Should Windrush Square be renamed Ritzy Square?

[Crispy]

My understanding was that the old toilet was the bit to be used for coffee shop.

Makes sense in terms of access to plumbing. They'd have trouble getting planning permission for one though wouldn't they? For the exact same Rush Common reasons...

 

[Rushy]

My understanding was that the old toilet was the bit to be used for coffee shop.

Makes sense in terms of access to plumbing. They'd have trouble getting planning permission for one though wouldn't they? For the exact same Rush Common reasons...

AFAIR the coffee stall was separate. There was a public competition to come up with alternative uses for the old toilets. No idea what came of that.

 

[Crispy]

There was a feasability study done by Urban Slplash (IIRC) with all sorts of wild ideas for the toilets. All of which would require fairly hefty £££ to make work. Gross Max's planning application for the square has a "possible location for kiosk and toilets, which will be subject to future planning application" - the actual kiosk was probably removed from the scheme du to either budget cuts or advice from lambeth planning re: rush common land

EDIT: It was make not urban splash: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/EC3CA0C8-D02A-49C9-A4A7-F58AF66093B9/0/BCSMAKEReport.pdf

 

[Rushy]

Thanks for actually reading my post.

I put query into planning enforcement a few weeks ago

The issue in planning terms is that this is part of Rush Common. Its a public space and there are limitations on its use.

Ive had no reply from planning to say if im correct or not.

I did get a call from someone from Environmental services who told me that the Parks Dept had given Ritzy permission. I told her that was not the issue. I said i had put a query into planning so how did she get my number. She said she didnt know. My details had been passed onto her. I said this was planning issue and could she tell me if the Council can grant this use on Rush Common land. She agreed she could not.

Not happy about this. I was quite clear in my query to planning and they must have passed my details onto completely different department. If planning think its acceptable in planning terms for Council to grant permission then I want that clearly in writing.

Ive had this before from Council. Makes me think I must be on the right track.

What was your actual query?

Rush Common Consent is separate from planning consent (although much of the intentions of the Rush Common Act is also included in planning policy). As far as Rush Common Consent is concerned they would look at it like this:

20. When considering applications for Rush Common Consent proposals will
be tested against the purpose of the Act, which is to keep its open
character. Generally the Council will prohibit new buildings, extensions or
structures although there maybe some exceptions where the open
character is not compromised.

Boundary Enclosures
22. The provision of all new boundary enclosures (such as walls, fences, and
other means of enclosure) requires Rush Common Consent. Proposals
should take the opportunity of opening up of Rush Common, reflect the
need to retain the open character, maintain and enhance views. In
general, solid boundaries should be a maximum of 1 metre high, a higher
means of enclosure with railings or combination of brick and railings to a
maximum height of 2 metres may be allowed. Other means of enclosure
may be allowed on areas of Rush Common so long as it would not affect
views and open character of​

the Common.

It also makes reference to temporary hoardings but only really in the context of building works.

The definition of Open Character is confusing since the Rush Common Act does not preserve access - much of Rush Common land is privately owned with privately controlled access. But the open / undeveloped character of that land is still considered important for the community.

I imagine the Ritzy setup requires permission under the act but it is not at all inconceivable that it could be granted.

 

[miss minnie]

FYI we (Brixton Farmers Market) were shown round the site by the town centre manager before it was opened, but were then told in January 2010 that -
'this proposal has been shelved for the foreseeable future, following consultation. This was primarily due to concerns about the legality of a market on rush common land, in addition to other issues raised through the consultation process.'
There have since been events on the square. I don't know what difference there is between a market and a coffee shop in terms of use for rush common land! This is from Lambeth's website; http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonly...-AC1E-3F1E73EB6CBD/0/RushCommonNewsletter.pdf

Thanks for that. So, consultation of some sort has apparently taken place.

Signs / advert hoardings / lighting columns / street furniture and utility undertakings
• Rush Common consent is required for temporary advert hoardings to enclose building sites.
• Signs, lighting columns street furniture and play equipment fall into the category of “structures above the
surface of the earth” and therefore require Rush Common consent.
• Signs and advert hoardings may also require separate consent under the Town and Country Planning
(Control of Advertisement) Regulations 2007.

I wonder if the branded enclosure constitutes an 'advert hoarding'.

 

[Rushy]

Thanks for that. So, consultation of some sort has apparently taken place.


I wonder if the branded enclosure constitutes an 'advert hoarding'.

What's your angle? Is it that you would rather there was no privately serviced seating areas on the square?

 

[miss minnie]

What's your angle? Is it that you would rather there was no privately serviced seating areas on the square?

I think I explained my pov on page 1.

 

[Rushy]

I think I explained my pov on page 1.

Sorry - I am obviously not entirely clear. Above you say that your whole point is that the Ritzy is (probably) not paying enough to cover maintenance of they area they use. But then you seem to be suggesting that their use of the area is against the Rush Common Act. Hence I asked what your angle is and whether you would rather there was no privately serviced seating areas on the square? No worries though.

 

[miss minnie]

Sorry - I am obviously not entirely clear. Above you say that your whole point is that the Ritzy is (probably) not paying enough to cover maintenance of they area they use. But then you seem to be suggesting that their use of the area is against the Rush Common Act. Hence I asked what your angle is and whether you would rather there was no privately serviced seating areas on the square? No worries though.

My first post on this thread:

Can't believe how cheaply the council rent our space to this mob.

It might not be quite so irritating if this cheap space was being shared by some of the smaller traders in Brixton. I wouldn't mind seeing something resembling a summer market with a choice of stalls selling food/drink, clothes/jewelry, postcards or such.

The Ritzy presence is just so bland and corporate.

Bland, corporate, using up public space and quite possibly not paying enough for that privilege, plus the council being opaque about stuff as usual.

Is that enough of "my angle" for you?

 

[editor]

I wonder if the branded enclosure constitutes an 'advert hoarding'.

I'd say it's certainly advertising. The 'Ritzy' branding must appear at least 12-15 times over the square in large letters - and it's not just the cafe that gets advertised either (e.g. Ritzy Upstairs).

 

[Rushy]

My first post on this thread:

Bland, corporate, using up public space and quite possibly not paying enough for that privilege, plus the council being opaque about stuff as usual.

Is that enough of "my angle" for you?

Yes. Quite enough thanks.

 

[Gramsci]

What was your actual query?

Rush Common Consent is separate from planning consent (although much of the intentions of the Rush Common Act is also included in planning policy). As far as Rush Common Consent is concerned they would look at it like this:

20. When considering applications for Rush Common Consent proposals will
be tested against the purpose of the Act, which is to keep its open
character. Generally the Council will prohibit new buildings, extensions or
structures although there maybe some exceptions where the open
character is not compromised.

Boundary Enclosures
22. The provision of all new boundary enclosures (such as walls, fences, and
other means of enclosure) requires Rush Common Consent. Proposals
should take the opportunity of opening up of Rush Common, reflect the
need to retain the open character, maintain and enhance views. In
general, solid boundaries should be a maximum of 1 metre high, a higher
means of enclosure with railings or combination of brick and railings to a
maximum height of 2 metres may be allowed. Other means of enclosure
may be allowed on areas of Rush Common so long as it would not affect
views and open character of​

the Common.

It also makes reference to temporary hoardings but only really in the context of building works.

The definition of Open Character is confusing since the Rush Common Act does not preserve access - much of Rush Common land is privately owned with privately controlled access. But the open / undeveloped character of that land is still considered important for the community.

I imagine the Ritzy setup requires permission under the act but it is not at all inconceivable that it could be granted.

My query was that the square was set up as public open space and the Ritzy use of it stops a section of it being open to the public. It is also part of Rush Common. Whatever the arguments for and against are there is a planning issue here. It looks to me that permission to use it was given by Parks Dept without referance to Planning Dept.

I ought to get an answer from planning either saying this use is acceptable or not and the reasons for it. The fact that I havent and that it appears my query was passed onto other non planning department make me think there is a planning issue here.

I will persevere with this to get an answer.

 

[Gramsci]

Makes sense in terms of access to plumbing. They'd have trouble getting planning permission for one though wouldn't they? For the exact same Rush Common reasons...

I think ur right on that there might be problems with planning permission.

 

[Gramsci]

I don't recall any of the proposals for Windrush Square featuring a vast chunk of the area being taken over by a private company.

As it is, vast pots of public money appear to have just funded a nice al fresco new dining/cafe area for the Ritzy.

Nail on Head

 

[Gramsci]

I'm all for the Ritzy being able to serve coffees in the square - it helps bring the place alive.

It's just that their sealed enclosures seem to be growing at a rather troubling rate while enthusiastically branding a sizeable chunk of what is supposed to be a public square.

When the person from Environmental services rang me she said that the seating directly outside Ritzy was given permission by Streetcare.

The more new seating area on actual Square was with permission of Parks Dept. So the new seating is on actual the public Square which is what I am taking issue with.

 

[leanderman]

I don't like the Ritzy branding.

But I do like the square being used in such a manner.

It looks Continental ... almost.

 

[TruXta]

If only they would knock down the KFC building and make that into a square... now we're talking plaza! With the footfall you get in Brixton it'd be fantastic to have a big space bang in the middle of town.

 

[nick h.]

I don't recall any of the proposals for Windrush Square featuring a vast chunk of the area being taken over by a private company.

As it is, vast pots of public money appear to have just funded a nice al fresco new dining/cafe area for the Ritzy.

That's the issue. On the plus side, the Ritzy staff don't seem to care whether you spend money in the Ritzy. Sometimes you see schoolkids sitting there, not eating or drinking anything. You can bring your own food and drink, get a free glass of tap water from the Ritzy bar, and use the free wi-fi from the Ritzy or McDonalds. (This may require a wi-fi booster.) The shade from the tree keeps the sun off your laptop screen. It's a useful free public amenity at the Ritzy's expense. The seating is much better than the official Windrush Sq. chairs. Or the turd.

 

[miss minnie]

That's the issue. On the plus side, the Ritzy staff don't seem to care whether you spend money in the Ritzy. Sometimes you see schoolkids sitting there, not eating or drinking anything. You can bring your own food and drink, get a free glass of tap water from the Ritzy bar, and use the free wi-fi from the Ritzy or McDonalds. (This may require a wi-fi booster.) The shade from the tree keeps the sun off your laptop screen. It's a useful free public amenity at the Ritzy's expense. The seating is much better than the official Windrush Sq. chairs. Or the turd.

Hehe, excellent!

 

[colacubes]

That's the issue. On the plus side, the Ritzy staff don't seem to care whether you spend money in the Ritzy. Sometimes you see schoolkids sitting there, not eating or drinking anything. You can bring your own food and drink, get a free glass of tap water from the Ritzy bar, and use the free wi-fi from the Ritzy or McDonalds. (This may require a wi-fi booster.) The shade from the tree keeps the sun off your laptop screen. It's a useful free public amenity at the Ritzy's expense. The seating is much better than the official Windrush Sq. chairs. Or the turd.

I was turfed off one of the chairs outside the ritzy with my own coffee by a security guard while I was waiting for some friends. They weren't quite open yet either.

 

[innit]

I was turfed off one of the chairs outside the ritzy with my own coffee by a security guard while I was waiting for some friends. They weren't quite open yet either.

Boo to that.

It looks from editor's pictures as though the Ritzy 'compound' by the tree has got bigger?

 

[nick h.]

I was turfed off one of the chairs outside the ritzy with my own coffee by a security guard while I was waiting for some friends. They weren't quite open yet either.

You need to be discreet! Were you in the square or next to the Ritzy? Presumably the latter, as the Ritzy wasn't quite open. When the chairs in the square are busy there's far too much going on for one security guard to notice where you got your coffee from.

 

[editor]

I want to know how the Ritzy gets to bag the nicest part of the square (under the big tree) for the sole use of their customers.

I've seen people turfed out for having their own food/drink too.

 

[Winot]

I want to know how the Ritzy gets to bag the nicest part of the square (under the big tree) for the sole use of their customers.

I've seen people turfed out for having their own food/drink too.

It would be interesting to know the legality of ejecting people from a public space. Of course, you might have to bring your own chair too. I seem to remember a chapter about this in No Logo re. leafleters being ejected from shopping centres which were built on public space. I have also seen beggars being asked to leave the space in front of the Royal Festival Hall, although I'm not sure if that's public or owned by the Southbank Centre.

 

[Gramsci]

Ive also seen people told to leave the Ritzy seating on the square.

I was told the one of the reasons the Parks dept gave it to Ritzy is to stop other people using square who were considered to be a nuisiance. It also seems to mean that the Ritzys security polices the square for Council

 

[B-Town]

Isn't it nice though that Brixton has a decent place to drink in the Sun looking over the Town Centre and the beautiful area that is the square/town hall.

There is plenty more space available beyond the Ritzy, from what I can see is the seating just makes the square more accesable - giving people who want to buy a drink (i.e. not drink out a can) can do, whilst sitting on chairs.

If an independent business is allowed to thrive in Brixton, then for me that is a good thing and shouldn't be shot down. When I moved to Brixton that area/tree was full of Winos and I believe the developments and new seating have opened up a space previously denied to me.

If you want to use the square, but without having to sit/pay in a Ritzy seat - why not use a public chair, or sit on the grass?

 

[editor]

If you want to use the square, but without having to sit/pay in a Ritzy seat - why not use a public chair, or sit on the grass?

1. Because there's only a handful of public seats in the square
2. Grass can be wet and sitting on the floor isn't always a practical option for old/disabled folks
3. Call me crazy, but I reckon some old fashioned folks just like sitting around a table and eating their lunch

Now tell me why you think a private enterprise should be allowed to stick their corporate branding all over the best part of a publicly funded square for its own private use and profit please?

 

[quimcunx]

The best part? I've spent maybe 50/ 60 hours sat in Windrush sq in the last year or so. (compared to no more than an hour total in the previous 20 years) can't say I've ever seen anyone sat on the ground where the Ritzy seats now are. On the steps yes. Ive never wanted to sit in that area. I regularly use and enjoy the sq space. I haven't been impeded in the slightest by Ritzy chairs. It has just expanded my options.

NB of those 55 hours fewer than 2 have been in Ritzy chairs, less than 40% of visits have involved giving Ritzy any business at all. But more than 50% have involved using their toilets.

Are there cafes or restaurants nearby who want to use the sq for tables?

 

[editor]

Don't get me wrong: I think it's great that the Ritzy has helped open up the square, but it's just the increasingly spreading mass of branded, private areas that concern me.

 

[Crispy]

So if the fabric barriers were unbranded, you'd be happy?