The Hero Of Switzerland

[Gramsci]

Other issues I've come across in officers report is putting residential above a function room/ Pub that is going to have live music and amplified music. There are mitigating soundproofing etc but this depends on not opening Windows having a sound limiter. None of which in my experience work well in central Brixton.

Objectors have raised this in comments. I think its worth saying at committee. Given experience of Brixton its going to be a possible problem in the future.

Secondly the play space requirement for children is not met. So developer is paying a ( relatively small) amount of money in lieu.

Imo this is sign of overdevelopment of site that it cannot provide adequate play space for the number number of children officers reckon will be in the development.

IMO its not acceptable to cram all these flats on a small site and assume can get around adequate play space for children.

 

[Gramsci]

The whole officers report is about recommending the scheme.

Overlooking and loss of light are dealt with in detail. That a layman like me finds hard to follow. I feel this is deliberate.

What I get is that a small number of properties will have a loss of light. But given the benefits of the scheme and the loss being only a few nearby flats its acceptable.

Well maybe but I'm not in one of the very few flats affected.

Overlooking is dealt with by "fins" which will discourage overlooking. But does this mean it will stop it completely? Discouraging is the word officers use.

A bit technical but a valid point?

At several points the officer says that the idea of this being a "landmark" building ( which is what the developer was saying) is not a material planning consideration. But the officers in the report defend the design. Saying it incorporates the corbusier golden triangle which relates it to the estate.

The officers can't have it both ways. Saying criticism of the developer idea that this is a Landmark building is not relevant objection then going in detail to support the architects design for the building. Which is subjective.

At pre application meeting the developer/ architect justified the height and design as being a "Landmark" building that would "kickstart" the regeneration of the area.

 

[alex_]

I'm going to post up some of my thoughts as I've been reading the officers report to recommend the scheme.


On the affordable housing they have had difficulty getting RSLs interested in the few social housing units. Only two have shown interest.

There is get out clause if no RSL is interested. Then developer can give money in lieu.

Officers say they have had "robust" discussions with developer. There is whole page on this in report. I still think Cllrs should make the 40% agreed planning policy stick. What's the point of all these consultations on Local Plan if developers can ignore them?

Mayor has told planning he is not satisfied with the amount of affordable housing.

The officers say the proposal goes over the agreed density levels that are allowed per hectare. Interesting one this. The officers then give reasons why they recommend despite this. So planning guidelines are just that to officers.

The law re the 40% threshold and the affordability test is a really poor piece of legislation, ultimately the council get rings runs around them.

The council probably also knows this, they can push for 40% but they risk the developer getting in the consultants and lawyers and getting nothing.

1 second with google finds stuff like this - S106 Renegotiations | S106 Management

Alex

 

[Gramsci]

The law re the 40% threshold and the affordability test is a really poor piece of legislation, ultimately the council get rings runs around them.

The council probably also knows this, they can push for 40% but they risk the developer getting in the consultants and lawyers and getting nothing.

1 second with google finds stuff like this - S106 Renegotiations | S106 Management

Alex

This is in the report. The developers already hired consultants to produce a viability report.

At the pre application meetings the developers said the plans would be "policy compliant" . They understand that people were concerned about affordable housing in the area.

This of course was bollox. Developers are just out to make as much profit as they can. Its pure capitalism.

Property developers in my experience are the worst kind of people I have met.

I still think its an issue to raise with Cllrs.

The viability assessment issue is an example of how capitalists ensure the system works for them whilst on the surface it appears that everything is ok. The myth of viability is that this is just an apolitical test of the market to ensure a fair profit for the hard done by property developer.

 

[alex_]

This is in the report. The developers already hired consultants to produce a viability report.

At the pre application meetings the developers said the plans would be "policy compliant" . They understand that people were concerned about affordable housing in the area.

This of course was bollox. Developers are just out to make as much profit as they can. Its pure capitalism.

Property developers in my experience are the worst kind of people I have met.

I still think its an issue to raise with Cllrs.

The viability assessment issue is an example of how capitalists ensure the system works for them whilst on the surface it appears that everything is ok. The myth of viability is that this is just an apolitical test of the market to ensure a fair profit for the hard done by property developer.

While the law permits the viability assessment - there isn’t much the council can do, eg “pop Brixton “doesn’t make any money””

Eg After we’ve paid “our brick supplier” fifty pounds per brick, we don’t make any money so we can’t afford any affordable homes.

Alex

 

[Gramsci]

While the law permits the viability assessment - there isn’t much the council can do, eg “pop Brixton “doesn’t make any money””

Eg After we’ve paid “our brick supplier” fifty pounds per brick, we don’t make any money so we can’t afford any affordable homes.

Alex

I know.

But what can I do?

Gentrification is driven by measures like these. So called Viability Assessments are one of the measures that push gentrification.

I don't know what to do sometimes.

This is why people get cynical about the so called democracy we live in. Everyone can have their say then the rich and powerful get what they want.

Really I think authoritarian regimes like China / Russia are missing how to do it right.

They should copy this country. Give people all the rights to speak then set up the system so vermin like property developers do what they want most of the time.

Let's face it property developers are vermin.

 

[Gramsci]

Another reason to raise the issue of affordable housing is that the Planning Committee is made of mainly of Labour Cllrs.

None of the Cllrs support the idea of the Corbyn / McDonnell led government. Which as least could push the country to the left. Take on the rich and powerful.

These Labour Cllrs need to be reminded these are live issues for local people.

Not everyone is enthusiastic about the neo Liberal third way approach. As exemplified locally by Pop Brixton. So beloved of the Blairite leader the the Council Jack Hopkins.

This isn't being personal about Jack. It is that his politics are symptomatic of the this is how the world works supporters of the Third Way.

You can't buck the system but you can ask business people nicely to "put back" into the community Third Way nonsense.

 

[Gramsci]

Summary of my thoughts :


I attended the pre application meetings out this proposal.


Local opinion was universally against this plan.


A few points.

• This is a gross overdevelopment of a small site. The developer is trying to maximise profits by building a tall tower. Other recent development nearby haven't done this. So I don't understand why the developer in this case is saying the site isn't feasible unless they build this high.
  
  
• Overdevelopment of the site is seen in two ways in officers report. The amount of playspace required for a development of this size is to small according to planning guidelines. This is imo unacceptable. The developer paying money in lieu does not make up for the lack of playspace that future residents by right ought to have.
  
  
• The footprint of the site is small so the developer is relying on publicly owned space nearby to justify a high density tower block. This is unacceptable. The developer bought the site knowing full well the size. I object to a private property developer relying on public space to justify their development.
  
  
• So on two measures this is overdevelopment of this small site.
  
  
• Putting flats directly above a pub that has live and amplified music is likely to cause conflict in the future. The soundproofing measure rely on people not opening windows for example. Whilst the present landlord will keep to management plans premises change hands. I don't have faith in Lambeth Licensing to ensure measures to stop nuisance to occupants in the future.
  
  
• The PTAL rating isn't that high. The officers report does not take into consideration the fact that at peak times the LJ station is packed.
  
  
• The Mayor of London , as stated in the officers report says he is not happy with the level of affordable housing. I agree with the MayorI. I attended the pre application meetings. Developer said to me affordable housing would be "policy compliant". Its not. Developer said they understood in an area like this that affordable housing is an issue. Policy is 40%. Developer has been arguing with planning. Applicant has been trying to reduce the affordable housing to as low as they can. This is not acceptable in an area of high deprivation that desperately needs more genuinely affordable housing.
  
  
• On design. I agree with Brixton Society this tower is out of keeping with the Corbusier design of the housing estate. This is a great example of early post war Council housing. The proposed tower is out of keeping with the existing architecture.
  
  
• Most aggravating is the developer saying at the pre application meetings that this tower block would kickstart the regeneration of this area. This is an insult. Nothing wrong with this area. Except for Tory cuts.
  
  
• Officer report imo is contradictory. The developer at pre application meetings was also saying ( along with this kick-starting the regeneration of area)that this tower would be a "Landmark" building. They produced drawings to show this. Officers say opposing this is not a material planning consideration. Yet the same planning officers support the developers questionable contention that this design fits in with the Corbusier design of the Council estate. Officers can't have it both ways. Deeming one kind of criticism illegitimate but saying their views on design are.
  
  
• I think a site visit is in order to see full effect of this design on the neighborhood
  

 

[alex_]

Summary of my thoughts :


I attended the pre application meetings out this proposal.


Local opinion was universally against this plan.


A few points.

• This is a gross overdevelopment of a small site. The developer is trying to maximise profits by building a tall tower. Other recent development nearby haven't done this. So I don't understand why the developer in this case is saying the site isn't feasible unless they build this high.
  
  
• Overdevelopment of the site is seen in two ways in officers report. The amount of playspace required for a development of this size is to small according to planning guidelines. This is imo unacceptable. The developer paying money in lieu does not make up for the lack of playspace that future residents by right ought to have.
  
  
• The footprint of the site is small so the developer is relying on publicly owned space nearby to justify a high density tower block. This is unacceptable. The developer bought the site knowing full well the size. I object to a private property developer relying on public space to justify their development.
  
  
• So on two measures this is overdevelopment of this small site.
  
  
• Putting flats directly above a pub that has live and amplified music is likely to cause conflict in the future. The soundproofing measure rely on people not opening windows for example. Whilst the present landlord will keep to management plans premises change hands. I don't have faith in Lambeth Licensing to ensure measures to stop nuisance to occupants in the future.
  
  
• The PTAL rating isn't that high. The officers report does not take into consideration the fact that at peak times the LJ station is packed.
  
  
• The Mayor of London , as stated in the officers report says he is not happy with the level of affordable housing. I agree with the MayorI. I attended the pre application meetings. Developer said to me affordable housing would be "policy compliant". Its not. Developer said they understood in an area like this that affordable housing is an issue. Policy is 40%. Developer has been arguing with planning. Applicant has been trying to reduce the affordable housing to as low as they can. This is not acceptable in an area of high deprivation that desperately needs more genuinely affordable housing.
  
  
• On design. I agree with Brixton Society this tower is out of keeping with the Corbusier design of the housing estate. This is a great example of early post war Council housing. The proposed tower is out of keeping with the existing architecture.
  
  
• Most aggravating is the developer saying at the pre application meetings that this tower block would kickstart the regeneration of this area. This is an insult. Nothing wrong with this area. Except for Tory cuts.
  
  
• Officer report imo is contradictory. The developer at pre application meetings was also saying ( along with this kick-starting the regeneration of area)that this tower would be a "Landmark" building. They produced drawings to show this. Officers say opposing this is not a material planning consideration. Yet the same planning officers support the developers questionable contention that this design fits in with the Corbusier design of the Council estate. Officers can't have it both ways. Deeming one kind of criticism illegitimate but saying their views on design are.
  
  
• I think a site visit is in order to see full effect of this design on the neighborhood

I agree with all of this, but none of your objections are going to lead to more affordable homes.

Alex

 

[CH1]

Regarding the planning committee hearing for the Hero site, it has to be said Gramsci and Anthea Massey put in clear well organised speeches (within the diminutive 2 minutes now allowed to each objector to speak).

I was pleased that Cllr Scarlet O'Hara (Coldharbour Ward) put in an appearance to relay objections to this scheme from her constituents.

What was altogether weird was the tone of the planning councillors' debate.

In the end only one councillor (Ben Kind - Tulse Hill ward I think) dared to vote against the proposal - he seemed very concerned with design issues about over-looking and window screens to prevent this.

To be honest I would say that 5 years ago an issue like serious overlooking would have been enough for the application to be withdrawn for radical alteration and submission.

As me and Gramsci were reminiscing afterwards, gone are the days when there was some opposition holding officers and Labour councillors to account. Former Cllrs Brian Palmer (in particular) and aslo Steve Bradley were clear in highlighting defects in planning proposals than had to be put right.

Not only that former Cllr Diana Morris as committee chair would wind up discussions and was not averse to putting forward proposals to chuck out unsatisfactory plans. She also would insist that the officers give guidance on appropriate watertight grounds for refusal. The present chair allowed the meeting to drift on interminably with no direction. The agenda was set by the officers - and the agenda was to get the application through.

The overal impression one gets from the current proceedings at the Town Hall is that the planning officer sells the scheme for 30 minutes, the objectors are give 2 minute each to object (4 minutes total in this case).

The planning committee are then given time to ask questions. Virtually all the questions were answered by officers. Including questions about viability assessments - it seems that Lambeth Planning employ a firm of property consultants to work out viability assessments. Lambeth's property consultants then apparently swap notes with the developer's viability assessment consultants - and present a suitable stitch-up to the councillors.

Generally all the questions from councillors were simply batted away - like asking Boris Johnson something (but without the abuse!).

Thanks to Councillor Ben Kind for not being fobbed off. Why on earth did the other 5 councillors just rubber stamp this monstrosity?

Becca - we think you will be in a maelstrom of discontent if you do the same again on Higgs!

 

[teuchter]

I totally missed that this had gone to committee already - it's now been given permission?

 

[CH1]

I totally missed that this had gone to committee already - it's now been given permission?

Yes - without any apparent alterations required. Subject to section 106 of course - this seemed to be to do with childrens play space and landscaping.

One point - one of the planning councillors said she thought she might - if a resident - require access to the roof garden at 5 am if she had a crying baby to nurse. Accordingly I think they dropped some condition about limiting access to the roof garden between 10 pm and 7 am.

 

[editor]

Yes - without any apparent alterations required. Subject to section 106 of course - this seemed to be to do with childrens play space and landscaping.

One point - one of the planning councillors said she thought she might - if a resident - require access to the roof garden at 5 am if she had a crying baby to nurse. Accordingly I think they dropped some condition about limiting access to the roof garden between 10 pm and 7 am.

Maybe you might get a pair of those essential eggs that have brought such joy to a deprived council estate.

 

[CH1]

Maybe you might get a pair of those essential eggs that have brought such joy to a deprived council estate.

I take your point. But remember we had to wait about 4 years before those supposed dinosaur eggs materialised.

In the case of the Hero of Switzerland development it seemed to be more a matter of planting two or three trees in front of the Featley flats - and I think blocking off one end of the access road - which might not be good if the restaurant got into Deliveroo etc.

 

[Gramsci]

Agree with what CH1 has posted.

Cllr Ben Kind was the only Cllr to vote against the application. Where I differ from CH1 account of the meeting Im sure Cllr Kind ( Labour) voted against the application as he didn't think he had a satisfactory explanations from the officers why the original Lambeth viability assessment, which said a much larger percentage of affordable housing was posssible, was later changed. This was after talks with the developers viability assessment consultants Savills with Lambeth planners and the Lambeth consultants. Cllr Benn Kind was trying to get to the bottom of how Lambeth planners agreed with a lot of what the developers consultants Savills said.

Out of all the Cllrs Ben Kind did ask probing questions.

In short why didn't the officers stick to their guns and say their viability assessment should stand. Rather than have it watered down by their opponents.

There was defence by officers/ viability consultant that they are duty bound to negotiate and discuss figures with the developers consultants. Savills had according the the Council consultant and officers put forward figures about costs that in the opinion of the Council consultants and officers were reasonable.

Viability is about how much profit the developer can make versus the amount of affordable housing that can be obtained. The developer will try to argue that the costs of development are high. Which will reduce profit. Also the housing market is variable. So the discussion between planners and developers is about projected costs of development, profit levels ( around 16% is considered the reasonable amount).

In this case as it is a high tower costs are higher than low rise. So its less "viable".

I can understand why Cllr Kind found the whole discussion on viability frustrating.

The Council policy is 40% affordable on large developments such as this. But every time developers /planning officers agree much lower amount than the democratically agreed 40%.

So what is the point of the policy?

Being there hearing the discussion at the Planning Committee I ended up thinking this democracy stuff is bollox.

Wha is the point of taking part in the so called democratic process when developers get what they want and agreed policy in practise never happens?

I had to sit right next to the developers. They all turned up in their suits.

Bunch of slimy sharks.

Worst was that the officers had written a long report for the meeting. We objectors read this and came to committee with our notes to read out.

Then the Officers sprang on us that the report was now out of date.

Turns out they and developers had been frantically trying to get the Mayor / GLA on board. So between the developer and planning officers they had agreed one more unit of affordable housing and this has meant the GLA / Mayor supported the scheme.

Thank you so much Sadiq for that.

Really not helpful to read a long report then turn up to have sprung on you that.

I reckon officers / developer knew that was a weakness in the report. And pulled out all the stops to overcome in the last few days before the committe meeting.

The officers claimed at the meeting that the GLA/ Mayor had done their own Viability and agreed with planning officers/ developers one.

That didn't get questioned by Cllrs. This was all very last minute with little real evidence presented except the planning offficers saying so.

 

[Gramsci]

I did ask for a site visit to see the effect of this tall tower on the area. As I didn't think looking at drawings / models was enough.

None of the Cllrs took this up.

I was somewhat annoyed by this.

A site visit can be requested by Cllrs so they can visit the actual site and see the context in which a new development would sit.

As this is a big tower I thought that was reasonable request.

Several objectors had brought up the issue of the existing layout of the Council estate and this new tower.

Brixton Society, LJAG and Loughborough Junction Neighborhood Forum for example.

 

[Gramsci]

One of the Cllrs said it was unfortunate that this would effect the Corbusier influenced Council estate but he still voted for the application.

 

[Gramsci]

I agree with CH1 about the general tone of the planning committee meeting.

I haven't done one of these PAC for quite a while.

IMO they have deteriorated.

Someone like Cllr Palmer would have definitely asked more about design and the architecture.

What I found my disturbing was the way officers saw it as their role to persuade Cllrs to support the application.

They didn't present an even handed evaluation of the scheme. Describing the pros and cons of the application. What issues Cllrs ( who after all are layman who are their to represent the ordinary Joe) might like to question developers about. They didn't do any of this.

I felt the whole processs was staged managed by the planing officers. The head was present - Bristow. He had another one of his staff give the power point presentation. She spoke glowingly about how the planners and developers had worked together to produce this wonderful scheme. Whilst Bristow looked on approvingly as his minion did a great presentation.

I find it aggravating that the new high tech refurbished Town Hall is used to give Sharks what they want.

Cllrs on the PAC can ask questions of the developers. As CH1 says all the discussion was between Cllrs and planning officers. Not developers.

The planning officers turned up with power point presentation of why this application should be agreed.

As I told one of my Ward Cllrs next day the Planning officers were doing the developers job for them. Lobbying on their behalf.

Its like someone said to me the senior officers and developer spend a long time discussing the application and get to close.

Planning officers, on my experience of that meeting, have forgotten that their role is to support the local community.

We got two minutes each to present our case. The planning officers got the majority of the two hours it took to discuss this the application.

Its unfair and its not democratic as the planners have got an unhealthy relationship with developers.

As we objectors had followed this application, had local knowledge as residents and read the whole of the application it was most frustrating that we could not ask questions. Especially as the Planning officers saw their role as getting the application agreed.

I had my two minutes then had to listen to the developers friends our Planning officers support this scheme with no reservations.

It was noticable that the developers never had to say anything , except a few minutes of bland statements.

Lambeth planning officers made sure the developers got what they wanted.

As a example of how a Cooperative Council works in practise this was very disappointing.

It makes me understand why people can be totally cynical about the democratic process.

 

[Gramsci]

The developers said the LEMB supported the application.

critical1

Anyone know about this? If that is true?

Developer said they are going to refurbish the Hero Square. And LEMB supported this.

 

[editor]

CH1 and Gramsci - are you OK if I use your comments here for a Buzz article?
(Just 'like' this post if so!)

 

[Gramsci]

CH1 and Gramsci - are you OK if I use your comments here for a Buzz article?
(Just 'like' this post if so!)

Yes.

I'd appreciate it if you put in good word for Cllr Kind. He did put a lot of effort into trying to question officers. He opposed the application due to not being happy about officers explanations of why their negotiations with the developer over the amount of affordable housing led to so little in the scheme the officers recommended approval for.

I was impressed by Cllr Kind grasp of the issues.

 

[Gramsci]

I was pleased that Cllr Scarlet O'Hara (Coldharbour Ward) put in an appearance to relay objections to this scheme from her constituents.

!

It was good to see one of the new Coldharbour Ward Cllrs support local feeling about this application.

Anthea spoke for LJAG. Who ( along with Brixton Society) opposed the application.

The Hero is in Coldharbour Ward.

 

[Gramsci]

The other thing that I don't think I've added is that the planning officers say they now have agreement that the playspace on the roof of the tower block will be accessible to all future residents. Whether in the social housing / shared ownership or private.

Its one concession officers made to objectors.

The issue of playspace not being accessible to social housing / shared ownership residents comes up a lot in London.

Disabled children among social tenants blocked from communal gardens

This recent one describes how complicated and unclear it is.

It appears in the case of Westbourne Place the original plans said access to all residents. Its now a tangled web of different sides blaming each other for the social housing residents being excluded from the communal garden.

From what I can gather from the article the development was planned to have communal gardens open to all residents. It hinges on service charges. So both sides ( the social housing provider and the private property management) say its purely economic cost of service charges. But after questioning by Guardian change story. Its so unclear and tangled that the losers are the social housing residents.

 

[BusLanes]

Sounds pretty grim. Guess this is what happens when there are only 6 or so opposition councillors.

 

[Gramsci]

Sounds pretty grim. Guess this is what happens when there are only 6 or so opposition councillors.

The opposition Green Cllr voted for the application.

The only Cllr who voted against was a Labour Cllr.

The underlying issue is how planning has become less democratic.

Planning is something , whilst boring, has big effect on people's every day lives.

My years of taking part on and off in planning issues/ master plans haven't imo had much effect.

Its about time property developers were put in their place. Its them in reality along with big name starachitects who now mould the environment we live in. They are increasing a move to a more divided city.

 

[BusLanes]

The opposition Green Cllr voted for the application.

The only Cllr who voted against was a Labour Cllr.

The underlying issue is how planning has become less democratic.

Planning is something , whilst boring, has big effect on people's every day lives.

My years of taking part on and off in planning issues/ master plans haven't imo had much effect.

Its about time property developers were put in their place. Its them in reality along with big name starachitects who now mould the environment we live in. They are increasing a move to a more divided city.

Huh. Thought the Greens would have opposed it, even if just to make the point. Who was it - Thackery?

 

[alex_]

The opposition Green Cllr voted for the application.

The only Cllr who voted against was a Labour Cllr.

The underlying issue is how planning has become less democratic.

Planning is something , whilst boring, has big effect on people's every day lives.

My years of taking part on and off in planning issues/ master plans haven't imo had much effect.

Its about time property developers were put in their place. Its them in reality along with big name starachitects who now mould the environment we live in. They are increasing a move to a more divided city.

The law is written to favour developers, and Lambeth needs to build a lot of houses ( forecast 30k population growth in Lambeth 2018 to 2028 ), that’s at least 1k extra flats/houses per year. ( Assuming each holds 4 which is probably a bit high. )

I suspect the reason it looks like the council officers support the developer is that the council officers will be the ones who end up in court, paying for the lawyers when the developer takes them to court.

Alex

 

[Gramsci]

Huh. Thought the Greens would have opposed it, even if just to make the point. Who was it - Thackery?

Yes it was her.

 

[CH1]

The law is written to favour developers, and Lambeth needs to build a lot of houses ( forecast 30k population growth in Lambeth 2018 to 2028 ), that’s at least 1k extra flats/houses per year. ( Assuming each holds 4 which is probably a bit high. )

I suspect the reason it looks like the council officers support the developer is that the council officers will be the ones who end up in court, paying for the lawyers when the developer takes them to court.

Alex

I've never hear of that. When did a council officer get taken to court personally because councillors on a planning committee refused an application?

 

[alex_]

I've never hear of that. When did a council officer get taken to court personally because councillors on a planning committee refused an application?

They’ll be in court representing the council, not personally.