SW9 bar to be closed under plans for five storey hotel for Dorrell Place

[kikiscrumbles]

Outreach spreads to.... the Manx!

Manx firm under fire for Brixton plans

In spite of all advice that 'nothing can now be done' I'm going to keep trying...

 

[editor]

Outreach spreads to.... the Manx!

Manx firm under fire for Brixton plans

In spite of all advice that 'nothing can now be done' I'm going to keep trying...

Keep me in the loop and I'll be happy to run updates on Buzz. I met with the Brixton Blog people last night and we're happy to unite together to work on this.

Om, and the hotel-approvin' Cllr Malcolm Clark posted on Buzz:

Before giving ill-informed incendiary comments or judgement based on preconceived views of the Council, I would definitely recommend everyone read CH1’s report on the planning meeting referred to and linked at the end of Mike’s article.

It is a lot more nuanced and informative than the actual article here, and was written by someone who has read the papers and was at the meeting, Whilst I don’t agree with it all, I think it is a much fairer reflection of the arguments and a more constructive approach than this article and some of the other comments. I thank CH1 for taking the time to do it.

Someone who says they were at the meeting responded:

I was at the meeting too and can’t find anything inaccurate about what’s been reported here.

But now you’re here, why don’t you tell us all why you voted for this monstrosity after your colleague said that “Brixton deserves better.”

And then maybe you could defend your lousy council’s decision to flatten Cressingham Gardens against the loudly expressed wishes of the residents, and wreck Carnegie library against the wishes of the community?

He hasn't responded.

Lambeth ignores local opposition and approves planning permission for a 96-room Brixton budget hotel in Dorrell Place

 

[kikiscrumbles]

'ill-informed incendiary comments or judgement based on preconceived views of the Council...'

My, the condescension....

 

[editor]

'ill-informed incendiary comments or judgement based on preconceived views of the Council...'

My, the condescension....

I'm happy to admit to firing off some incendiary comments in the direction of Lambeth in the past, but he must be extremely sensitive if he's getting upset by that particular article.

 

[Rushy]

In spite of all advice that 'nothing can now be done' I'm going to keep trying...

To stop it from going ahead?

 

[Rushy]

Who said that "Brixton deserves better" (quoted above) and did they expand on that?

 

[kikiscrumbles]

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!

Thank you for your thorough minutes. May I [politely] add that an issue raised a couple of times by dissenters is the fact that the so-called empty/derelict space above and below Superdrug have never been marketed to anybody at all? If we look at the most handsome Department Store revamp on Ferndale, it is clear that these properties are deemed as valuable enough for £££m investments. I found this a most pertinent point. In response, the dippy Irish lad simply stated: 'We are not policy-compliant.'
Also the chief dissenter [young woman] was, I believe, called Simpson [though my notes are not as thorough as yours so I could well be wrong].
In terms of traffic concerns, the developers' representatives and Council stooges discussed 380 additional trips per day are anticipated once the Premier Inn opens. Nothing at all about the traffic impacts of the demolition/construction [just WHERE will the cranes park...?]
Lastly, Cllr Murphy pointed out twice that Lambeth has identified the need for 281 more hotel rooms by 2030, and repeated that this shortfall has years to address.
Again, thank you CH1.

 

[editor]

Thank you for your thorough minutes. May I [politely] add that an issue raised a couple of times by dissenters is the fact that the so-called empty/derelict space above and below Superdrug have never been marketed to anybody at all? If we look at the most handsome Department Store revamp on Ferndale, it is clear that these properties are deemed as valuable enough for £££m investments. I found this a most pertinent point. In response, the dippy Irish lad simply stated: 'We are not policy-compliant.'
Also the chief dissenter [young woman] was, I believe, called Simpson [though my notes are not as thorough as yours so I could well be wrong].
In terms of traffic concerns, the developers' representatives and Council stooges discussed 380 additional trips per day are anticipated once the Premier Inn opens. Nothing at all about the traffic impacts of the demolition/construction [just WHERE will the cranes park...?]
Lastly, Cllr Murphy pointed out twice that Lambeth has identified the need for 281 more hotel rooms by 2030, and repeated that this shortfall has years to address.
Again, thank you CH1.

There's shitloads of empty space above shops in the centre of Brixton, although the biggest offender is the multi story premises by the station on Pope's Road. The wanker that owns them has kept them empty for decades while his investment rises in value.

If I was in charge.. etc etc.

 

[CH1]

Outreach spreads to.... the Manx!
Manx firm under fire for Brixton plans
In spite of all advice that 'nothing can now be done' I'm going to keep trying...

That's an interesting find - well done.

As regards keeping trying - I think the wording of the resolutions was to approve officers to grant permission on delegated powers - subject to a satisfactory section 106 agreement.

I think there could be some latitude there for negotiation on behalf of the SW9 - if they wanted to try to get more out of the deal.
I doubt the planners would make any adjustments unless they were approached by the SW9 owner themselves though (that is assuming the planners were minded to do their job properly and work on behalf of the community - not the developers!).

 

[DJWrongspeed]

While I loathe off shore companies making bucks from out London property surely in this instance it would've been better to have the 5 story hotel and add another 5 stories of flats, social housing and rent-to-buy?

I don't see how a taller building would've been out of place given BlueStar House and Brixton Rec tower nearby.

 

[Gramsci]

Outreach spreads to.... the Manx!

Manx firm under fire for Brixton plans

In spite of all advice that 'nothing can now be done' I'm going to keep trying...

I was wondering why a company from there would be buying up Brixton. It's an offshore tax haven.

Isle of Man as an Offshore Tax Haven | KMI Consultants

There are several tax favoured areas around the world, but none can rival the significant advantages provided by the Isle Of Man as an offshore money centre. The Isle Of Man enjoys exceptional political and economic stability, as exemplified by a history of over 1000 years of continuous parliamentary government, the longest unbroken period of government in the world.

In matters of direct taxation and fiscal affairs, the Isle Of Man is independent of and not subject to laws passed by the United Kingdom Parliament and there is no obligation to bring its tax system into line with those of the European Communtiy Members.

Offshore investments in the Isle of Man incur no liability to taxes on investment income or capital gains, so whether you're seeking, pure capital growth, pension planning for your retirement or the latest portfolio management strategy, you can have the confidence of receiving tax free growth on your capital in one of the worlds most secure offshore investment centres. Isle of Man is indeed a tax efficient money centre.

Good to know that the hard pressed in Manx are benefitting from investment in Brixton. Good to see entrepreneurs taking a risk in investing in Brixton.

 

[editor]

While I loathe off shore companies making bucks from out London property surely in this instance it would've been better to have the 5 story hotel and add another 5 stories of flats, social housing and rent-to-buy?

I don't see how a taller building would've been out of place given BlueStar House and Brixton Rec tower nearby.

I'm up for five storeys of social housing almost anywhere in Brixton. But there's not the remotest chance of that happening anywhere. All we get is fucking entrepreneurs, offshore developers and luxury flats.

 

[Gramsci]

While I loathe off shore companies making bucks from out London property surely in this instance it would've been better to have the 5 story hotel and add another 5 stories of flats, social housing and rent-to-buy?

I don't see how a taller building would've been out of place given BlueStar House and Brixton Rec tower nearby.

Sorry what are you going on about?

Why would a developer build social housing on top of hotel? Because they are concerned about lack of affordable housing? And want to do something to solve this? Not imo the mentality of developers.

Property developers are what they are. Profit seeking. That is how the system works. They aren't there to do social good.

You do know that developers have been using "financial viability" to reduce commitments to affordable housing after planning permission has been obtained. Planning permission on the basis of a certain number of affordable untits.

 

[Gramsci]

I'm up for five storeys of social housing almost anywhere in Brixton. But there's not the remotest chance of that happening anywhere. All we get is fucking entrepreneurs, offshore developers and luxury flats.

It's not going to happen as developers can use the " financial viability" get out clause. There are tried and tested ,legal in planning terms, ways to get out of providing affordable housing in a scheme.

 

[editor]

It's not going to happen as developers can use the " financial viability" get out clause. There are tried and tested ,legal in planning terms, ways to get out of providing affordable housing in a scheme.

Yep. But - hey! - at least we got those two metal eggs outside the Barrier Block as a payoff for the social-housing free Brixton Square being built. Fucking Barratts scum.

And the real shitbag scum are the loathsome companies who have been set up to help developers squirm out of any social/affordable obligations.

If I was in charge.. first against the wall... etc etc.

 

[kikiscrumbles]

That's an interesting find - well done.

As regards keeping trying - I think the wording of the resolutions was to approve officers to grant permission on delegated powers - subject to a satisfactory section 106 agreement.

I think there could be some latitude there for negotiation on behalf of the SW9 - if they wanted to try to get more out of the deal.
I doubt the planners would make any adjustments unless they were approached by the SW9 owner themselves though (that is assuming the planners were minded to do their job properly and work on behalf of the community - not the developers!).

Yes indeed. What I understood [I'm no expert] from Point 4 of the resolutions was that if 106 [developers handing over cash to Lambeth] is not concluded within 4 months, then the deal is off. I see this as a possible chink of hope...?

If anybody is interested to read it, I had a response today from Florence Thingie [sorry can't remember her sirname], our 'Labour' member at County Hall with particular responsibility for Transport. Apologetic hand-wringing guff! I fired a challenge back at her...

 

[organicpanda]

Yep. But - hey! - at least we got those two metal eggs outside the Barrier Block as a payoff for the social-housing free Brixton Square being built. Fucking Barratts scum.

And the real shitbag scum are the loathsome companies who have been set up to help developers squirm out of any social/affordable obligations.

If I was in charge.. first against the wall... etc etc.

you're gonna need a bigger wall

 

[editor]

Just got this from Cllr Paul McGlone:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the planning application at Dorrell Place. I received a considerable volume of email representations on this, so I have ‘blind copied’ all those who wrote to me or were copied into a representation.

As you may know, I submitted objections to the original Planning Application Committee (PAC) on 2nd August for this application, and attended, with the intention of speaking, but it was deferred for several reasons, including Transport for London concerns. I took the opportunity to re-submit mine and resident’s concerns on a number of key Planning Policy issues and received some assurances from Planning officers that the concerns were taken seriously.

I attended the committee meeting this Tuesday (19th September) and addressed the Committee. I stated at the Committee that for the Developer to rely on a few letters and one local exhibit that were done in October 2015 to satisfy adequate local consultation for a Planning application being heard nearly 2 years later is outrageous, and was the kind of engagement that brought local developers into disrepute. Indeed, I know from some residents that it was only due to leaflets from myself and my colleagues in the Labour party to local residents informing them about the development that they had any idea that the application was being discussed this week. Sadly, it seems that the national rules about these consultations on developers are very weak and not mandatory.

I also stated at the committee that the traffic implications in and around Nursery Road on a 24/7 basis (in respect of coach drop-off, staff and guests and delivery and servicing arrangements and construction logistics) have not been assessed properly, and I think Planning Officers have relied on the developers projections for some of these (stated as four deliveries a day which I believe is unrealistic). I also asked that the developer and hotel operator to give some preference to the current operator of the SW9 Bar, given it is a well-liked local venue. This is not a planning matter, but the developer / operator can do this, if they choose to.

Although there were many other concerns raised, the Committee approved the application (4 to 2) so while I am disappointed, there is little that can be done to undo a decision. The Chair of the Committee did add at my request a requirement for the Developer and Council Transport to consult Local Councillors on the Traffic plans, and I will use this to further engage residents. I share resident’s concerns and will do what we can to hold the developer and hotel operator (as yet unknown to me) accountable to local community and residents.

Have you been consulted on plans for a six story hotel in central Brixton?

Yours,

Cllr Paul McGlone

LABOUR COUNCILLOR FOR FERNDALE WARD

 

[DJWrongspeed]

Sorry what are you going on about?

Why would a developer build social housing on top of hotel? Because they are concerned about lack of affordable housing? And want to do something to solve this? Not imo the mentality of developers.

Property developers are what they are. Profit seeking. That is how the system works. They aren't there to do social good.

You do know that developers have been using "financial viability" to reduce commitments to affordable housing after planning permission has been obtained. Planning permission on the basis of a certain number of affordable untits.

Apologies, I should've prefixed my comments. This was a vision rather than reality. This would be one, amongst many, ways of fixing our housing problem by giving incentives to developers to make their schemes bigger where appropriate to include more units.

The current scenario I'm only too well versed in.

 

[CH1]

Just got this from Cllr Paul McGlone:

What he says it correct - but obviously in the issue of the SW9 bar, being the ward councillor he would be in a position to apply pressure.

Asking the hotel operator to give preference to the existing bar almost sounds like management-speak for "after the redevelopment we will give him the opportunity to re-apply for his job".

 

[ViolentPanda]

you're gonna need a bigger wall

Preferably a custom-made one, so that bullets don't ricochet and hit the comrades pulling the trigger!

 

[ash]

Just got an email from Lambeth following my previous objection to confirm the planning permission has gone through although it does say public house to remain downstairs!! What that actually means who knows ????

 

[editor]

Just got an email from Lambeth following my previous objection to confirm the planning permission has gone through although it does say public house to remain downstairs!! What that actually means who knows ????

I'm guessing it'll be like what happened at the Grosvenor where the only kind of bar that can possibly exist will be something that is totally neutered by its new surroundings

 

[ash]

I'm guessing it'll be like what happened at the Grosvenor where the only kind of bar that can possibly exist will be something that id totally neutered by its new surroundings

I’m sure you are right - can’t imagine it will retain the character of the current and long standing SW9.

 

[ash]

Plan is for a 2 and 5 storey (staggered) 96 roomed hotel !!!!!

 

[editor]

Plan is for a 2 and 5 storey (staggered) 96 roomed hotel !!!!!

Brixton to be become #1 destination for stag and hen parties! Prepare the pavements as there's going to be a lot of piss coming our way!

 

[MissL]

So SW9 Bar has shut for good. That right?

 

[editor]

So SW9 Bar has shut for good. That right?

Not as far as I know. There was a sign advertising the place at the end of the alley only a few days ago.

That said, their Twitter and FB feeds have been dormant for ages.

 

[editor]

Oh hang, on. Fucksakes.



There's a thread here - SW9 bar to be closed under plans for five storey hotel for Dorrell Place

 

[Rushy]

So SW9 Bar has shut for good. That right?

Yep. There was a sign taped to the shutters this morning thanking people for their custom and some chaps were emptying things from one of the back doors.