Popes road car park to become temporary Ice Rink

[netbob]

All Labour councillors appear to have been told not to discuss any of this. I've emailed my (normally responsive) councillors a couple of times, and there is a wall of silence.

One of may neighbours was nearly knocked over last week due to cars vying for the remaining parking spaces on the market.

 

[Laughing Toad]

One of may neighbours was nearly knocked over last week due to cars vying for the remaining parking spaces on the market.

1. People argue over parking spaces regardless of scarcity.
2. People who park their cars in large multi-story car parks sometimes injure pedestrians. I'll guess that the closure of the car park has, if anything, reduced pedestrian injuries.

 

[Gramsci]

excellent stuff Gramsci

I find it hard to believe that Lambeth planners are not aware of Tesco's modus operandi in terms of applying for planning permission then constantly changing the goalposts over the coming months/years.

Thanks. Its not all my stuff. I have taken it from a doc written to explain and summarise this issue. I will check to see if all of it is for public consumption and put up more of it.

I think Lambeth planners are aware of how developers work. In theory the application for an ice rink to replace the car park is put together by Tescos.

This is a political planning application which is supported by the ruling Labour party. So the officers have to push it through or not try to hard to knock it back. However I notice that in all correspondence ( see Eds email from Future Brixton) they are careful not to say this. Though I notice the mask slips sometimes- as in SLP article where the Labour group complain that Sports England do not agree that the site is fit for purpose.

 

[Gramsci]

All Labour councillors appear to have been told not to discuss any of this. I've emailed my (normally responsive) councillors a couple of times, and there is a wall of silence.

One of may neighbours was nearly knocked over last week due to cars vying for the remaining parking spaces on the market.

I think some Cllrs realise in planning terms its bollox. But under the leadership of Steve Reed they are being whipped. This should not happen in planning as it is quasi judicial. But there u go thats how politics works.

Still worth emailing Cllrs to make them know there is opposition.

 

[Laughing Toad]

Still worth emailing Cllrs to make them know there is opposition.

Or, more likely, widespread support.

 

[Gramsci]

Why "more likely"?

 

[Laughing Toad]

Because skating rinks are popular. Dissused car parks are not.

 

[Gramsci]

U havent read this thread if that is all u can say.

 

[Gramsci]

Saw this in Brixton road

 

[Streatham_Mao]

Or, more likely, widespread support.

[Citation needed]

 

[editor]

Or, more likely, widespread support.

I'm sure you'll be able to back up that claim right now.

Can't you?

 

[netbob]

I havent had a proper chance to look yet, but here's an FOI of parking tickets for the period post-carpark closure. There's definitely something odd going on on Electric Lane where the council appear to have stopped prosecuting anyone (admission that there is a lack of parking for shoppers?).

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/parking_tickets_in_brixton_town#incoming-136198

 

[happyshopper]

Seems more likely that they started to lock the gates.

 

[netbob]

What gates? To the market? No change as far as I know.

 

[Laughing Toad]

I'm sure you'll be able to back up that claim right now.

Can't you?

Relax. It's an opinion not a claim.

 

[Gramsci]

Seems more likely that they started to lock the gates.

yes what gates? I concur with Memsprings photos earlier on in this thread that there is a lot of parking there on Sundays. It does seem strange that tickets have gone down in exactly the areas where , now the car park is permanently closed, u would have thought parking would have increased.

Have the parking wardens been told to back off by Council?

 

[Gramsci]

I havent had a proper chance to look yet, but here's an FOI of parking tickets for the period post-carpark closure. There's definitely something odd going on on Electric Lane where the council appear to have stopped prosecuting anyone (admission that there is a lack of parking for shoppers?).

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/parking_tickets_in_brixton_town#incoming-136198

The officers dont exactly fall over themselves to get u the info. Its not rocket science to define the town centre.

Ive had a similar experience with officers. They have spent 4 months to find out if the Council own a piece of pavement. Not until then can they pursue the complaint I have put in. They say.

 

[Gramsci]

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=442&MId=7162

The planning application by Tescos , with support from Lambeth Council, is going to Planning Committee on Wednesday 2nd Feb. Meeting starts 7pm. Its fairly high up on agenda.

I know that Friends of Brixton Market and the Market Traders are urging the public to attend the meeting. Members of the public can attend the meeting. Only those who have put in objections have right to speak.

The officer recommendation is , surprise surprise, to recommend approval.

I notice that the Council have put three applications together for this meeting.

Variation of the Section 106 agreement.
Porden road car park application
Temporary ice rink at Popes road.

The links to pdf in link are detailed background info written by officers. They also summarise the objections.

Its quite clear that officers have been told to bend over backwards to support these applications.

 

[Streatham_Mao]

There's also a sitewalk on this Saturday (29th Jan), at 10:45am. The public can't make representations to Councillors, but can at least listen to what they say while there.

 

[editor]

Latest update:

Dear Future Brixton mailing list

Temporary ice rink proposals to be considered

A planning application to build a temporary ice rink on the site of the soon-to-be-demolished Pope’s Road car park is to be decided on 2 February 2011.

The application, by developer Tesco, would enable ice skating to continue in the borough whilst they build the Streatham hub scheme in a single phase. The Streatham Hub includes a new leisure centre and ice rink, alongside a Tesco store and 250 new homes (including social housing).

The council’s Planning Applications Committee will consider the application for a temporary ice rink, which will include 22 parking spaces, alongside an application for a temporary car park at Buckner Road. The Buckner Road car park is intended to address some of the concerns around town centre parking following the enforced closure and demolition of the Pope’s Road car park. Thirty-six additional free on-street parking bays have already been provided close to Pope’s Road.

The Brixton ice rink would be open for about two and a half years. The new leisure attraction would expect to benefit both local residents and businesses by encouraging local residents to have a go at ice skating and new visitors to Brixton to explore the area.

Documentation and details for the Planning Applications Committee can be found at http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=442&MId=7162

You can find out more about the temporary ice rink, temporary car park and the Streatham Hub project at www.lambeth.gov.uk/futurebrixton

 

[Gramsci]

I got that from Future Tesco today as well. The Council cannot support an application by a private business. But the Council is using Future Brixton to phrase its emails in such a way that the application sounds reasonable.

Future Brixton was set up to consult on the development of the Brixton Masterplan. Future Brixton was supposed to continue consulting the local community in development of the plan.

 

[Gramsci]

The email from Future Brixton does not say that Tescos have forced the Council to change the original planning agreements to build a bigger store.

Also that Tescos agreed to keep continuity of ice at Streatham as the local community, skaters and Mayor wanted. (Section 106 agreement)

Lambeth should be referring the variation to the Section 106 agreement to the Mayor.

As Tescos have now got permission to build a bigger store the Section 106 agreement should be increased. As Section 196 agreements are based on the size of development.

 

[Gramsci]

There's also a sitewalk on this Saturday (29th Jan), at 10:45am. The public can't make representations to Councillors, but can at least listen to what they say while there.

It is on Saturday 29th January at 10.45 to noon

meeting at Junction of Popes road and Brixton Station road

Ive been to site visits before. Normally some of the Cllrs turn up, Tescos will be there and architects with plans. They will discuss technical aspects among other things. I have 2 invites as the Variation of the Section 106 is on the committee agenda.

They are fairly informal.

If anyone is around and wants to go details are above.

U could ask a few questions

 

[Streatham_Mao]

It is on Saturday 29th January at 10.45 to noon

meeting at Junction of Popes road and Brixton Station road

Ive been to site visits before. Normally some of the Cllrs turn up, Tescos will be there and architects with plans. They will discuss technical aspects among other things. I have 2 invites as the Variation of the Section 106 is on the committee agenda.

They are fairly informal.

If anyone is around and wants to go details are above.

U could ask a few questions

I personally can't make it - I have to revise for an exam on Monday and weekends are the only time I'm not up and about before dawn.

But I am definitely going to the council meeting; I'll be out of the exam period and my Streatham Network blog doesn't write itself.

 

[Skaters4the Hub]

Mayor objects to Popes Road

Planning laws are in question, how can Lambeth Council approve this scheme and not require permission from the Mayor, they are adamant they can ignore the Mayor's objection, they say this is not a planning application it is only a variation of a section 106 agreement which he has no jurisidiction over, so all Tesco's had to do was wait a few years, change their mind and apply to vary his conditions and poke two fingers up, this needs a public inquiry lets see wat the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has to say, come on Eric Pickles, clarify Planning Law please.

Boris Johnson objects to Popes Road temporary rink
Date: 25 January 2011
I refer to your letter received on 24 November 2010 consulting the Mayor of London on the above application to vary the Section 106 agreement in respect of planning permission 08/03477/FUL.
I note that the temporary off-site solution could improve the viability and deliverability of the Streatham Hub development (although the recent permission for the additional retail floorspace will also improve viability). The benefits of the final development particularly for ice skating and
general leisure and recreation are also understood and supported. The efforts to find a suitable alternative site are also acknowledged. However, the cumulative impacts of the deficiencies in the temporary solution at Pope's Road are such that that this does not represent continuity of ice rink provision of a comparable standard. I therefore object to the application to vary the Section 106 agreement. Signed Boris Johnson

Is the Mayor's objection worth the paper it's written on? Will Tesco's be allowed to flout conditions set by the Mayor without any recourse?

Skaters 4 the Hub

 

[nagapie]

Probably not or he wouldn't write it. I imagine Boris would support Tesco so this makes him look like he's supporting communities but actually does nothing. The Brixton forum is depressing today.

 

[Gramsci]

It appears from what I have been told by someone who knows a lot about planning that the Mayor has problems in a "call in" of a variation to a Section 106.

The original planning process for the Streatham hub included the Ice rink which , because it is of strategic importance for London , meant that the Mayor (Livingstone) could call in the planning application. It was him that insisted on continuity of ice and not allowing Tescos to open there store until the new rink was finished. This was down to the Mayor not Lambeth Council.

The Council/ Tescos are seeking to (only) vary the Section 106. It looks like the Mayor cannot call it in if he disagrees with the outcome. This has implications for the rest of London. If this is allowed to happen it means any developer in cahoots with a local Council can alter Section 106 agreements later on after the main planning proposal has been agreed. It could make a mockery of Section 106 agreements. One of the few ways that local communities have a say over profit driven developers.

The Popes road application is not , in planning terms, of enough strategic importance for the Mayor to call in.

So there you have it. Lambeth Council have managed to separate out Popes road application from variation to the Section 106 to try and make sure the Mayor does not have a say. Also the application to increase the size of the propsed Tescos store was done separately from this application to vary the Section 106. In fact as Section 106 agreements are related to size of development the agreement should have been increased at that time.

However, im not an expert, there are ongoing discussions.

Considering the issues at stake the Council is pushing this forward as quickly as possible.

 

[Gramsci]

I personally can't make it - I have to revise for an exam on Monday and weekends are the only time I'm not up and about before dawn.

But I am definitely going to the council meeting; I'll be out of the exam period and my Streatham Network blog doesn't write itself.

I heard a couple of days ago that they are also going to do a site visit of the Porden road site as well on Saturday. They will meet at the Town Hall 9.45pm. After that site visit they will go down to Popes road.

Also there is going to be some kind of presentation in the Rec.

 

[Gramsci]

Cut and pasted this from Officer report for the Committee meeting. So its already in public domain. Its good letter from LibDem Cllrs. Many of whom represent the Streatham area.

Planning Applications 10/04049/S106 and 10/03425 (Streatham Hub S106
revision and Temporary ice rink, Pope’s Rd)

We the undersigned Streatham Liberal Democrat councillors object to the
revision of the Streatham Hub Section 106 agreement which was designed to
safeguard the provision of ice skating in Streatham and to secure its
continuity on the existing site.

The consultation process is prejudiced by the paucity of information regarding
the changes. The simple description on the planning notice is inadequate and
the sole supporting document gives a 16-line “summary of principal
variations” with a schedule of clauses which would be varied but no detail as
to what the variation would be.

At present there is a clause in the S106 (Schedule 6 para 10.2) stating that
“no part of the Store…shall be occupied and no part of the Store shall open
for trade or continue to trade unless and until…….the Developer has achieved
Completion of the Leisure Centre.” We have been informed that this clause
will be removed from a revised S106.

Even if the clause were to remain it would be no guarantee of a replacement
facility in the circumstances where the existing rink is demolished. The
applicant Tesco proposes to demolish all buildings on site, including the ice
rink and council-owned leisure centre but the applicant could simply leave the
site in an undeveloped state until such time as it thought fit or convenient
regardless of the interests or needs of the Streatham population.

Given the length of this process, without a single thing to show for it, and
given that it is almost eight years since planning permission was granted, it is
unreasonable to expect Streatham residents and ice rink and leisure centre
users to put their unconditional trust in Tesco to complete, or even begin,
construction of this development.

Demolition of the ice rink, the swimming pool/leisure centre, together with the
Go-Kart track, will leave Streatham devoid of any active leisure facilities for
young people and families for a substantial period, and without any guarantee
of their eventual replacement. This is unacceptable and unsustainable and
would have a damaging effect on community cohesion.

We therefore express extreme concern over demolition of the existing facility
and replacing it with a temporary facility. The applicant claims that the
current S106 makes the scheme unviable and that by demolishing the whole
site it will become profitable but the Council has failed to scrutinise the
financial justification for reneging on the existing agreement.

We further object to Brixton Pope’s Road as the location of a temporary rink.
The proposed facility fails on a number of counts:
• It is inadequate in size, lacks basic facilities and is technically
unfit for purpose

• It will not be financially viable

• It fails to replace facilities currently available at the existing
Streatham rink

• It is not easily accessible

• There is grossly inadequate parking provision

The proposal is opposed by local residents and the business community in
Brixton.

Cllr Judy Best, Streatham Wells Ward
Cllr Clive Bennett, St Leonard’s Ward
Cllr Jeremy Clyne, Streatham Hill Ward
Cllr Alex Davies, Streatham Wells Ward
Cllr Roger Giess, St Leonard’s Ward
Cllr Ashley Lumsden, Streatham Hill Ward
Cllr Daphne Marchant, Streatham Wells Ward

Page 71

 

[Gramsci]

Comment on Applications from Sport England.

http://www.sportengland.org/about_us.aspx


Sport England


Location: Multi-storey Car Park, Pope’s Road, London

Proposals: Redevelopment of the site to provide a temporary ice facility for
a period of three years including changing rooms, café, spectator seating
and associated works

Thank you for consulting Sport England on this application. As the site does
not include a playing field, Sport England has considered the application as
a non-statutory consultee.

Any assessment of the proposals for a temporary ice rink in Brixton Town
Centre must also take into account its potential implications for the existing
and proposed ice rink in Streatham. Sport England’s understanding is that
the rationale for the current proposal it to enable cost savings to be made in
implementing the Streatham Hub redevelopment, i.e. for it to proceed in two
phases: demolition across the entire site, followed by construction of the
Tesco store, leisure facilities and residential accommodation. In order to
secure a continuity of ice provision, the proposal for a temporary ice rink in
Pope’s Road is designed to ‘bridge the gap’ until the replacement ice rink on
the Streatham Hub site is opened.

Whilst this appears to offer a pragmatic solution, in practice the proposals
raise a number of serious concerns which render it clearly inferior to the
proposals under the existing planning permission and S106 agreement, that
require construction of the new sports facilities, including the ice rink, before
the existing rink is demolished. By this means, there is retention of current
provision in the same location and to existing standards. This has clear
advantages in satisfying the needs of existing users and sustaining their
levels of participation, activity and viability.

In contrast, the proposal to replace the existing facility by a temporary rink in
Brixton Town Centre carries significant risks to the sporting interests of
current users. This is because the location is almost three miles away,
involving travel on congested roads; does not offer equivalent accessibility
(a particular issue for ice hockey players with their bulky kits, and for more
vulnerable users, including people with learning difficulties) and it lies in a
different catchment area to the Streatham Ice Arena.

The confined nature of the Pope’s Road site has also imposed significant
design restrictions on the proposed facilities for the temporary rink, including
lack of provision of separate officials’ changing (a requirement for ice hockey competitions)
and drastically reduced seating capacity for ice hockey spectators.
The impact of the latter on the continuing financial viability of clubs,
from reduced gate receipts, could result in clubs folding or
having to move elsewhere. They would then be less likely to return to
Streatham when the replacement ice rink is opened. The interests of sports
development and growing participation would clearly be best served by
continuing to meet the needs of existing clubs and participants at their
preferred location in Streatham.

Sport England therefore considers firstly, that there are outcomes
detrimental to the interests of sport that are likely to result from relocating
the ice facility to a temporary rink in Pope’s Road; and secondly, that these
detrimental outcomes can best be avoided if the existing S106 requirements
are retained for the implementation of the planning permission for the
Streatham Hub development.

In the light of the above, Sport England considers it necessary to lodge an
objection to this planning application.

I would be grateful if you would inform me of the outcome of this application
in due course by forwarding a copy of the decision notice. This is needed to
update our database on planning application consultations.