WTF! Look what they've done to the Coach & Horses/Living Bar

[co-op]

I don't think Ajdown represents 'christians' as a group to be honest.

If he's worshipping a different god from muslims, he isn't actually a christian. Do you think we ought to tell him?

 

[Brixton Hatter]

hmm. 2 of the boards that I saw coming down yesterday morning were back up by teh evening.

I was standing right outside the place on Saturday lunchtime and the signs were still there. Did they actually get taken down at all?

 

[netbob]

I was standing right outside the place on Saturday lunchtime and the signs were still there. Did they actually get taken down at all?

For about an hour or so there was just a plyboard thing up there with no signs on it

 

[Brixton Hatter]

It's open for business. They were trying to entice people in but the locals seemed reluctant.

I have to say it was nice to see some lights in there for a change, but it's still a dayglo bloody eyesore.

Apparently you can rent the top floor. Or just the chairs!

 

[editor]

I got a response from the council. Apparently everything's jus' dandy with those signs.

I am writing following your enquiry made to the planning department with regard to the change of use at the above property.

A change of use from a bar (A4 use class) to a butcher’s shop (A1 use class) is permitted development by virtue of Class A of Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). This means that the change of use does not require planning permission from the council.

In addition, some advertisements were erected on the front of the property that required permission. Further to correspondence with the owner of the premises, the advertisements were repositioned so that they comply with the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 (as amended) and they now benefit from deemed consent under those Regulations.

There is no breach of planning control at the premises and the breach of advertisement control has been remedied and therefore the case has now been recommended for closure. I would like to thank you for your time and patience with regard to this matter.

Yours sincerely

 

[innit]

!!!!!!

They are so ugly I kind of assumed they were temporary signage. Like, why would anyone want their building to look so bad?

What a shame.

 

[teuchter]

Have you got a photo of the "amended" signs?

Lambeth can say they "comply" as if it's a case of either they tick the box or they don't.... but the reality is, that if they decide they are inappropriate, then they can disallow it. I've been involved with enough signage applications in London to know how fussy an LA can be if they want to. Could it be that Lambeth just can't be bothered, or don't give a toss about central Brixton?

 

[Brixton Hatter]

so the signs are ok, they were just in the wrong position?

FFS!

 

[editor]

Have you got a photo of the "amended" signs?

Lambeth can say they "comply" as if it's a case of either they tick the box or they don't.... but the reality is, that if they decide they are inappropriate, then they can disallow it. I've been involved with enough signage applications in London to know how fussy an LA can be if they want to. Could it be that Lambeth just can't be bothered, or don't give a toss about central Brixton?

As far as I can see they're exactly the same as they were before, but I'll check tonight.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

It's possible the signs have been moved slightly up and to the left...

 

[lang rabbie]

Basically, if the property owners don't care about the buildings, then conservation area status alone offers bugger-all protection to the character of an area apart from preventing buildings being demolished. (Well - not even that - but the fines are now sufficiently tough that developers don't tend to dare!)

Looking at Lambeth's Supplementary Planning Document - Shopfronts and Signage it gives guidance for schemes that need planning consent for changes to the structure, but doesn't have a lot to say on advertisement consents.

Were the planners asked about the blinds? There is no way that those cheap and nasty abominations are "in-keeping".

Lambeth's Unitary Development Plan adopted in 2007 does seem to have a number of areas where I would have though that they could argue that what has been done is not in compliance states at :

Policy 37 Shopfronts and Advertisements
Roller shutters that allow no view of the shop during closed hours will not be
permitted. Shutter boxes should be incorporated behind the fascia sign
wherever possible.
(a) Shopfronts
(i) Preservation – Surviving traditional shopfronts both in conservation
areas and elsewhere in the Borough should be preserved. Original
materials should be sympathetically repaired and not replaced.
(ii) Alterations to existing shopfronts should retain, repair, restore or
reinstate original features, materials, and characterful detailing.
On traditional buildings:
• Replacement window frames should use timber where appropriate and
where this is the original material. Replacement windows should copy the
original pattern and sectional profiles.
• Recessed entrance porches should be retained or reinstated if possible
• New doors, including folding doors, are not acceptable if they unbalance the
style or proportions of the shopfront. Schemes for folding doors which
replace original or period joinery will not be acceptable.
• Opportunities should be taken to make sensitive enhancements to access
for wheelchair users
• Blinds should be in keeping with the character of the building. Historic
retractable fabric blind boxes and mechanisms should be retained.
• Metal roller shutters, which allow no view of the shop during closed hours,
will not be permitted. Shutter boxes should be concealed internally.
• Flues will not be permitted on the front of the building. Flues should re-use
existing ducts (e.g. chimneys) where possible or be discreetly located at the
rear and encased in matching materials.
• Front extensions or terraces above single storey projecting shop units are
not permitted.

(iii) The Design of New and Replacement Shopfronts
Shopfronts in new buildings should use good quality materials, responding to
and enhancing the character of the building, the area, and neighbouring
buildings.
Replacement shopfronts should always relate well to the character of the
building in which they are located and neighbouring buildings. Materials and
proportions must be appropriate. Unfinished aluminium or PVCu shopfronts
will not be allowed where this would undermine the character of the building or
parade. On older buildings, especially in conservation areas, shopfronts should
normally use traditional wooden construction.
In traditional buildings, replacement shopfronts should restore or interpret
traditional designs and features, and visually integrate the ground floor with the
upper floors to retain or reinstate the building’s architectural unity.
• Existing poorly designed shopfronts will not be regarded as a precedent.
• Particular attention should be paid to enhancing verticality and to the profile
and cross-section of glazing bars and use of clerestories.
• Standard corporate logos and designs should be modified to fit in with the
character of the building and area.
• A replacement shopfront should fit into the traditional framework of
pilasters, consoles and fascia. Where the shop extends across more than
one building or bay, shopfront design should retain or reinstate separate
shopfronts.
(b) Pub Facades - Policies (a), (c) and (d) will also be applied to proposals
for the alteration of traditional pub facades. Traditional attractive pub facades
will be protected.
(c) Advertisements and Signage on Buildings – Advertisements and signage
should respect the scale of the buildings on which they are displayed, together
with the surroundings.
(i) They should not block views or windows and should not be located in
front of buildings unless these screen active building work. Displays
above fascia level should not diminish from the architectural quality of
the building.
(ii) Advertisements should not detract from public or highway safety.
(iii) Advertising is generally out of place in any predominantly residential
locality and will not be permitted.
(iv) In commercial areas, any display must be in scale with a particular
building and must not cut across any architectural features.
(v) A display must not be unduly dominant and the most important criterion
will be the overall visual effect upon the entirety of the building and its
surroundings.
(vi) Advertisements should not detract from the special character of listed
buildings or conservation areas or detract from their setting.
(d) Shopfront Advertisements - Shopfronts should avoid excessive
advertising. Fascia signs should be proportionate to the size and scale of the
shopfront and the building, and be restricted to the area defined by existing
original console brackets on the building, or neighbouring buildings,
respecting the height of neighbouring original capitals and console brackets.
Original features such as cornices, console brackets and pilasters, should not
be obscured by fascias. Projecting signs should be limited to one per property,
should be limited in size, and located at fascia level. Internally fully illuminated
translucent box signs, moving digital displays and message boards and
intermittent, flashing or light–projected signs are not permitted unless this is
appropriate to the character of the local area. Scroll-bracket mounted hanging
signs are preferred, especially on traditional buildings.

However, I have an ugly suspicion that the Department for Communities and Local Government "deregulated" some of the advertisement controls in the same year, which may mean that some of Lambeth's detailed UDP requirements might be more difficult to enforce.

 

[teuchter]

Lang Rabbie, as you point out there is more than enough stuff in the UDP that could be used to reject the signage that has been put up. I don't know about the "deregulation" you mention. I'm not aware of anything having changed substantially in the last few years.

The message I am getting from the council's response to this is very much "can't be bothered".

As it happens just the other day I got an email from a Lambeth planning officer regarding a domestic rear extension in a conservation area in Clapham. Without going into too much detail - this is a rear extension replacing an existing one which is an agglomeration of conservatories and the like. All that is to change is the external materials. The materials proposed are not particularly unusual. But the conservation officer isn't happy and says that the new parts should be in brick and slate to match the original house. In other words they want the "new" parts (which don't replace any original structure) to look like they are part of the original house. This is really dumb thinking and out of line with what I understand of modern conservation where you preserve what is of value, and make clear that new additions are new additions.

Anyway, the point is that they will kick up a fuss about something in a back garden that perhaps five households will be able to see, that won't result in the destruction of any original structure, and that isn't even any bigger than what it replaces... and yet they don't give a toss about stuff like this signage in one of the main streets in Brixton, in full public view, on a notable building, and quite obviously totally out of scale and character.

It's inconsistent and really frustrating. So much stuff involving LA planners is just so .

 

[netbob]

I did an FOI request last year asking for a list of shop front related enforcement orders, at the time there were 11 outstanding cases:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/enforcement_forders_for_replacin?unfold=1#incoming-6277

I'm betting that has gone up rather than down

I'm really hoping one of the parties makes an issue out of this at the election next year. Not that any of them is less to blame, but there's definitely electoral juice in it and might actually make something happen.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Lang Rabbie, you're a genius. As usual.

And teuchter, I agree completely, it does seem strange that the way planning is executed for individuals appears different from how it is done for business.

meme I couldn't get your link for some reason

 

[matt m]

does anyone know what the hell they mean about being able to rent the "chairs"?!

 

[innit]

Hairdressing salon, they rent chairs to hairdressers.

as in the hairdresser pays a certain amount of rent per day to use a chair and then they split profits.

 

[twistedAM]

Hairdressing salon, they rent chairs to hairdressers.

as in the hairdresser pays a certain amount of rent per day to use a chair and then they split profits.

Think they'll do mullets there?

 

[g force]

business at the front, party at the back!

 

[Fuzzy]

sorry not read the whole thread but has anyone actually checked to see whether they've got consent to display that sign. signage and adverts such as the one pictured need advertisement consent to be granted by the council in the similar way to planning permission. i'm also right in remembering that this is a listed building or in a conservation area? if so rules on displaying signs are stricter. check lambeth's planning register and if there is nothing on there contact the enforcement team and register a complaint.

 

[ddraig]

all of that has been done by the brixton urbs
just read the last couple of pages

 

[tim]

There's not exactly a shortage of halal meat and fish shops in Brixton already though is there? If they'd done their research properly they'd have discovered they weren't needed.

Do a little proper research and you'll find you've already posted a very similar two-penniesworth of bigotry a page or so back on the thread.

 

[Gramsci]

Basically, if the property owners don't care about the buildings, then conservation area status alone offers bugger-all protection to the character of an area apart from preventing buildings being demolished. (Well - not even that - but the fines are now sufficiently tough that developers don't tend to dare!)

Looking at Lambeth's Supplementary Planning Document - Shopfronts and Signage it gives guidance for schemes that need planning consent for changes to the structure, but doesn't have a lot to say on advertisement consents.

Were the planners asked about the blinds? There is no way that those cheap and nasty abominations are "in-keeping".

Lambeth's Unitary Development Plan adopted in 2007 does seem to have a number of areas where I would have though that they could argue that what has been done is not in compliance states at :


However, I have an ugly suspicion that the Department for Communities and Local Government "deregulated" some of the advertisement controls in the same year, which may mean that some of Lambeth's detailed UDP requirements might be more difficult to enforce.

Did win a case against one shopkeeper in CHL who put up signs and canopies etc. The enforcement officer did sort it out. But even if signs removed there are holes etc in brickwork. Its not just owners whodont care its the shopkeepers as well. They dont regard it as your business to object to what they do to the appearance of the buildings they use.

 

[timothysutton1]

I think this is just a general indication of how out of control Lambeth Council are. I live off Brixton Hill where we are seeing an increase in late licence premises, much to the annoyance of local residents. However in Brixton town centre they are closing down the pubs. What the hell is going on?

 

[tarannau]

Where is there an increase in late licence properties on Brixton Hill then TS? The Hootahob, Mango and White Horse all have more restrictive or earlier licences than a few years back.The Woodcocks has gone, The South Side and Telegraph are a pale shadow of their old selves and you can hardly say South Beach is tearing up things with a successful packed party schedule.

This does seem a remarkable interpretation of recent licensing if anything, especially in actuality.

 

[editor]

The old Helter Skelter/Tongue and Groove on Atlantic Road has gone forever: it's now a pawnbrokers.

 

[timothysutton1]

Where is there an increase in late licence properties on Brixton Hill....

I am talking of a period of ten, twenty years.

 

[tarannau]

Are you honestly saying that it was quieter 10 years ago? My gawd, that was the era of the Hob and Babushka lock ins, when the Fridge and Mass were popular, when the George IV was packed every weekend with K casualties and when the Telegraph was one of the hottest nightclub pubs in the country.

I'll give you that the White Horse was a more sleepy Irish pub around that time, but the idea that it was quieter 10 years ago seems frankly bizarre.

20 years ago and we're into Canning territory and certainly not what I think as gentle times.

 

[netbob]

I think this is just a general indication of how out of control Lambeth Council are. I live off Brixton Hill where we are seeing an increase in late licence premises, much to the annoyance of local residents. However in Brixton town centre they are closing down the pubs. What the hell is going on?

Councils (wrongly imo) lost all their powers for strategic planning years ago. If the market says no-pubs / more pubs thats what we get.

 

[timothysutton1]

...it was quieter 10 years ago?...

... in our street, yes it was.

 

[teuchter]

you can hardly say South Beach is tearing up things with a successful packed party schedule.

Have you been past there on a Fri/Sat night recently? There is often a queue outside, or people generally, and the first 100m or so of Arodene Road is pretty solidly parked up with cars, with people coming back and forth to them. I can see why people along that bit of road might not be totally happy.

The White Horse is usually open till about 3 or 4 on the weekends and there have been a lot more people standing/sitting outside since the smoking ban came in. Did it once have a later licence than that? I don't remember if it did.

Personally, though, I have no objection to stuff being open late on Brixton Hill because I like the fact that there is stuff going on a convenient five minutes' walk from my house.