Gramsci
Well-Known Member
The Lambeth planning database isn't working. I tried to get it to work directly. And it's down.
SW9 bar to be closed under plans for five storey hotel for Dorrell Place
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
The Lambeth planning database isn't working. I tried to get it to work directly. And it's down.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
friendofdorothy Gramsci The planning website does that quite often - particularly at weekends. I don't think there is any legal reason why they can't take into account objections after a nominal deadline - particularly if it is pointed out that the website was down.
I should think this will have to go to committee - even Lambeth can't be so undemocratic as to approve such a major development by delegated powers - or can it?
I should think this will have to go to committee - even Lambeth can't be so undemocratic as to approve such a major development by delegated powers - or can it?
Rushy
basically a scrotum
They'll normally consider late objections by email.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I think that is plausible.
I don't always want to think the worst of the Council.
Property developers yes I do. They are scum. One reason for a democracy is to reign in the worst aspects of capitalism. That is to limit its tendency to pursue profit regardless how it effects a neighborhood.
This society is imo in a situation now where Councils , as organisation giving people some democratic control, are now impotent when faced with the rich and powerful interests. They do however come down hard on the little people. Like Clavia- the single poor parent they evicted.
I also think people are made to feel this is just the natural order of things. All of course unfortunate but that's how it is. For some this is convenient.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
It's not just gentrification - it's becoming a tourist destination. A bit like Blackpool with no theatres and no candy-floss. Meanwhile long standing residents continue to be marginalised.
Was watching The Secret History of Our Streets tonight (for the third time) about Deptford High Street. Abercrombie and Forshaw, the London County Council planner and architect who destroyed Deptford were distinguished by snobbery (and in the case of Abercrombie by his trademark monocle).
Now its just loads-a-money.
editor
hiraethified
Posted on Buzz first thing this morning:
Residents furious as public consultation plans for major Brixton hotel development are rushed through
Residents furious as public consultation plans for major Brixton hotel development are rushed through
kikiscrumbles
Well-Known Member
So well done Ed for getting this out. Friends tell me it's had a far reach already. BUT - I have only just discovered that the Planning Meeting [consent or otherwise] will be decided - TONIGHT! I'm even more appalled by the utter - deliberate - failure to consult or consider any of us - locals, residents, visitors, workers alike. Even angrier. I've just emailed S Khan and Florence.Eshalomi@london.gov.uk. Anyone free to come along this eve...?
editor
hiraethified
I've just written to Florence explaining that many people feel that there has been inadequate consultation.
kikiscrumbles
Well-Known Member
I'm on fire *sigh*
Also emailed various members of L Assembly, plus K Hoey, and Lambeth's 'planner' on this job, one Mark Heaney. Mostly useless ping-backs but I'm goin to keep trying.....
Also emailed various members of L Assembly, plus K Hoey, and Lambeth's 'planner' on this job, one Mark Heaney. Mostly useless ping-backs but I'm goin to keep trying.....
editor
hiraethified
Quick thought: if you want to maybe put together a short post advising people what they should say about this and include a list of relevant emails I could slam it on Buzz ahead of tonight's meeting.
If this is any help, here's what i sent off:
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
The recommendation in the papers for tonight's meeting is:
RECOMMENDATION: 1. Resolve to grant conditional planning permission subject to completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the planning obligations listed in this report. 2. Agree to delegate authority of the Director of Planning and Development to finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report; and negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in this report pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 3. In the event that the committee resolves to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, delegated authority is given to officers, having regard to the heads of terms set out in the report, to negotiate and complete a document containing obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in order to meet the requirements of the Planning Inspector. 4. Delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Development to refuse planning permission in the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed within 4 months of Committee (or an alternative timeframe agreed with the LPA) for failure to enter into a section 106 agreement for the mitigating obligations identified in the report and to defend any subsequent appeal.
In return for the section 106 (whatever it is) there will be:
Total Loss of A1 retail floor space: 1046sqm (Superdrug kicked out)
How did this get as far as this with no publicity. Normally as Gramsci points out the council are crawling all over people to come to consultation meetings, to have "tables" wanting "outcomes". In this case Lambeth Council have been totally silent.
kikiscrumbles
Well-Known Member
Ed, I hope this is the kind of thing you expected? I've just compiled a list of email addresses [plenty more on the website, and sadly all here are Labour] but - just as a guide, could this be useful? So little time! K
danyanwu@lambeth.gov.uk Councillor Donatus Anyanwu Title: Lead Member for Community Relations and Neighbourhood Lead for Brixton (attending Cabinet)
PGadsby@lambeth.gov.uk Councillor Paul Gadsby Title: Chief Whip Party: Labour Ward: Vassall
agarden@lambeth.gov.uk Councillor Adrian Garden Party: Labour Ward: Brixton Hill
rheywood@lambeth.gov.uk Councillor Rachel Heywood Party: Independent Labour Ward: Coldharbour
CHolland@lambeth.gov.uk Councillor Claire Holland Title: Deputy Cabinet Member for Children and Schools Party: Labour Ward: Oval
pmcglone@lambeth.gov.uk Councillor Paul McGlone Title: Deputy Leader of the Council (Investment and Partnerships) Party: Labour Ward: Ferndale
nsabharwal@lambeth.gov.uk Councillor Neil Sabharwal Party: Labour Ward: Ferndale
mparr1@lambeth.gov.uk Councillor Matt Parr Title: Vice-Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Party: Labour Ward: Coldharbour
lpeck@lambeth.gov.uk Councillor Lib Peck Title: Leader of the Council Party: Labour
jpickard@lambeth.gov.uk Councillor Jane Pickard Title: Cabinet Member for Families and Young People Party: Labour
SWinifred@lambeth.gov.uk Councillor Sonia Winifred Title: Cabinet Member for Equalities and Culture Party: Labour Ward: Knight's Hill
AWilson5@lambeth.gov.uk Councillor Andrew Wilson Title: Vice-Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Party: Labour Ward: Larkhall
MSeedat@lambeth.gov.uk Councillor Mohammed Seedat Title: Cabinet Member for Healthier and Stronger Communities Party: Labour
Dear Sirs / Madams,
I understand that tonight the council is deciding whether the proposed five story hotel in Dorrell Place will get planning permission.
I feel that adequate consultation has not taken place, neither has the public had sufficient opportunity to comment on the plans.
The fact that Lambeth's own planning database went down just when people were finding out about this development underlines the
inadequacies of the process.
We wrote about this on Brixton Buzz this morning and the article has already been read over 400 times, reflecting the local interest:
Residents furious as public consultation plans for major Brixton hotel development are rushed through
We sincerely hope you will recognize the local requirement of democracy, in the form of deferring this decision process until all of Lambeth's constituents are allowed a democratic opportunity to contribute to the discussion.
Sincerely,
xxxxx
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Why don't you come to the planning meeting at the Karibu Centre at 7 o'clock tonight and see how the discussion goes.
It will be interesting to see if there are objectors allowed to speak (these have to book 24 hrs in advance).
FYI the hotel now propsed seems massive, layout is shown on page 11 of the committee report
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
What upsets me here is that the Council is prepared to accept a bribe from the developers in order to have a permanent loss of retail floor space. This shouldn't happen. This is the Brixton high Street. Superdrug provided affordable shopping for people. I know the Council is under extreme pressure by central government cuts but it shouldn't imo give in to two property developer spivs so easily.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Good point.
People have wised up. At the recent consultation meeting connected to Brixton ( and I felt sorry for the Council officer leading it as I know it's the top dogs in Lambeth who make the decision. Then send more junior officers to deal with Joe public) people were asking good questions on what exactly locals had a say in and what had been decided by the Council. This I could see was causing the poor officer some difficulty. People were being careful on what they said ( on my advice before meeting started) in order that the officer couldn't go back to Council saying he had got support from community.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I did go. It was not as simple as rubber stamping. I would like to give you the long version.
Chair called interested parties to the table. The developer had two representatives, and Councillor Paul McGlone went to table (as Ward Councillor).
There were no objectors.
Chair referred to a letter of objection from CAMRA regarding "the pub" (SW9). It was stated during the course of the discussion that the SW9 site was a completely separate issue from the proposal under discussion. The SW9 was not dependent in any way on facilities at the Superdrug premises.
SW9 did not turn up to object to this planning application.
Possibly Brixton Bugle are conflating two problems - such as SW9 being screwed for more rent by their off-shore landlords? Maybe Brixton Bugle can comment?
Chair said there had been questions raised about no consultation. Planning officer (who seemed a bit "dippy" quite frankly) said adjoining properties had been written to, and advertisement had been placed and the applicants had done their own consultations at an earlier stage.
The applicant confirmed that they held a public exhibition (though they did not say this was in 2015).
The applicants stated that Superdrug were happy to take a lease to continue to use the ground floor space in the building.
The planning officer introduced - saying that although Superdrug were renting the building as a whole, they had not been using the basement, or the upper floors which were consequently deteriorated.
The officer said that it was proposed to open up the side of the building with shop windows (relating to Superdrug or whoever was using the exiting shop) for part of the depth. The hotel entrance would be further down Dorrel Place, and this would have a modern facade, with brickwork taking the building to a higher level away from Brixton Road. 2 lifts would be installed for access to all floors.
Councillor McGlone's only issue was to do with traffic. He wanted restrictions on parking for servicing the building. On Brixton Road.
The presenting officer made cryptic remarks suggesting section 106 money would be directed towards traffic measures in Nursery Road. (Would that cost much??). They also seem to have an extraordinary scheme whereby supplied would be dropped off service vehicles parking in a bus parking bay on Stockwell Road opposite the Academy. This allegedly is only 3 minutes walk from the back of the Superdrug building.
Councillor Murphy was concerned about whether these measures were compatible with the Conservation Area. The conservation officer present assured him it was and so did the borough solicitor. The vice chair also had worries about conservation and traffic.
In the end the application was APPROVED by 4:2 with Murphy and the Vicechair dissenting (hope I've got the names right).
If it is true that Superdrug are staying, and the SW9 bar is unaffected by the scheme, then I think the decision is probably correct.
Had they blocked it the council would risk a planning appeal.
There are council policies about empty spaces above shops. They state these should be used for housing. In this case housing would not be suitable - but the proposal is a feasible alternative.
My main gripe is that the consultation on this planning application was definitely not done properly by the council.
The council's consultation procedures are in a mess. I got TWO IDENTICAL letters the other day asking me for my views on something I had responded to in June!
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
The minutes take a week anyway. My report is more detailed!
editor
hiraethified
The Blog have said that SW9 bar owner "will get just £18,000 compensation when the anonymous offshore company that owns the SW9 premises terminates his lease as part of a hotel development."
Council spurns relocation bids by Brixton’s threatened SW9 bar
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I didn't know that - and this was not mentioned at the planning meeting.
I can't see how the planning application can be for SW9 Bar AND Superdrug if the sites are owned by different people.
This is rather reminiscent of the situation at 414 Club where the landlords keep "nudging" the club to pack up (IMHO).
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Been re-reading the report. On the SW9 Bar issue it says this:
As originally submitted, the existing public house (SW9 Bar) would have been lost and replaced by a public house/café ancillary to the hotel. However, the application was amended to retain an independent public house use within the scheme. CAMRA have reviewed the revised plans and have objected to the loss of cellarage within the existing pub at basement and loss of ancillary pub space (kitchen and toilets) at first floor level. A revised plan has been received since this objection, which has reduced the area of basement floorspace lost from 25sqm to just 9sqm. Officers therefore consider that the proposed scheme would re-provide and retain an independent public house on the site in accordance with planning policy requirements. Although there would be an overall loss of floorspace, the new pub would have a much improved layout over the existing pub accommodation and would have cellarage at basement level.
Seems that the impression that I got at the meeting that the hotel scheme is independent of SW9 is not correct. They evidently moved their design further towards allowing for SW9 or a successor to keep operating independently.
I would have questioned further - because SW9 or at least the Brixtonian , which preceded it, had upstairs and downstairs bars.
Anyone know if this has changed, because the planning document gives the impression that SW9 upstairs is just kitchen and toilets.
Also does the fact that the owner of SW9 didn't register as an objector at the meeting mean he was now satisfied, or not wanting to make a public statement to the committee - or maybe just didn't know the meeting was on?
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
From the report - the CAMRA issue:
4.1.8 CAMRA: Objection to the planning application that relates to the SW9 Bar, 11 Dorrell Place. This bar is a very popular and much loved establishment. Although this application allows for a replacement bar on the ground floor it does remove both the First Floor (where the current kitchen and toilets are situated), and the ancillary storage in the basement from pub use. But perhaps more importantly pubs aren't really like most other businesses. Many people associate very closely with them, and some effectively treat them as their homes. The new bar and restaurant will be nothing like the SW9 Bar, and I'm sure that most current patrons of the SW9 Bar will not regard a soulless hotel bar and restaurant as an adequate replacement for their much loved, friendly and welcoming pub.
4.1.9 Officer response: Officers consider that the proposed scheme would still re-provide and retain an independent and viable public house on the site in accordance with planning policy requirements. Although there would be an overall loss of floorspace, the new pub would have a much improved layout over the existing pub accommodation and would have cellarage/storage at basement level.
4.1.8 CAMRA: Objection to the planning application that relates to the SW9 Bar, 11 Dorrell Place. This bar is a very popular and much loved establishment. Although this application allows for a replacement bar on the ground floor it does remove both the First Floor (where the current kitchen and toilets are situated), and the ancillary storage in the basement from pub use. But perhaps more importantly pubs aren't really like most other businesses. Many people associate very closely with them, and some effectively treat them as their homes. The new bar and restaurant will be nothing like the SW9 Bar, and I'm sure that most current patrons of the SW9 Bar will not regard a soulless hotel bar and restaurant as an adequate replacement for their much loved, friendly and welcoming pub.
4.1.9 Officer response: Officers consider that the proposed scheme would still re-provide and retain an independent and viable public house on the site in accordance with planning policy requirements. Although there would be an overall loss of floorspace, the new pub would have a much improved layout over the existing pub accommodation and would have cellarage/storage at basement level.
Similar threads
