasty, hence the merde! The radicals of Trixton have decided that they don't like the idea of a giant wobbly mushroom perched on top of their precious, unused car-park, and are throwing their toys out of the pram.
My spies tell me that they took the action because the plans being professionally executed by Dambeth Council - loyally and self-sacrificially carried out under orders from Gruesome P. Silverblade, means that they lose a car-park that isn't even a car-park!
And now they're demanding that some new car-parking space be created so that people can lug a half-a-kilo of carrots home from the market. Hardly sustainable is it?
The solution? Easy! Some of the highly (and rightly so!) and well remunerated (and I might add, entirely polite!) officers at Dambeth have suggested an alternative to this silly market nonsense: Dig for Victory!
It's simple: get everyone to grow their own fruit and veg, just like in wartime Britain, and hey presto, no need for a market! After all, it's more sustainable, reduces traffic pollution, removes the need for all those stalls cluttering up a perfectly developable part of Trixton.
And yes, we can even grow mushrooms - giant, wobbly ones if you like: did you know they're fed on shit and kept in the dark? Sounds familiar!
Anyway, au revoir, and see you down Trixton: I'll be with Gruesome P. and Brother Cheetham measuring up that wretched cinema for a much-needed Nesco valuecornershop!
lang rabbie
Je ne regrette les gazebos
The one I was shown by a Coldharbour ward resident took the form of a letter IIRC.
My recollection is that it was only in Clapham that Labour had a sock-puppet "Keep Clapham Swimming" website, and the Brixton propaganda campaign wasn't as shameless.
By the way - what has happened to your "Election Memory" site from that era?
Possibly - I'm sure I remember something that mentioned the car-park specifically though.
I had to take the site down when I moved servers, but never got round to putting it up again. I still have a backup though.
I don't have the leaflet (although I may be able to track down a copy), but you can find the text on Lambeth Labour's archived website. It only refers to the leisure centre though. I do remember the car park being lumped in with those claims, but perhaps not in writing.
http://web.archive.org/web/20061101.../news2005-2006/leisure/libdemsclosepools.html
LambethLabour.com said:
I am not sure about Judith's current views on Lambeth's current approach to leisure provision.
Letters handed to Ken Livingstone
Last night, after receiving a tip off that Ken Livingstone would be visiting Lambeth Town Hall, Stuart from Brixton Market Trader's Federation handed Ken a letter asking him to tell Lambeth Council to honour his Mayoral decision that underpins the existing Section 106 agreement.
Below is the text of the letter from the BMTF, the Association of Brixton Arcades and Shops and the Friends of Brixton Market. The Streatham campaign handed a letter in too.
Come on Ken!
Dear Ken,
Brixton’s market traders, shop keepers and customers call on you to urge Lambeth Council to stick to the existing Section 106 agreement they have with Tesco PLC to build a new permanent ice rink in Streatham before demolishing the existing ice rink as part of the Streatham Hub development, as you had required of them in 2007.
We cannot accept Tesco’s argument that the recession has caused this agreed phased development to be economically unviable, when Tesco PLC posted profits of over £3bn in 2009, at the height of the recession. Tesco’s threat that they will have to abandon the development seems to us to be as outrageous as it is unrealistic.
The picture for traders in Brixton is not so happy at this time. The alternative plan Lambeth have offered Tesco is to build an ice rink for 2-3 years on the site of Brixton Market’s council-run car park in Pope’s Road. Since the closure of the car park in late 2009, traders have been suffering a grave decline in their trade, threatening the market’s existence as a resource for customers, especially from black and ethnic minorities, or on low and middle incomes. As you know, Brixton Market has great historical and cultural significance for the African Caribbean community in Brixton and beyond, and is central to the diversity, well-being and cohesion of Brixton. This must be protected.
On September 28th, over 200 traders and shops in central Brixton closed and marched to Lambeth Town Hall to present a petition from over 300 businesses, large and small, to ask the council to defend Brixton businesses. 1000 signatures of customers and residents have also been collected.
We ask you now to press the case to Lambeth to honour the Mayoral decision you made in 2007.
Yours sincerely,
Last night, after receiving a tip off that Ken Livingstone would be visiting Lambeth Town Hall, Stuart from Brixton Market Trader's Federation handed Ken a letter asking him to tell Lambeth Council to honour his Mayoral decision that underpins the existing Section 106 agreement.
Below is the text of the letter from the BMTF, the Association of Brixton Arcades and Shops and the Friends of Brixton Market. The Streatham campaign handed a letter in too.
Come on Ken!
Dear Ken,
Brixton’s market traders, shop keepers and customers call on you to urge Lambeth Council to stick to the existing Section 106 agreement they have with Tesco PLC to build a new permanent ice rink in Streatham before demolishing the existing ice rink as part of the Streatham Hub development, as you had required of them in 2007.
We cannot accept Tesco’s argument that the recession has caused this agreed phased development to be economically unviable, when Tesco PLC posted profits of over £3bn in 2009, at the height of the recession. Tesco’s threat that they will have to abandon the development seems to us to be as outrageous as it is unrealistic.
The picture for traders in Brixton is not so happy at this time. The alternative plan Lambeth have offered Tesco is to build an ice rink for 2-3 years on the site of Brixton Market’s council-run car park in Pope’s Road. Since the closure of the car park in late 2009, traders have been suffering a grave decline in their trade, threatening the market’s existence as a resource for customers, especially from black and ethnic minorities, or on low and middle incomes. As you know, Brixton Market has great historical and cultural significance for the African Caribbean community in Brixton and beyond, and is central to the diversity, well-being and cohesion of Brixton. This must be protected.
On September 28th, over 200 traders and shops in central Brixton closed and marched to Lambeth Town Hall to present a petition from over 300 businesses, large and small, to ask the council to defend Brixton businesses. 1000 signatures of customers and residents have also been collected.
We ask you now to press the case to Lambeth to honour the Mayoral decision you made in 2007.
Yours sincerely,
Lambeth lost our FOI request about the ice rink...!!?
On 17th Sept, we sent an FOI request to Lambeth via What Do They Know, asking:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/costs_of_all_the_possible_sites#incoming-118076
Today, I got an email from What Do They Know notifying that Lambeth had sent an email to say they will respond by 28th - which is well outside the 20 days they have to do this.
There's a note though on What Do They Know, saying my FOI was resubmitted on the 30th.
I emailed What Do They Know to ask about this and got the following response:
"They got in touch with us to say that they hadn't received it. Our mail server handed the message to their mail server on 17th September, and theirs acknowledged it, so it would appear that it got lost somewhere in Lambeth's email systems. I don't think the ICO has yet considered whether a message lost in a public authority's email system has been "received" or not, so it's not clear which time limit should apply and we (like Lambeth) currently take the later one."
On 17th Sept, we sent an FOI request to Lambeth via What Do They Know, asking:
- I would like to see the cost assessments for each of the sites considered.
- Please let me know which parts of these costs will be met by Tescos and which by Lambeth Council.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/costs_of_all_the_possible_sites#incoming-118076
Today, I got an email from What Do They Know notifying that Lambeth had sent an email to say they will respond by 28th - which is well outside the 20 days they have to do this.
There's a note though on What Do They Know, saying my FOI was resubmitted on the 30th.
I emailed What Do They Know to ask about this and got the following response:
"They got in touch with us to say that they hadn't received it. Our mail server handed the message to their mail server on 17th September, and theirs acknowledged it, so it would appear that it got lost somewhere in Lambeth's email systems. I don't think the ICO has yet considered whether a message lost in a public authority's email system has been "received" or not, so it's not clear which time limit should apply and we (like Lambeth) currently take the later one."
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Protest outside Tesco,Acre Lane
Weds 13th October, 5pm
JOIN WITH STREATHAM SKATERS AND BRIXTON COMMUNITY TO MARCH ON
TESCO!
Tell everyone you know
Join in peaceful protest
Tell Lambeth and Tesco not to
destory Brixton Market!
There will be a float coming down from Streatham with Skaters etc on it that ,hopefully, will get to Tescos Acre lane at around 5pm.
All are welcome
Weds 13th October, 5pm
JOIN WITH STREATHAM SKATERS AND BRIXTON COMMUNITY TO MARCH ON
TESCO!
Tell everyone you know
Join in peaceful protest
Tell Lambeth and Tesco not to
destory Brixton Market!
There will be a float coming down from Streatham with Skaters etc on it that ,hopefully, will get to Tescos Acre lane at around 5pm.
All are welcome
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/20/tesco-profits-what-the-analysts-say
Tesco are doing ok in the recession and are in profit this year. Goes to show that the original Streathem Hub development planning agreement to keep the old ice rink in use until the new one is built should be possible for Tesco.
Tesco are doing ok in the recession and are in profit this year. Goes to show that the original Streathem Hub development planning agreement to keep the old ice rink in use until the new one is built should be possible for Tesco.
Nanker Phelge
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
I hate bad spolling.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
They've got an extra little stunt planned for today....it's genius! Big up the market traders!
Sundays on Electric Lane / Avenue have gone mental recently. Everyone is trying to get their bulk shopping done on the one days there are any parking spaces leading to parking chaos:
(uploader decided to rotate my photos)
A few weeks ago a woman was thrown through the air and left unconscious after a car hit another car which in turn hit her. I've seen a few other near accidents too.
This is happening on the day that the market is closed, so doesn't really backup Steve Reed's claims that loss of business in purely 'anecdotal'.
(uploader decided to rotate my photos)
A few weeks ago a woman was thrown through the air and left unconscious after a car hit another car which in turn hit her. I've seen a few other near accidents too.
This is happening on the day that the market is closed, so doesn't really backup Steve Reed's claims that loss of business in purely 'anecdotal'.
I love this quote from Councillor Sally Prentice:
That'll be nice and convenient for shopping at, um, Tesco I guess
That'll be nice and convenient for shopping at, um, Tesco I guess
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
Similar threads
