Say hello to Barratt Homes' 'Brixton Square' on Coldharbour Lane (old Cooltan site)

[Mr Bim of Bar]

So how many of the 107 'sold out immediately' flats are occupied now? And how many are owner-occupied, and how many are BTL? I demand to know.

Been on the net, and can only find one apartment in BS to let, and that advert says "This property has been removed" I honestly don't think there are that many BTL

 

[ViolentPanda]

Been on the net, and can only find one apartment in BS to let, and that advert says "This property has been removed" I honestly don't think there are that many BTL

It'll be impossible to tell for sure anyway, until/unless someone cross-checks ownership with occupancy.

 

[leanderman]

The guy from Barratts very plainly laid it on the line to the planning committee last May that the original affordable housing commitment was non-viable and the scheme "never could have been built". I heard it - so did Gramsci and Cllr Matt Parr and Cllr Jeremy Clyne - neither on the planning committee.
The planning committee themselves were sufficiently supine to accept this tosh and vote through the relaxation of the section 106 terms (by a majority of 4 to 2).
Now Barratts have come back to Lambeth Council asking to cancel the employment generating business space in the project and change it to more residential. Lambeth Council is so mixed up with property developers these days that back scratching and appeasement seem the order of the day. Give Barratts an inch...

With this house price madness, this weasliness looks worse and worse.

 

[shakespearegirl]

If the original scheme they proposed was non-viable and could never have been built, they should have to withdraw it and re-submit. Otherwise any development could plead this on any grounds not just affordable housing.

Those high quality finishes we promised are now unaffordable so we will have to subtitute them with cheap and nasty ones...

 

[CH1]

I noticed yesterday that the first occupants are in now.

There's been people living there for quite a while now and quite a few have been having lots of jolly parties to celebrate.

Now Barratts have come back to Lambeth Council asking to cancel the employment generating business space in the project and change it to more residential. Lambeth Council is so mixed up with property developers these days that back scratching and appeasement seem the order of the day. Give Barratts an inch...

It is quite clear on the decision notices on the original planning applications that the commercial floorspace must be completed and available for occupation prior to the occupation of the residential units.
What Barratts have done is the opposite of this.
Does planning have any meaning in this context - if not why not?

 

[editor]

It's fucking criminal the way that Lambeth just roll over and let Barratts do what they want.

 

[Rushy]

It is quite clear on the decision notices on the original planning applications that the commercial floorspace must be completed and available for occupation prior to the occupation of the residential units.
What Barratts have done is the opposite of this.
Does planning have any meaning in this context - if not why not?View attachment 39147View attachment 39148

Are they completed and available?
If they are but just not yet occupied then the condition has been satisfied.
If not it's just an email to enforcement to open a case (to which you will probably receive a response allocating an officer and then never hear anything again!)

 

[CH1]

Are they completed and available?
If they are but just not yet occupied then the condition has been satisfied.
If not it's just an email to enforcement to open a case (to which you will probably receive a response allocating an officer and then never hear anything again!)

Barratts are one step ahead:
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...CaseNumber=IATT91BOXK000&keyVal=MP3X0ZBO67000

 

[teuchter]

If you think they've breached their conditions, email enforcement. If no-one ever does this, they have little motivation to enforce stuff.

I did once and it wasn't ignored - an officer came out to have a look.

 

[Gramsci]

Barratts are one step ahead:
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...CaseNumber=IATT91BOXK000&keyVal=MP3X0ZBO67000

As Rushy says looks like Barratts have covered themselves.

For breaches of conditions officers normally take the line that retrospective planning application is sufficient.

That does not mean that an application will get officer recommendation.

The main problem is that the Council do not want to have costly appeals. So errs on side of accepting applications.

 

[Rushy]

Permission refused.

Site:

368 - 372 Coldharbour Lane London SW9 8PL

Proposed Development:

Change of use of a building under construction to convert ground and lower ground floor commercial tenancies (923sqm) to provide nine residential dwellings together with alterations to the external appearance of the building, cycle parking, refuse arrangements and the relocation of the concierge.

Applicant:

Mr Simon Parker


I refer to my previous letter acknowledging your comments on this proposal. The decision on the planning application is as follows:


Refuse Permission


The following conditions for permission or reasons for refusal apply:



1 The proposed change of use would fail to contribute to the Council's long term aspirations for the regeneration of Coldharbour Lane, to promote a mix of uses and active frontages along Coldharbour Lane and improve connections between Brixton and Loughborough Junction through improvements to the quality of the environment. The application is therefore contrary to the aspirations of MDO-5 of the Unitary Development Plan 2007 (Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the Core Strategy adopted in January 2011), Policies S1 and PN3 of the Core Strategy 2011 and the aspirations of the Future Brixton Materplan (2009).


2 The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the premises have been sufficiently marketed for a range of commercial uses in order to justify the loss of the permitted commercial floorspace. The application is therefore contrary to Policy S3 of the Core Strategy 2011 and Policy 23 of the Unitary Development Plan 2007 (Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the Core Strategy adopted in January 2011).


3 The proposed development would fail to provide an acceptable standard of residential accommodation by reason of substandard room sizes, internal layout, privacy, amenity space and proximity to refuse stores to the detriment of the living conditions of future residents. The application is therefore contrary to Policy 33 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan 2007 (Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the Core Strategy adopted in January 2011), Policy S2 of the Core Strategy 2011 and the Council's Supplementary Planning Document for Housing Development and House Conversions (2008).


4 In the absence of details of the location of the single refuse collection point and the design and layout of the undercroft between blocks D and E, the applicant has failed to demonstrate how the proposed refuse arrangements would operate. The application is therefore contrary to Policy S8 of the Core Strategy 2011.


5 In the absence of a legal agreement to secure the provision of affordable housing comprising 40% or 50% of the residential units, of which 70% of the units would be for social rent and 30% of the units for intermediate housing, the proposed development would fail to provide the requisite affordable housing on the site contrary to Policy S2 of the Core Strategy 2011.


6 In the absence of a S106 legal agreement to secure the proposed residential units as 'Parking Permit Free', the proposed development would not adequately mitigate the increase in demand for on-street parking and therefore would be likely to exacerbate existing parking stress and congestion on the surrounding highway network. The application is therefore contrary to Policy S4 of the Core Strategy 2011 and Policies 9 and 14 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan 2007 (Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the Core Strategy adopted in January 2011.


7 In the absence of a S106 legal agreement to mitigate against the additional demand for primary and secondary school places within the Borough associated with the proposed development, the proposal is contrary to Policies S1 and S10 of the Core Strategy 2011 and the Supplementary Planning Document: S106 Planning Obligations (Updated April 2012).


8 In the absence of a S106 legal agreement to mitigate against the additional demand for open space within the Borough associated with the proposed development, the proposal is contrary to Policies S1 and S10 of the Core Strategy 2011 and the Supplementary Planning Document: S106 Planning Obligations (Updated April 2012).


9 In the absence of a legal agreement to secure the charge payable for monitoring the Section n 106 legal agreement, the proposed development would be contrary to Policies S1 and S10 of the Core Strategy 2011 and the Supplementary Planning Document: S106 Planning Obligations (Updated April 2012).



Regards,

Lambeth Planning

 

[Crispy]

Permission refused.

And how!

 

[editor]

Triple like. Fuck off Barratts, you shifty, devious, commitment-shirking fuckers.

 

[Crispy]

That really is a comprehensive refusal. Sometimes these things read like "yeah, you nearly got it, but if you just tweak a bit and come back to us, no wories" but that is pretty full on.

 

[Rushy]

And how!

Not a lot of room for misunderstanding there, I don't think.

 

[editor]

Kudos to Lambeth for finally sticking up for something about this wretched development.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

What's the deal with 'The Park' flats on the corner of Stockwell (Park Walk) and Brixton Rd. What happened to the people who lived there? And what kind of housing will it be now?

There's two separate developments - 'The Park' which was built on an area of land on Robsart Street which was empty for some time (can't remember what was there before, I think it was some of the older bits of the Stockwell Park Estate, boohoo might remember) - and Redmayne House (which is on the corner of Stockwell Park Road & Sidney Road, opposite the Grosvenor pub) which was demolished recently and is currently being rebuilt as 'luxury' apartments.

The Park is mostly private iirc with small amount of 'affordable' housing - i.e. part buy, part rent for people with incomes of £60k/£70k+. A quick search reveals two bed flats go for more than half a million quid!

Redmayne House was only about 20 flats as far as I remember, plus unused commercial units on the ground floor....and was kept half empty for the past 10 years or so in preparation for this mundane new development of 30+ flats currently being built. The council received an unprecedented number of planning objections from the well-heeled residents of Stockwell Park (hundreds, iirc) objecting to the height and proximity of the new development, loss of light & privacy to gardens etc, but it still went through. So same old story basically!

edited to add: 328 of the 368 dwellings in 'The Park' were for private sale. It was on the site of old sheltered housing Old thread here from 2006: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/new-tower-blocks-for-stockwell-park.97626/

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Permission refused.

excellent news.

I wonder whether Barratts intended to try this on (turning the commercial units into 9 flats) right from the start?

 

[Manter]

excellent news.

I wonder whether Barratts intended to try this on (turning the commercial units into 9 flats) right from the start?

Surely not. That would be dishonest....!

 

[boohoo]

There's two separate developments - 'The Park' which was built on an area of land on Robsart Street which was empty for some time (can't remember what was there before, I think it was some of the older bits of the Stockwell Park Estate, boohoo might remember) - and Redmayne House (which is on the corner of Stockwell Park Road & Sidney Road, opposite the Grosvenor pub) which was demolished recently and is currently being rebuilt as 'luxury' apartments.

The Park is mostly private iirc with small amount of 'affordable' housing - i.e. part buy, part rent for people with incomes of £60k/£70k+. A quick search reveals two bed flats go for more than half a million quid!

Redmayne House was only about 20 flats as far as I remember, plus unused commercial units on the ground floor....and was kept half empty for the past 10 years or so in preparation for this mundane new development of 30+ flats currently being built. The council received an unprecedented number of planning objections from the well-heeled residents of Stockwell Park (hundreds, iirc) objecting to the height and proximity of the new development, loss of light & privacy to gardens etc, but it still went through. So same old story basically!

edited to add: 328 of the 368 dwellings in 'The Park' were for private sale. It was on the site of old sheltered housing Old thread here from 2006: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/new-tower-blocks-for-stockwell-park.97626/

The top of Robsart street was garages and a bit of grass land. That was the first part of the development. Then the old people's home was dug up. Redmayne house has come down and Wayland house is gone too. The replacement for Wayland will be some taller tower block. The newer developments are quite ugly and uninspired as is much of the new builds going up.

It's quite amazing that the Stockwell Park residents complaints didn't stick as they are quite good at getting things stopped.

It's all so ugly that it's starting to make Stockwell Park estate look well designed.

 

[Badgers]

Kudos to Lambeth for finally sticking up for something about this wretched development.

Shame it was the commercial units rather than the social housing eh? No doubt some vibrant shops will open and brighten up the old manor eh?

 

[Crispy]

excellent news.

I wonder whether Barratts intended to try this on (turning the commercial units into 9 flats) right from the start?

Not in my opinion. The floor plan was not conducive to residential units. It had clearly been designed for use as commercial, and had to be severely mangled to fit flats in, even by Barratts standards.

 

[editor]

I'm still a bit confused how the developers of the nearby Viaduct got away with converting the commercial units at the rear (on Valentia Place) because they really don't look like they're designed for residential use.

 

[Crispy]

I'm still a bit confused how the developers of the nearby Viaduct got away with converting the commercial units at the rear (on Valentia Place) because they really don't look like they're designed for residential use.

I imagine they didn't previously get one over on the planners, eliciting scores of complaints and articles in the local press.

 

[Rushy]

Not in my opinion. The floor plan was not conducive to residential units. It had clearly been designed for use as commercial, and had to be severely mangled to fit flats in, even by Barratts standards.

If they'd had it ready for use earlier this year they could have converted them under PD. Close call!

 

[teuchter]

they could have converted them under PD.

How so?

 

[Rushy]

How so?

New PD rules grant rights for conversion from offices to residential - so long as the offices were in existence as offices before a certain date earlier this year. There are some limited exceptions. Lambeth is challenging the legislation in relation to Piano House. Same thing being brought in shortly in relation to agricultural buildings.

 

[JAC2013]

Just a bit of clarification (and to my pleasant surprise) on BTL, I moved into the development in June and in my core there are 22 flats I think of which one is BTL. Having spoken with the vast majority of neighbours the majority like me have lived in the local area, so I'd have to say a lot of the assumptions made are ill-founded.

 

[fortyplus]

I'm still a bit confused how the developers of the nearby Viaduct got away with converting the commercial units at the rear (on Valentia Place) because they really don't look like they're designed for residential use.

Apparently they are live/work units. So the agent told us when we were looking to rent one of them as a commercial unit anyway.

 

[editor]

Apparently they are live/work units. So the agent told us when we were looking to rent one of them as a commercial unit anyway.

They look very much like live/live units to me!