# Popes road car park to become temporary Ice Rink



## Gramsci (Jul 18, 2010)

I got email from "Future Brixton" that the Popes road car park (next to Rec) is to become new home for the Ice Rink that was in Streatham. Its going to be temporary home whilst the Streatham development is finished. 

 The Car Park, according to the Council is structurally unsound and needs to be demolished. Its owned by Council as is the land its on.

I was wondering what people think of this?

The market traders arent happy the Car park is closed and there hasnt been replacement parking put in place.




Dear Future Brixton mailing list



Council Cabinet to consider temporary ice rink in Brixton



A cabinet report published today recommends the disused Popes Rd car park in Brixton is earmarked as the site for a temporary ice rink as part of the Streatham Hub regeneration scheme. The council-owned site is scheduled for demolition this year and would mean that the temporary ice rink could open next summer. 



A shortlist of three sites – comprising the disused Popes Rd car park, Streatham Common and 512/522 Streatham High Road was considered. The Popes Rd site was chosen as the best option based on a number of factors including ease of access for visitors, technical matters, such as drainage and power supply, along with timescales and costs of developing land. This town centre location, next to Brixton Rec, already accommodates a large leisure facility and has excellent transport links. 



If agreed, a planning application to build the temporary ice rink in Brixton will be submitted this summer. 



The temporary rink could be open by next summer and will aim to encourage new skaters in Brixton, as well as provide a temporary home for existing skater groups.



We will be talking with local residents and businesses over the summer in addition to the statutory planning consultation and look forward to hearing your views.



You can find the latest information about Streatham Hub on the council website or you can use the contact the Future Streatham project team on futurestreatham@lambeth.gov.uk or on freephone 0800 052 6336.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jul 18, 2010)

Cars = bad; leisure = good.

It gets my vote. (No city in the world has better public transport than Brixton. We can justly complain about many things, but lack of transportation options isn't one of them. As has been pointed out before, retailers instinctively overestimate their customers' dependence on cars).


----------



## ajdown (Jul 18, 2010)

If something isn't safe to be used as a car park... then why is it safe to be used as an ice rink?  An ice rink, in itself, which replaces another crumbling one.

Don't think I'll be using it meself either way though.


----------



## co-op (Jul 18, 2010)

ajdown said:


> If something isn't safe to be used as a car park... then why is it safe to be used as an ice rink?  An ice rink, in itself, which replaces another crumbling one.
> 
> Don't think I'll be using it meself either way though.





You think they're going to use the actual car park?


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2010)

They ice rink has got council backing: http://www.urban75.org/blog/brixton-station-road-car-park-to-become-ice-rink/

I can't wait to see the back of that fucking hideous car park.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Aug 3, 2010)

It's the best of a bad solution. Here's hoping that the council keeps to the pledge to move the temporary rink back to Streatham as part of the Hub project, and that also the promise not to allow Tesco to open until it has built the new pool and rink back in SW16 is also kept to.

The Brixton Market traders are far from happy, and neither are the hockey players or skaters from Streatham. Like I said - best of a bad solution.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2010)

But that monstrous building gets reduced to rubble and the kids of Brixton get something to do, so it's not all bad.


----------



## Kanda (Aug 3, 2010)

ajdown said:


> If something isn't safe to be used as a car park... then why is it safe to be used as an ice rink?  An ice rink, in itself, which replaces another crumbling one.
> 
> Don't think I'll be using it meself either way though.


 
You could read the OP: 'The council-owned site is scheduled for demolition this year and would mean that the temporary ice rink could open next summer. '


----------



## Tricky Skills (Aug 3, 2010)

editor said:


> But that monstrous building gets reduced to rubble and the kids of Brixton get something to do, so it's not all bad.


 
I'm in favour, broadly. Having a rink in Brixton, right next to the Rec as well is great. We should make the most of it whilst it is here. There is a strong feeling in Streatham, misguided or otherwise,  that once again, Brixton gets all the re-development whereas Streatham is left to die on its arse.

Sites were available in Streatham (and were investigated by the council.) Finding a council owned plot of land, and pulling down that bloody awful car park at the same time ticks all the right planning boxes.


----------



## Jonti (Aug 4, 2010)

Laughing Toad said:


> Cars = bad; leisure = good.
> 
> It gets my vote. (No city in the world has better public transport than Brixton. We can justly complain about many things, but lack of transportation options isn't one of them. As has been pointed out before, retailers instinctively overestimate their customers' dependence on cars).


It's not a simple _cars vs leisure_ tradeoff.  People's jobs are at stake here, and the future of Brixton Market as a source of world foods. 

A great many Brixton Market shoppers are women with young children carrying heavy items, who need somewhere to park.   And there's a healthy "onward wholesale" trade too; check the size of sacks of vegetables, grains and pulses in even small grocers shops in Brixton and you begin to get the idea.  The distinctive character and economic health of the market depends in large part on shifting goods out of the area wholesale style! 

Even in the future, when all cars are electric, people will still need to cart loads around.  And Tesco themselves seem in no doubt about the importance of parking to their business. Is there a Tesco of any size without associated parking?

Truth is, LB Lambeth is getting stitched up by Tesco again; Tesco gets to expand its Streatham store and to strangle Brixton's grocery trade as a bonus


----------



## netbob (Aug 4, 2010)

Whilst it would be lovely if people didn't use cars to go shopping, the reality is that (at least for now) lots of people do. How many people will now go to Tesco or Lidl on Acre Lane because of the convenient carparks? Especially midweek when the market is already faltering.

I guess you could argue that closing a carpark will help the shift away from cars locally, but if it's done in isolation without measures to support the market traders then they end up taking the hit.

I wonder if the council couldn't:

- Make Tesco/Lidly charge (or charge more) for parking
- Explicitly advertise the alternative parking they are supposed to be putting in place
- Put lots more of those cyclehoops down electric avenue / station road


extra: yes the building is minging, no I don't drive.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Aug 4, 2010)

.....and don't underestimate the number of people who use Brixton Market but live miles away. What damages the market damages Brixton.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 4, 2010)

This is a fucking stupid and short-sighted decision. I'm guessing that they believe it's a good way to make a quick saving and kill 2 birds with one stone, but it's kicking out another supporting leg from underneath the market. More than a fair few people I know, ex Brixton residents mainly, drive in and use that car park when visiting the market occasionally. Where they go now is a mystery

It's alright for us folk living within walking distance but this really sucks. Is it a done deal?


----------



## Jonti (Aug 4, 2010)

no, it's not a done deal, although council officers seem keen (somewhat dishonestly, I'd say) to give the impression that it is, and that there is no alternative.

But no contracts have been signed yet, so there is every chance that Tesco or the Council will have second thoughts if there is sufficient outcry in support of the market traders.

There must be suitable alternative sites for an ice-skating rink somewhere in Lambeth, but parking for Brixton can only be in Brixton.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Aug 4, 2010)

Cabinet has identified a third site along Streatham High Road for the rink. This was dismissed because of cost. Unlike Pope's Road, the council doesn't own it (two birds, one stone theory) and Tesco "doesn't have the budget." Tesco does have the cheek however to demand as part of the deal a further 40% increase in retail space back in Streatham.

Before Pope's Road became the current site of choice, Cabinet confirmed that twelve sites were considered for the temporary rink. It refused to name these publicly. Interestingly these have now been named, at the same time as Pope's Road becoming public knowledge. They include Brockwell Park and Clapham Common 

The timing of making the other sites public seems to be to soften the blow to market traders back in Brixton.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 16, 2010)

Got this today from the market traders.



LAMBETH COUNCIL AND TESCO : SKATING ON THIN ICE

We believe Lambeth Council and Tesco are working to ethnically cleanse Brixton Market. They want a ‘temporary’ ice rink on Pope’s Road multi storey car park -  to replace the rink in Streatham. Tesco will then have a monopoly on shoppers’ parking in Brixton town centre. The “temporary” rink will last at least 3 years. This will have a disproportionate impact on the independent ethnic shop keepers in the arcades, Electric Avenue, Atlantic Road and Pope’s Road. Their customers will be forced to shop elsewhere.


•	We say put the temporary ice rink on Tesco’s car park

•	We say public parking for Brixton Market and the town centre can only be in Brixton town centre

•	Streatham people want to keep the ice rink in Streatham. We say let them keep it in Streatham! 

•	Why put the rink on a site which will negatively affect existing businesses and their customers?


WE SAY

HANDS OFF OUR CAR PARK !


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 16, 2010)

Dear Friends and colleagues




I am writing to you in order to gain your support for 'Hands Off Our Car Park'





Tesco is building a new superstore/sports complex in Streatham on the site of the ice rink and sports centre. While this work is going on Lambeth council has decreed that there should be 'continuity of ice'. The site recommended for this continuity is Pope's Road multistorey car park. The temporary ice rink will be in place for a minimum of three, possibly four, years. 




The ice rink users in Streatham don't want the rink in Brixton - parking is already an issue in the town centre and this will only increase demand for parking spaces. A successful campaign - 'Hands Off Our Common' was mounted when the residents of Streatham discovered that the council wanted to recommend putting the temporary ice rink on common ground.




Pope's Road car park was closed 4 days before Christmas 2009, and trade has dropped off significantly since the closure. Demolition is yet to begin.




The council has ignored all concerns from central Brixton businesses about the impact the temporary ice rink will have on the economy of Brixton town centre. The proposal even goes against the council's own Future Brixton Masterplan which states  




'The masterplan is committed to reproviding all of the used car parking spaces for the town centre' (p38), and 'car parking is to be located in a new multi-storey facility at Popes Road, on-street and at the rear of proposed developments on Somerleyton Road and in the ground level Tesco car park adjacent to the Town Hall area, as a means to reinforce footfall in the centre and help to market Brixton as a major retail destination '(p68). 




Meanwhile street market traders, indoor market traders and local independent shop keepers are suffering because shoppers have very limited parking spaces to take their weekly shop home. We are haemorrhaging  customers to shopping centres such as Peckham, Lewisham and Tooting




We have no choice but to mount a campaign. The council must see sense and put the ice rink on a more suitable site - one which the rink users, the people of Streatham and Brixton businesses are comfortable with. Otherwise there will be no Brixton Market.




The Friends of Brixton market have offered their help and support for the campaign




Please read the attached campaign document and let me know as soon as possible if you do or do not wish to have your organisation associated with the campaign.We already have widespread support from the local business community, but off course your support will add much greater weight to the campaign. 




The next steps 




an organisational meeting will be held in the week starting 23rd August
send the campaign document to Lambeth council.
a public petition will be organised
a public meeting prior to the full council meeting of Wednesday October 13th




Please feel free to forward the campaign on to any interested community groups or organisations





The future of Brixton market depends on this.



Stuart Horwood

CEO Brixton Market Community Interest Company

stuart@brixtonmarket.net

07960 942060


----------



## Skaters4the Hub (Aug 19, 2010)

Hi

Skaters 4 the Hub are against the Temporary Riink being on the Popes Road car park site, we were promised by Tesco's that if we accepted the need for them to build a temporary Ice Rink elsewhere, so that they would be able to demolish everything on the Streatham hub Site and have a cheaper quicker build, what do Tesco's get for this breach of the mayor's condition set down in 2004 by Ken Livingston to protect Streatham Ice Rink, they get their store 2 years earlier, a simpler construction single phase project, not content with these massive advantages they also are requesting an extra 50% of floor space for their store taking it from 40,000 sq ft to 60,000 sq ft by putting in a mezzanine floor for white goods. At 2004 prices they would have had to spend £2.4m pounds shoring up the then operational swimming pool to put in the bus turnaround area, they must have jumped for joy to learn the pool had been closed and would never open again. Lambeth's Labour election pledge was we would have the temporary rink on Streatham Common but Tesco's said could they reduce the size from 30m*60m we said and agreed that providing we have all the same facilities that we have in Streatham i.e. 58m*28m Ice Pad, cafe, party room, skate changing area, skateshop, coaches rooms, home and away hockey changeing rooms with showers, storage rooms for kit, 250 seats as a minimum, we thought they would honour their word but no HOOC fought them and won the day preventing the temporary rink from being on the common, Lambeth then say they investigated 14 alternative sites, amongst them the MI5 site in Streatham high Road and Popes Road, Abbey Storage have an existing planning permission and own the land at the MI5 site so that was out of the question, hence left with Popes Road, whats wrong with Popes Road, firstly it may sound stupid it's not in Streatham as promised, it can only fit a 56m*26m Ice pad, it will ahve a small cafe and changing room, only 87 seats including those in the cafe and changeing room, we will have only 18 parking bays and one drop off point, very limited space which means when the Fire Brigade investigate it it may also have limited numbers of skaters below the 1200 Streatham is allowed, combine this with the warning by police that it will be difficult to police particularly between the hours of 3pm and 7pm, and it will take many of our members at least half an hour more to travel to Brixton along the A23, amongst these users who use the rink from 6.00am till 2.00am are 65 special needs children from the Werewolves of london Hockey team, they cannot use public transport, cannot be dropped off outside whilst their parents, carers or volunteers find a place to park, they have heavy expensive kit and need to be accompanied at all times, this hockey team is a registered charity sponsored by Help a London Child, this plan is clearly unsuitable and I'm advised will be financially unsound, what management company will want to run an ice rink at a loss for 2 years or more, how will these clubs survive without beiing able to raise sufficient funds with so few seats how will they make a match pay for itself, even the Streatham Redskins will struggle where will all their fans sit or stand, where will their competitors park their coaches, unload all their gear and reload it at the end, we have over a hundred parking bays around the Streatham Ice Arena, and many more park in local streets, the coaches can park in the bus lanes outside the church, where will they go to park in Brixton, we have also found out that this car park will be missed by not just the market traders whose customers have relied on it heavily in the past but also by many of the big stores in Brixton, who have already signed the HANDS OFF OUR CAR PARK petition, this rink is not wanted in Brixton, it is pure folly to put a busy ice rink with heavy parking needs where a car park used to be, we understand that the market traders have been promised 50 car bays and so far have only been given 25, does that mean we may have none or similarly end up with 9, we don't trust Tesco's who have broken their promise although they have said they would look at other sites if Lambeth authorises them, there are two other sites that we feel would be workable but they require agreements with others, Crystal Palace requires Bromley and the LDA to agree and Stockport Road playing fields in Streatham Vale require Merton and The Power League to agree to acess from the Merton side, if nothing is available we see no reason why Tesco's should not build the project as originally promised on the Streatham Hub Site, we will fight Popes road as it is unfit for purpose, as our clubs and hockey teams will fail to survive, continuity of Ice in Streatham is not just an ice pad in Brixton it is meeting the needs of our 500+ regular users their parents careers and our very well organised Big Society of volunteers and helpers, please support our plight to prevent this badly thought through plan. We will be setting up an online petition and demonstrations in the coming weeks all are welcome to join or support us.


----------



## trabuquera (Aug 19, 2010)

saw on the Onion Bag blog that Brixton market traders are claiming their sales are down by 30% in the period while the carpark has been closed. Say what you like about cars in built-up city centres, the market will not survive that kind of slump - if it's true - and their argument that a lot of their customers are occasional shoppers who buy in bulk is also compelling. sorry, but I'm with the tyres over the skates on this one.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Aug 19, 2010)

Why not build an ice rink incorporating parking?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Aug 19, 2010)

The best solution I have heard of late is to plonk the temporary rink in the car park of Tesco along Acre Lane. This will give the superstore all the incentive it needs to get it's finger out up in Streatham.


----------



## co-op (Aug 20, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> The best solution I have heard of late is to plonk the temporary rink in the car park of Tesco along Acre Lane. This will give the superstore all the incentive it needs to get it's finger out up in Streatham.


 
This would also give a chance to test out the - often claimed - virtue of the Tesco's car park to the market. Just survey the market spend before closure and then do the same while the ice rink is on the site.

One of the problems with the (hugely exaggerated?) claims made for the loss in trade for the market from the closure of Pope's Rd is that there is simply no credible data to back up opinions either way.


----------



## Jonti (Aug 20, 2010)

So it's OK by you to experiment with other people's likelihoods 

But, how do you propose to "survey the market trend" except by asking traders anyway?


----------



## co-op (Aug 21, 2010)

Jonti said:


> So it's OK by you to experiment with other people's likelihoods
> 
> But, how do you propose to "survey the market trend" except by asking traders anyway?





Can't be bothered with this crap.


----------



## Jonti (Aug 23, 2010)

I think you simply hadn't thought things through.

It's a fair observation, and a fair question.  How do you propose to "survey the market trend" except by asking the traders?


----------



## Jonti (Aug 23, 2010)

Skaters4the Hub said:


> Hi
> 
> Skaters 4 the Hub are against the Temporary Rink being on the Popes Road car park site ... we see no reason why Tesco's should not build the project as originally promised on the Streatham Hub Site, we will fight Popes road as it is unfit for purpose, as our clubs and hockey teams will fail to survive,  continuity of Ice in Streatham is not just an ice pad in Brixton it is meeting the needs of our 500+ regular users their parents careers and our very well organised Big Society of volunteers and helpers, please support our plight to prevent this badly thought through plan. We will be setting up an online petition and demonstrations in the coming weeks all are welcome to join or support us.


Thanks for this.

Once local councilors have the information they need about the effects of the proposal, they're likely to think twice. No-one affected wants Pope's Road. Crystal Palace or Stockport Road are far better suggestions.


----------



## co-op (Aug 23, 2010)

Jonti said:


> I think you simply hadn't thought things through.
> 
> It's a fair observation, and a fair question.  How do you propose to "survey the market trend" except by asking the traders?


 
*sigh*

No. It was an antagonistic and silly post, and you clearly hadn't (still haven't) thought it through.

It's not a question of being "ok to experiment with other people's livelihoods", - where the fuck have I said anything like that? (that's the silly antagonistic bit of your post).

But - _*if*_ the ice rink were built on Tesco's car park - there would be a lead in period during which the market spend could be surveyed and compared with a similar survey afterwards. This would give some indication of the impact of parking closures on the market. Do you see? Then we would have some idea of whether or not the claims being made about the need for a car park are valid. 

Note - not conclusive proof; just some idea.

As to how you survey the market spend , it's obviously not something you've thought about much. Just asking the traders is notoriously problematic. Traders have many reasons for not revealing the truth about their takings and whatever the morality of that, it's not the subject that a before and after comparison is trying to illuminate. So you would almost certainly do it another way - there are plenty of alternatives, all of which have some pro and some cons but most of which - if used consistently ie the same method before and after - are god enough to reveal a general trend.

It's a real shame that this was't done before the Pope's Rd carpark was closed because then we'd have a much better idea of how much - if anything - it's costing the market - although I suppose you'd have been against this because it would have been "experimenting with people's livelihoods"?


----------



## OpalFruit (Aug 26, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> There is a strong feeling in Streatham, misguided or otherwise,  that once again, Brixton gets all the re-development whereas Streatham is left to die on its arse.
> 
> Sites were available in Streatham (and were investigated by the council.



And there was a huge residents campaign in Streatham against re-locating the temporary rink on the comon - even on a bit of common which is hardly pleasant for outdoor use due to the lack of screening from 6 lanes of traffic. Window after window of Streatham houses had 'hands off our Common' signs. 

Streatham Residents should be careful what they wish for!


----------



## co-op (Aug 27, 2010)

OpalFruit said:


> And there was a huge residents campaign in Streatham against re-locating the temporary rink on the comon - even on a bit of common which is hardly pleasant for outdoor use due to the lack of screening from 6 lanes of traffic. Window after window of Streatham houses had 'hands off our Common' signs.
> 
> Streatham Residents should be careful what they wish for!


 
I don't know that this is fair - the principle of not building on commons or parks (even "temporary" buildings) is one that any sensible local resident must support surely? The council were talking about sticking this thing on Brockwell Park ffs - I'd have been lying down in front of bulldozers on that one I can tell you.

What Streatham wanted - as far as I can judge - is for the ice rink to be built on the site of the Tescos rebuild on the old ice rink site - ie what they were told was going to happen when planning was granted. It's Tesco's decision to renege on that agreement and the council's supine acquiesence to that decision that has caused this mess. 

The whole issue of building a "temporary" rink should never have come up.


----------



## Streatham_Mao (Aug 27, 2010)

OpalFruit said:


> And there was a huge residents campaign in Streatham against re-locating the temporary rink on the comon - even on a bit of common which is hardly pleasant for outdoor use due to the lack of screening from 6 lanes of traffic. Window after window of Streatham houses had 'hands off our Common' signs.
> 
> Streatham Residents should be careful what they wish for!


 
So Streatham residents got what they deserved, did they?  I don't think so.  HOOC campaigned against building _on common land_ for various reasons, including setting a nasty precedent where common land could be handed over to companies and built on.  Besides, the rink would have been illegal half a dozen times over; there are a lot of laws governing the use of sites like that.  There wasn't any interest in shipping the ice rink out to Brixton or shafting the skater groups, and the group had wanted the council to use a brownfield site in Streatham.  

It's the council which decided to move the rink to Pope's Road; the same council which thought that building on a greenfield site was a good idea.


----------



## Streatham_Mao (Aug 27, 2010)

co-op said:


> The whole issue of building a "temporary" rink should never have come up.


 
This.  But at least there's will for a temporary ice rink - unlike the leisure centre.  Ironically I find it easier (and nicer) to go to a pool just outside of the borough, rather than in Brixton.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Aug 27, 2010)

There is a public meeting on Tuesday 31st, 7pm at the Karibu, for anyone who wishes to support the market traders in their attempt to keep Pope's Road as part of the market.


----------



## Skaters4the Hub (Aug 31, 2010)

From Today We have our online petition running goto:-
http://www.petitiononline.co.uk/petition/save-skating-in-streatham/362

Skaters 4 the Hub


----------



## thriller (Aug 31, 2010)

I broke my elbow learning to skate in Streatham 2 xmas ago. I shall not be using this as skating frightens me, now.


----------



## OpalFruit (Sep 2, 2010)

Co-op and Streatham Mao, fair enough - Tesco should have been held to their agreement. But in the context of Streatham residents being dismayed to see Brixton apparantly benefittting for the re-location, 'Save the Rink, don't let Tesco slide out of their obligation' would perhaps have seemed less nimby-ish and also attracted the attention and support for pressurising the council and Tesco to do the right thing. My whole engagement with this issue was via reading those posters and wrongly, obviously, and outside the Tesco context, I thought a few years of Ice rink on the edge of the common was a reasonable pay-off for a brand new rink and leisure complex. But I can see now that the move to Brixton adds insult to injury.


----------



## Streatham_Mao (Sep 3, 2010)

OpalFruit said:


> Co-op and Streatham Mao, fair enough - Tesco should have been held to their agreement. But in the context of Streatham residents being dismayed to see Brixton apparantly benefittting for the re-location, 'Save the Rink, don't let Tesco slide out of their obligation' would perhaps have seemed less nimby-ish and also attracted the attention and support for pressurising the council and Tesco to do the right thing. My whole engagement with this issue was via reading those posters and wrongly, obviously, and outside the Tesco context, I thought a few years of Ice rink on the edge of the common was a reasonable pay-off for a brand new rink and leisure complex. But I can see now that the move to Brixton adds insult to injury.


 
The thing about Tesco sliding out of their obligations wasn't really seen as a runner for HOOC as a whole bunch of businesses were renegotiating contracts due to the economic downturn.  Picking on one wasn't really helpful, even if Tesco already has a bad reputation for changing designs post-agreement.

There was also the question of just how temporary the rink would have been.  With an estimated cost of about 6 million IIRC, and having to basically plug in the common even for basics like electricity left a suspicion that Tesco would go 'well, we spent 6 mil, there you go.  I think we've done enough'.  Add that to a story in Private Eye about how the council never got Tesco to sign the agreement, so they couldn't enforce anything and you have a problem.


----------



## OpalFruit (Sep 3, 2010)

Point taken. The old Young Vic (before it was rebuilt) was only ever meant to be temporary, as was the Eye, and I think the Dome (good examples, in my opinion, of temporary plans taking root, but tking root in a Common is different) . So I can also see that Streatham residents fear that a move to the Brixton car park may also be for good.


----------



## Streatham_Mao (Sep 3, 2010)

OpalFruit said:


> So I can also see that Streatham residents fear that a move to the Brixton car park may also be for good.


 
I heard that a Brixton councillor intended to make sure the rink wouldn't come back to Streatham.  So yeah, I suspect (assuming I heard right) they have reason to worry.


----------



## kr236rk (Sep 20, 2010)

i got this:



> Dear Future Brixton mailing list
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## kr236rk (Sep 20, 2010)

thriller said:


> I broke my elbow learning to skate in Streatham 2 xmas ago. I shall not be using this as skating frightens me, now.



skating is obviously great fun but it is also _freekinly_ dangerous: knew someone who went out on the ice for 6 minutes then spent 6 months with a leg in plaster! :-o


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 26, 2010)

There is now a website opposing the placing of the Ice Rink where the Popes road car park is now

www.donticebrixtonmarket.org


----------



## Rushy (Sep 26, 2010)

I have a great deal of sympathy with this campaign but wonder if it couldn't be more constructive and promote a deal which benefits the town centre. I have no objection to the principle of having an ice rink in Brixton so what if, only for instance, Tesco were able to build a temporary structure and give over the entire roof space to parking? And perhaps a commitment to contribute towards a multi storey carpark (or other hub project) at the end of the three year period? That would certainly be better than the status quo, i.e. no parking on that site at all and no money to make the necessary improvements to re-open.


----------



## netbob (Sep 26, 2010)

there is a petition: http://www.gopetition.com/petition/39157.html


----------



## lang rabbie (Sep 26, 2010)

Rushy said:


> what if, only for instance, Tesco were able to build a temporary structure and give over the entire roof space to parking? And perhaps a commitment to contribute towards a multi storey carpark (or other hub project) at the end of the three year period? That would certainly be better than the status quo, i.e. no parking on that site at all and no money to make the necessary improvements to re-open.



Because any multi-level building including car parking would cost massively more than the lightweight structure now proposed for the temporary rink. This whole debacle is because Tesco want to spend less money than they originally "committed" to, and Lambeth failed to get a signed development agreement before the downturn.


----------



## boohoo (Sep 26, 2010)

it's interesting the change in shopping - we use to walk to the market and back as I imagine many people did and still do. However in general convenience stores have changed the way people shop - my mum doesn't get her veg from the market in the way she did when I was a child. ALso as the website pointed out, it talks about people buying the large sacks of rice and cans of oil which would need a car.

I think a temporary ice rink should stay in Streatham as this is where ice skating has always been and what Tescos was meant to do. 

There should be additional car park space made available for the market traders.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 26, 2010)

lang rabbie said:


> Because any multi-level building including car parking would cost massively more than the lightweight structure now proposed for the temporary rink. This whole debacle is because Tesco want to spend less money than they originally "committed" to, and Lambeth failed to get a signed development agreement before the downturn.


 
I don't fully understand the nature of the approval in Streatham. Are you saying that Lambeth negotiated the continuity of the ice rink in discussions with Tesco but never actually added it an express condition of the planning approval or any other contract? I've had quite a lot of dealings with Lambeth Planning over the past decade and they are far from forward-thinking, efficient or pro-active at the best of times but that would seem an unbelievable oversight. Are you certain? Surely an error like that is a good reason for Les Brown to face the sack.

Back to Pope's Road - the planning dept could refuse an application that did not incorporate a storey of parking. If that is too expensive then it may make Tesco's original proposal of keeping the current rink open until the new one is complete more attractive again.


----------



## fbm (Sep 26, 2010)

Check out the new video of Brixton shoppers we spoke to on Saturday, now on www.donticebrixtonmarket.org. Within an hour of wandering about, we met no one in favour of the ice rink, and all these people furious about it.

Just to add our own clarifications in relation to the deal with Tesco and their agreement with Lambeth: Our understanding is that Lambeth negotiated a Section 106 agreement in 2007 which involved Tesco building the new superstore and leisure centre / ice rink in Streatham in phases. They would build the new ice rink before knocking down the old one so that 'continuity of ice' would be guaranteed in Streatham in its permanent location. This agreement still stands.

However, when the recession hit, Tesco - who posted profits of £3bn in 2009 - claimed the phases development was no longer 'economically viable', They therefore demanded an external site for a temporary ice rink.

When the planning application for the ice rink comes to planning committee, the committee will also be making a judgement on a separate (but inextricably linked) application by Tesco to vary that existing Section 106 agreement.

It's all to save Tesco cash at a time when Brixton Market is suffering on all fronts. Hadn't heard about Lambeth failing to sign the deal - our understanding is simply that Tesco have the right to apply to change it.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 26, 2010)

fbm said:


> Check out the new video of Brixton shoppers we spoke to on Saturday, now on www.donticebrixtonmarket.org. Within an hour of wandering about, we met no one in favour of the ice rink, and all these people furious about it.
> 
> Just to add our own clarifications in relation to the deal with Tesco and their agreement with Lambeth: Our understanding is that Lambeth negotiated a Section 106 agreement in 2007 which involved Tesco building the new superstore and leisure centre / ice rink in Streatham in phases. They would build the new ice rink before knocking down the old one so that 'continuity of ice' would be guaranteed in Streatham in its permanent location. This agreement still stands.
> 
> ...



Thanks for that clarification. That makes more sense. Is there a particular reason to believe that either the committee or Planning are likely to support Tesco's application to vary the agreement? I cannot imagine that it will be particularly sympathetic. Unless of course it actually believes plonking the ice rink on the Pope's Road site is a good idea in itself.

Not sure I am all that convinced by the "I need a car park to bring my kids here for lunch" argument but good to see strong local feeling and you guys getting it on camera and on the net. I still think that the 'no ice rink' argument is misleading. People aren't against an ice-rink - they want parking. My guess (based on little more than gut feeling) is that the temp ice-rink will probably get turned down but that there will still be no parking solution on offer.


----------



## fbm (Sep 26, 2010)

What the planning committee will do is presumably down to the strength of argument shown to them through the consultation period and at the committee itself.

The committees are of course *meant* to be unaffected by party politics... but when Lambeth Cabinet have already made a judgement you can't help but feel a little unsure about this.

As to the need for parking, and the options for it, there is, we and Brixton business believe, a very realistic option in the site of Pope's Road carpark once the old carpark has been removed.

In the long term, the Masterplan has the site down for mixed use development including car parking. This isn't happening for the foreseeable future because of the recesssion. 

But even in the short term, the site could provide parking: Because the old building has been condemned, the council are set to have it demolished in the next couple of months. We believe the tender went out for the job some weeks ago. 

The sensible thing to do with the site, we think, would be to tarmac at, providing potentially 80-100 spaces.

The opposition between 'Natsy old eye-sore derelict carpark' and ice rink is false - it's actually between 'ground level open air space ready for use as a car park' and ice rink.

And to quibble just a little, it's a little mean to pick only the 'kids and pizza' argument out of all those people who spoke on the video.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 27, 2010)

fbm said:


> What the planning committee will do is presumably down to the strength of argument shown to them through the consultation period and at the committee itself.
> 
> The committees are of course *meant* to be unaffected by party politics... but when Lambeth Cabinet have already made a judgement you can't help but feel a little unsure about this.
> 
> ...


 
My saying well done for getting the vid done and published is meant completely sincerely. Sorry if that was not clear. My comment really wasn't supposed to be mean - it just seemed to me that all the respondents except for one are talking about parking being necessary for 'others' and for the survival of the market. Pizza man (as he will henceforth be known) just stood out for me because he's the only person who actually talks about his own experience and why he himself needs to drive in - and my immediate reaction was - er, that's not a very convincing reason. I'm sure that you'll get much more critical / meaner comments than mine during the campaigning process!

I agree that tarmacking the site could be sensible as a short term solution and if you are certain that the only two possible outcomes are 'ground level space ready for parking' and 'ice rink' then fair enough. I agree both of those are possibilities but I think it is probably unwise to absolutely rule out the 'derelict-carpark-or-empty-space-for-another-couple-of-years' option just yet. For that reason I wouldn't object to seeing a further option which provided a decent amount of parking along with another facility if the provision of that facility funds the parking, thus ensuring that we actually get it. I imagine that there must be some scope for finding a middle ground which is economically feasible, particularly since people are unlikely to be opposed to an ice rink per-se but opposed to an ice rink which negates the provision of parking facilities.

In summary, although I think that there are still probably more than two possible outcomes at this stage AND I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for your Pizza Man's kiddie lunch struggle, I support the principles of your campaign and will express that to Lambeth when the planning application is submitted.


----------



## Streatham_Mao (Sep 27, 2010)

lang rabbie said:


> Because any multi-level building including car parking would cost massively more than the lightweight structure now proposed for the temporary rink. This whole debacle is because Tesco want to spend less money than they originally "committed" to, and Lambeth failed to get a signed development agreement before the downturn.


 
It was in Private Eye a while back.  If I have time I may dig out the important details.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 27, 2010)

For anyone else interested, this appears to provide a relatively straightforward summary of background to the current situation (up to March):
http://www.handsoffourcommon.com/node/2


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 27, 2010)

Rushy said:


> Thanks for that clarification. That makes more sense. Is there a particular reason to believe that either the committee or Planning are likely to support Tesco's application to vary the agreement? I cannot imagine that it will be particularly sympathetic. Unless of course it actually believes plonking the ice rink on the Pope's Road site is a good idea in itself.
> 
> Not sure I am all that convinced by the "I need a car park to bring my kids here for lunch" argument but good to see strong local feeling and you guys getting it on camera and on the net. I still think that the 'no ice rink' argument is misleading. People aren't against an ice-rink - they want parking. My guess (based on little more than gut feeling) is that the temp ice-rink will probably get turned down but that there will still be no parking solution on offer.


 
The particular reason that the Planning committee might support the application and change to Section 106 agreement is that the committee is made up of Cllrs. As Lambeth is a Labour Council there will be a lot of Labour Cllrs on it. If the administration really want to push something through they will attempt to do this. Despite the Planning committee in theory being independant of party whips.I guess the officers report to the meeting will be written in such a way that it is supportive of the application.

The application will be put in by Tescos. I dont think planning officers are going to fall over themselves to find a problem with this application or change to Section 106 agreement.

The Ice Rink in Brixton will be presented as a useful addition to Brixton. Future Brixton have already emailed me about exhibition on Library.

This is the problem. This application wont be treated like one independantly brought in by a developer.


----------



## Winot (Sep 27, 2010)

Rushy said:


> For anyone else interested, this appears to provide a relatively straightforward summary of background to the current situation (up to March):
> http://www.handsoffourcommon.com/node/2


 
Interesting - thanks.  Sounds like Tesco are trying to weasle their way out of the original agreement and need to be held to it.  Also sounds like Lambeth should have had a tighter agreement to start with e.g. that held Tesco's to providing temp ice rink *on the same site*.

That said, from my kids pov it would be great having an ice rink in the centre of Brixton, and it seems to me that it could bring in a lot more punters to the market at the same time.  And hey, some of them could even get to Brixton by bus/bike/tube/walking.


----------



## lang rabbie (Sep 27, 2010)

My bad ... I should have written that "Lambeth failed to get a signed development agreement *which gave them any bargaining power* before the downturn."

There was a development agreement between Lambeth (in its role as landowner of part of the Streatham Hub site occupied by the pool and former council depot) and Tesco signed at the same time as the section 106 agreement, but it appears to have been written on a Panglossian basis that this was the best of all possible worlds and with no real options for redress if Tesco backed out of it.


----------



## netbob (Sep 28, 2010)




----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2010)

Ace pics!


----------



## Rushy (Sep 28, 2010)

Great shots - wish I'd seen that. Worth emailing to the Labour councillors as I believe they are mostly away quaffing champagne at the party conference.


----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2010)

More photos (courtesy of memespring) here: http://www.urban75.org/blog/brixton...rs-protest-against-proposed-car-park-closure/

I'm hoping that by blogging it, Tweeting it and - in a minute! - linking to it from the Brixton homepage I'll help publicise the protest.


----------



## fbm (Sep 28, 2010)

More pics here!

http://www.donticebrixtonmarket.org/brixton-lock-down-demo.html

There's going to be more and bigger demos over the next months. If anyone's interested in helping out with the next one, or handing out leaflets on the weekends, please get in touch: contact@friendsofbrixtonmarket.org


----------



## fbm (Sep 29, 2010)

Coverage in the Streatham Guardian:
http://www.streathamguardian.co.uk/news/8416575.Compromise_needed_over_Streatham_Hub_plan__says_MP/


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 29, 2010)

lang rabbie said:


> My bad ... I should have written that "Lambeth failed to get a signed development agreement *which gave them any bargaining power* before the downturn."
> 
> There was a development agreement between Lambeth (in its role as landowner of part of the Streatham Hub site occupied by the pool and former council depot) and Tesco signed at the same time as the section 106 agreement, but it appears to have been written on a Panglossian basis that this was the best of all possible worlds and with no real options for redress if Tesco backed out of it.


 
So the Council owned some of the land on the site but didnt seem to be able to use it as a bargaining chip. 

I saw the exhibition in the Tate Library. It presents Tescos variation to the original agreement as the only option. There is nothing in the exhibition about ordinary peoples concerns. There is a potential conflict of interest between the Council ( who are elected to represent the people) and Tescos who are a private firm. 

Seems to me that Tescos have cleverly used the recession to get an increase in there retail space and go back on there promise to keep the ice rink in use.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 29, 2010)

fbm said:


> Coverage in the Streatham Guardian:
> http://www.streathamguardian.co.uk/news/8416575.Compromise_needed_over_Streatham_Hub_plan__says_MP/


From the article the local MP said,

"Mr Umunna said: “Whilst I have great sympathy with the SSS campaign objective to enforce the original s106 Agreement, I can not see how this can be done given what has come to pass and Tesco's position.” 

Mr Umunna said the current proposals were “not ideal” but allowed the development to be “completed as soon as possible”. He said the majority of skaters and the ice hockey teams understood this and “the degree of compromise” needed, and negotiations were ongoing to improve the quality of the temporary facilities."

Seems to be the line that politicians are taking on this. Tescos are threatening to walk away from the deal. Really clever of Tescos as they know the Council need to get the new facilities built. Its blackmail by Tescos.

Cue lots of handwringing by local politicians


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 29, 2010)

This is from Save Skating in Streatham facebook page. Seems the GLA ( Ken at the time) insisted on continuity of the old ice rink until the new one is built. The Mayor has a say in this as the Ice Rink isnt just for Lambeth but is an important asset for the whole of London

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=136&uid=133970333315344&ref=share

>So you’re campaigning against a temporary rink in Brixton: Don’t you want an ice-rink then?

Yes, of course we do. But not at any cost to the future of skating in Streatham. At the moment the Section 106 (which is what developments like this have to include in their application to provide improvements or facilities to the community) attached to the Tesco Streatham Hub development says that they (Tesco) must build a new rink whilst keeping the old one open (they own the Rink by the way) to ensure ‘Continuity of Provision’ on the site. This is something that then Mayor Ken Livingstone insisted on time and again, and bodies like Sport England, who the Government recommend are always consulted on this sort of issue, had asked for. You only have to look at the loss of the ice rink at Richmond following a similar development to see what happens when these sorts of protections are not insisted on (a supermarket chain developed a similar site and then failed to provide the replacement rink).

Once they’ve built the centre (which also includes a leisure centre to replace the old one now sadly closed) then can they knock down the old one. But only then.

>So why has Tesco changed their mind then?

Basically, because Tesco operate each development as a single ‘unit’, they must be self-financing. Whilst this may be a perfectly sensible attitude to take for a business like Tesco which undertakes massive building projects, they are now claiming that they cannot afford to do this on the Streatham Hub site because of the fall in property values and the recession. Yet they signed the Section 106 off in December 2008 when the recession had already hit, so it’s not as though they can claim they didn’t know the project might be affected; it’s just not possible for a company like Tesco to not know the conditions in the market. If they didn’t, then that’s extremely irresponsible. If they did, then you have to ask why they signed the deal in the first place. Remember, Tesco are there to make money, so why would they make silly, ill-thought-out decisions on big projects like this?

You also have to remember that not only are they asking to change the S106 (known as ‘varying’) but in another move they are also applying to expand the size of the supermarket before it’s even built by 56%! 

>You need to learn to compromise – you want it all your own way.

Compromise is not allowing Tesco, a multinational supermarket with £3.5bn profits, to suddenly change its mind in this way when they knew what was happening in the economy. Compromise isn’t building a ‘temporary’ ice rink on an unsuitable site, almost totally opposed by local businesses in Brixton. Compromise is about give-and-take. This plan is not and never was part of the deal. Why should the users of the rink and the public of Streatham have to make up for a multi-billion pound supermarket’s mistakes?

The risk with these sorts of projects is that you end up either with nothing –like Richmond, a temporary ice rink that becomes permanent, or an ice rink that is a shadow of what you thought you were going to get. 

>So what about what Ken Livingstone said then? Is new Boris Johnson going to let them change their plans?

Well that’s the $64,000 question: Boris Johnson is the person who is responsible for ‘Strategic Planning’ across London, a role which is about making sure London doesn’t lose important regional facilities like Streatham Ice Rink, for instance, so he will have a hugely important role, just like Ken Livingstone did when he insisted on this all important protection. 

We have to remember that Streatham Ice Rink isn’t just used by Streathamites – but people from all over London. In fact it’s so popular, some people come all the way from the West Midlands regularly to use it!


>So why are Lambeth going along with it?

We don’t know for sure; perhaps you might like to ask Steve Reed, the Leader of Lambeth Council. We think it’s simply that they are fed up of dealing with this issue; the whole project started being drawn up in 2001, and it’s dragged on-and-on. Now they’ve decided that they want this project sorted with no more delays and are more willing to take a risk to see it completed. The problem is of course they aren’t thinking about the long-term consequences for skating in the area, and in the region.

>All the representatives of skaters and ice rink users are in favour of it a ‘temporary’ rink.

There is no definitive survey of their opinion or the public’s that tells us this is true. 

In fact we believe the opposite to be true; that the vast majority oppose it. They’re just not heard because the Council has operated a pretty questionable series of ‘consultations’.

In these consultations there are no minutes taken and public no record of the meetings available – which can’t be right for a democratic body that describes itself as wanting to live ‘co-operative values’, and whose leader, Steve Reed, speaks of "fairness, accountability and responsibility”; this process is demonstrably not fair, totally unaccountable, and highly irresponsible, given the importance of this development.

The Council Officers, who have been charged to deliver the project, also seem a bit nervous about the whole thing. In fact, even a local Councillor – one of those supporting this campaign – was removed from a meeting on 20 September, completely contrary to the right of councillors to attend such meetings. 

All we want is honesty, openness and transparency. All we seem to have at the moment is a plan sketched out on the back of a cigarette packet and a democratic body behaving like they’re operating in North Korea!


----------



## fbm (Sep 29, 2010)

Mad / brilliant Streatham blogger Doublespeak covers the Brixton demo:


> *How to convince the doubting punters - Part Tres: Market yourselves properly
> *
> 
> "Yep, uh, hu, yeah. Right. Ok. Ignore them you say? But what if...".
> ...


----------



## netbob (Sep 30, 2010)

A long shot - but does anyone have a copy of an election leaflet from 2006 where Labour claimed that the LibDems/tories were going to knock-down the carpark and the Rec, and only Labour could save them? I seem to remember there was some fuss about it at the time. Anyone know any LibDem councillors who might have kept a copy?


----------



## fbm (Sep 30, 2010)

More completely excellent analysis from Doublespeak blog...

http://honewiremuhekepokai.blogspot.com/

*La crise dans Trixton - c'est tout merde!*

Salut, and scuse my French! Just been doing a bit of lingua Franca and all that. 

It's got rather nasty, hence the merde! The radicals of Trixton have decided that they don't like the idea of a giant wobbly mushroom perched on top of their precious, unused car-park, and are throwing their toys out of the pram.

My spies tell me that they took the action because the plans being professionally executed by Dambeth Council - loyally and self-sacrificially carried out under orders from Gruesome P. Silverblade, means that they lose a car-park that isn't even a car-park!

And now they're demanding that some new car-parking space be created so that people can lug a half-a-kilo of carrots home from the market. Hardly sustainable is it?

The solution? Easy! Some of the highly (and rightly so!) and well remunerated (and I might add, entirely polite!) officers at Dambeth have suggested an alternative to this silly market nonsense: Dig for Victory!

It's simple: get everyone to grow their own fruit and veg, just like in wartime Britain, and hey presto, no need for a market! After all, it's more sustainable, reduces traffic pollution, removes the need for all those stalls cluttering up a perfectly developable part of Trixton.

And yes, we can even grow mushrooms - giant, wobbly ones if you like: did you know they're fed on shit and kept in the dark? Sounds familiar!

Anyway, au revoir, and see you down Trixton: I'll be with Gruesome P. and Brother Cheetham measuring up that wretched cinema for a much-needed Nesco valuecornershop!


----------



## lang rabbie (Sep 30, 2010)

memespring said:


> A long shot - but does anyone have a copy of an election leaflet from 2006 where Labour claimed that the LibDems/tories were going to knock-down the carpark and the Rec, and only Labour could save them? I seem to remember there was some fuss about it at the time. Anyone know any LibDem councillors who might have kept a copy?


 
The one I was shown by a Coldharbour ward resident took the form of a letter IIRC.

My recollection is that it was only in Clapham that Labour had a sock-puppet "Keep Clapham Swimming" website, and the Brixton propaganda campaign wasn't as shameless.

By the way - what has happened to your "Election Memory" site from that era?


----------



## netbob (Sep 30, 2010)

lang rabbie said:


> The one I was shown by a Coldharbour ward resident took the form of a letter IIRC.
> 
> My recollection is that it was only in Clapham that Labour had a sock-puppet "Keep Clapham Swimming" website, and the Brixton propaganda campaign wasn't as shameless.



Possibly - I'm sure I remember something that mentioned the car-park specifically though.



lang rabbie said:


> By the way - what has happened to your "Election Memory" site from that era?



I had to take the site down when I moved servers, but never got round to putting it up again. I still have a backup though.


----------



## charcol (Sep 30, 2010)

memespring said:


> A long shot - but does anyone have a copy of an election leaflet from 2006 where Labour claimed that the LibDems/tories were going to knock-down the carpark and the Rec, and only Labour could save them? I seem to remember there was some fuss about it at the time. Anyone know any LibDem councillors who might have kept a copy?


 
I don't have the leaflet (although I may be able to track down a copy), but you can find the text on Lambeth Labour's archived website. It only refers to the leisure centre though. I do remember the car park being lumped in with those claims, but perhaps not in writing.

http://web.archive.org/web/20061101.../news2005-2006/leisure/libdemsclosepools.html




			
				LambethLabour.com said:
			
		

> Lambeth looks set to lose all its indoor swimming pools – thanks to the Lib Dems. The Lib Dem / Tory Council has announced plans to close down swimming pools in Streatham, Brixton and Clapham. But so far they have refused to promise residents that new ones will replace them. The Lib Dems want to bulldoze Brixton Recreation Centre and sell it off for development. Proposed alternative sites are smaller and may not include a new pool. In Clapham, the well-used leisure centre on Manor Road is also earmarked for closure and sale.
> 
> Even if campaigns for new facilities are successful, they may not open for years leaving residents with no where to go for a swim. This has already happened in Streatham, where the existing pool is closing but there is no prospect of a new one opening for many years.
> 
> Local resident and keen swimmer Judith Brodie said: “It’s disgusting the Liberals want to sell off our swimming pools for cash. Why do the Liberals want to stop ordinary families from enjoying a swim and keeping fit?”



I am not sure about Judith's current views on Lambeth's current approach to leisure provision.


----------



## netbob (Oct 1, 2010)

charcol said:


> I don't have the leaflet (although I may be able to track down a copy)



If you can it would be good to get a copy on here: http://www.electionleaflets.org/


----------



## fbm (Oct 1, 2010)

*Letters handed to Ken Livingstone*

Last night, after receiving a tip off that Ken Livingstone would be visiting Lambeth Town Hall, Stuart from Brixton Market Trader's Federation handed Ken a letter asking him to tell Lambeth Council to honour his Mayoral decision that underpins the existing Section 106 agreement.

Below is the text of the letter from the BMTF, the Association of Brixton Arcades and Shops and the Friends of Brixton Market. The Streatham campaign handed a letter in too.

Come on Ken!

_Dear Ken,
Brixton’s market traders, shop keepers and customers call on you to urge Lambeth Council to stick to the existing Section 106 agreement they have with Tesco PLC to build a new permanent ice rink in Streatham before demolishing the existing ice rink as part of the Streatham Hub development, as you had required of them in 2007.

We cannot accept Tesco’s argument that the recession has caused this agreed phased development to be economically unviable, when Tesco PLC posted profits of over £3bn in 2009, at the height of the recession. Tesco’s threat that they will have to abandon the development seems to us to be as outrageous as it is unrealistic.

The picture for traders in Brixton is not so happy at this time. The alternative plan Lambeth have offered Tesco is to build an ice rink for 2-3 years on the site of Brixton Market’s council-run car park in Pope’s Road. Since the closure of the car park in late 2009, traders have been suffering a grave decline in their trade, threatening the market’s existence as a resource for customers, especially from black and ethnic minorities, or on low and middle incomes. As you know, Brixton Market has great historical and cultural significance for the African Caribbean community in Brixton and beyond, and is central to the diversity, well-being and cohesion of Brixton. This must be protected.

On September 28th, over 200 traders and shops in central Brixton closed and marched to Lambeth Town Hall to present a petition from over 300 businesses, large and small, to ask the council to defend Brixton businesses. 1000 signatures of customers and residents have also been collected.

We ask you now to press the case to Lambeth to honour the Mayoral decision you made in 2007.

Yours sincerely,_


----------



## Rushy (Oct 1, 2010)

^^ Well done.


----------



## fbm (Oct 1, 2010)

*Lambeth lost our FOI request about the ice rink...!!?*

On 17th Sept, we sent an FOI request to Lambeth via What Do They Know, asking:


I would like to see the cost assessments for each of the sites considered.

Please let me know which parts of these costs will be met by Tescos and which by Lambeth Council.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/costs_of_all_the_possible_sites#incoming-118076

Today, I got an email from What Do They Know notifying that Lambeth had sent an email to say they will respond by 28th - which is well outside the 20 days they have to do this.

There's a note though on What Do They Know, saying my FOI was resubmitted on the 30th.

I emailed What Do They Know to ask about this and got the following response:

"They got in touch with us to say that they hadn't received it.  Our mail server handed the message to their mail server on 17th September, and theirs acknowledged it, so it would appear that it got lost somewhere in Lambeth's email systems.  I don't think the ICO has yet considered whether a message lost in a public authority's email system has been "received" or not, so it's not clear which time limit should apply and we (like Lambeth) currently take the later one."


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 6, 2010)

Protest outside Tesco,Acre Lane
Weds 13th October, 5pm
JOIN WITH STREATHAM SKATERS AND BRIXTON COMMUNITY TO MARCH ON
TESCO!
Tell everyone you know
Join in peaceful protest
Tell Lambeth and Tesco not to
destory Brixton Market!

There will be a float coming down from Streatham with Skaters etc on it that ,hopefully, will get to Tescos Acre lane at around 5pm.

All are welcome


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 7, 2010)

Flyer for demo


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 7, 2010)

more info


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 7, 2010)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/20/tesco-profits-what-the-analysts-say

Tesco are doing ok in the recession and are in profit this year. Goes to show that the original Streathem Hub development planning agreement to keep the old ice rink in use until the new one is built should be possible for Tesco.


----------



## Winot (Oct 8, 2010)

They could do with a proof reader.

"Destory"


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Oct 8, 2010)

I hate bad spolling.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 9, 2010)

They've got an extra little stunt planned for today....it's genius! Big up the market traders!


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 10, 2010)

Update. The times and place for the demo have slightly changed.


----------



## netbob (Oct 13, 2010)

bump because this is this evening at 5:30. I assume outside the town hall?


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 13, 2010)

The plan is to get to Tescos between 5.30 and 6. The demo will more likely be nearer 6pm. The main protest will be at Tescos at this time.

All welcome.


----------



## netbob (Oct 14, 2010)

Few pics (on a crappy phone camera)

















Steve Reed pretty much said in the South London Press last week that the traders are making up the loss of business (he obviously hasn't walked down station road recently).


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 14, 2010)

Thanks memespring for the pics. I was giving out leaflets so didnt see this. Heard it went well and the kids were really good.

Putting an "Ice Rink" on Tescos car park was a good idea


----------



## netbob (Oct 20, 2010)

Sundays on Electric Lane / Avenue have gone mental recently. Everyone is trying to get their bulk shopping done on the one days there are any parking spaces leading to parking chaos:



(uploader decided to rotate my photos)

A few weeks ago a woman was thrown through the air and left unconscious after a car hit another car which in turn hit her. I've seen a  few other near accidents too.

This is happening on the day that the market is closed, so doesn't really backup Steve Reed's claims that loss of business in purely 'anecdotal'.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 20, 2010)

Thanks for this info memespring.


----------



## netbob (Oct 20, 2010)

I love this quote from Councillor Sally Prentice:



> Brixton has very good transport links and we are determined to improve the on-street parking around the back of the town hall.



That'll be nice and convenient for shopping at, um,  Tesco I guess


----------



## Laughing Toad (Oct 23, 2010)

How about  this one from the leader of the council.



> Following the car park’s closure in December 2009 and in response to concern from local businesses regarding the availability of customer parking, the Council has provided 36 new free short term parking bays in Brixton Station Road, Valentia Place, Electric Lane and Saltoun Road. We are continuing to look at other possible options for alternative parking paces in Brixton and better signage to the ones currently available.
> 
> There are also 350 Pay & Display parking bays, available for public use during trading hours, within Brixton town centre (some very close to the market).
> 
> The occupancy rate of the market is currently just over 60% and this time last year it was 59%. Anecdotal evidence from traders is that their trade is down but it is impossible to say whether this is directly attributable to the closure of the car park or to other factors, such as the recession.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 26, 2010)

http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/publ...val=L9K9JXBO0IZ00&searchtype=PROPERTY&module=

The planning application is in .It is now possible to comment on it.

I looked at the notice posted up in Popes raod and it give up to 22/11/2010 to comment on

The local groups opposing the ice rink are going to produce notes on the application and standard letter soon.


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2010)

Update:


> Update on Streatham Hub and the temporary ice rink
> 
> Temporary ice rink news
> An application to locate a temporary ice rink at Pope’s Road has been received and validated and the formal planning process has commenced. This includes a three week statutory planning consultation, which runs from Friday 22 October until Friday 12 November. You can view the application on the Public Access Planning Database from the council’s planning pages – www.lambeth.gov.uk/planning - the reference number is 10/03425/FUL. You can also see hard copies of the plans at the Town Planning Advice Centre or at Brixton Library (please see details below).
> ...


----------



## tarannau (Oct 27, 2010)

Hard bargain my arse. They've capitulated like broken legged washer-wusses.


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2010)

tarannau said:


> Hard bargain my arse. They've capitulated like broken legged washer-wusses.


I did guffaw rather at that claim too.


----------



## colacubes (Oct 27, 2010)

If anyone would like to question Steve Reed about this (or anything else), it appears he's doing a live webchat on Friday lunchtime:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=119849084718544&v=wall


----------



## tarannau (Oct 28, 2010)

editor said:


> I did guffaw rather at that claim too.


 
It's such a dishonest and ridiculous statement. I love the bit where they say that they believe it will increase customers in Brixton, particularly the two markets. As if people genuinely would pop in for a quick skate and then accidently return home with a bag of onions and a couple of coconuts on impulse buy. As loss of parking provision goes, it's lousy compensation for the traders and a bit of a unbelievable slap in the face

Anna Williamson, you should be ashamed. Even you surely can't believe the nuanced, misleading toss that you've written there.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 30, 2010)

Here is info on how to object. There are bullet points that u may use if u like. It does not take to long too object using the Councils website. It important to object now as the more objections that go in the more the Council will see that this is an issue which concerns a lot of people in the community. The bullets points are specifically related to this application which is to replace car park with "temporary" ice rink . The other issue is that Tescos are seeking to alter there Section 106 agreement.Which is that the old ice rink should stay in Streathem until the new one is built. Continuity of ice in Streatham. There is supposed to be another planning application to "vary" the original Section 106 agreement.

POPE’S ROAD ICE RINK PLANNING APPLICATION

HOW TO OBJECT



Either write to:
Jonathan Fullelove
London Borough of Lambeth
Planning Department
Phoenix House
10 Wandsworth Road
London        SW8 2LL

quoting reference: 10/03425/FUL

or go to the Lambeth planning website:

http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/publ..._comments_entryform.aspx?caseno=L9K9JXBO0IZ00

and use the form to object on-line. Be sure to press the “Object” button. 




These are just some of the problems we have identified. Please tell the Council about any that will affect you and say that you object to the planning application.


•	parking
o	for market customers
o	for Brixton Market street traders own parking

•	local traders
o	stalls and shops cannot survive for long without car parking nearby

•	local residents
o	the rink will be open from 6:00am until 2:00am.
o	noise
o	disruption
o	traffic congestion
o	taking our on-street parking

•	local services
o	it will take up police time
o	traffic affecting local police and fire brigade

•	ice rink users
o	the ice rink will be too small
o	hockey teams and supporters will not be separated
o	facilities for officials will be inadequate
o	longer journeys for most users

•	crime and disorder
o	always possible especially where there are competing teams and supporters
o	site is ideal for crime - confined but with many bolt holes

•	the environment
o	energy to create ice wasted (the plan at Streatham was to use it to heat a swimming pool)
o	longer journeys for most users
o	extra local traffic adding to air pollution


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 30, 2010)

I would also put in my comments that there was not proper consultation of the local community about putting the Ice rink here and losing the Car park.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 31, 2010)

The "Dont Ice Brixton Market" website has been updated to include info on opposing the planning application by Tescos:

http://www.donticebrixtonmarket.org/object-to-the-ice-rink.html


TESCO’S PLANNING APPLICATION FOR AN ICE RINK IN POPE’S ROAD
HOW TO OBJECT: BEFORE 12th November 2010
Either:
Write to:
Jonathan Fullelove
Planning Department, London Borough of Lambeth
Phoenix House, 10 Wandsworth Road, London, SW8 2LL
Quote reference: 10/03425/FUL and include your name and address
Email: 	lambethplanning@lambeth.gov.uk 
Quote reference: 10/03425/FUL and include your name and address
Or object online at the Lambeth Planning website:
Go to www.donticebrixtonmarket.org and follow the link.
Not sure how to write an objection letter? Just start with something simple like:
Dear Mr Fullelove,
I would like to object to the proposed ice rink for Pope’s Road Brixton. My reasons are…


Possible objections: Below are some of the problems you might want to raise:
Lack of parking for market customers, visitors to Brixton, market traders
•	Stalls and shops are suffering without customer car parking
•	Brixton Market street traders are losing parking for their vans
•	The replacement parking near Tescos is insufficient and too far away from the market
Local residents will suffer from it
•	The rink will be open from 6:00am until 2:00am
•	Noise, disruption, traffic congestion
•	Taking our on-street parking
Local services will be taken up with it
•	It will take up police time
•	Traffic will affect local police and fire brigade
Ice rink users aren’t served well by it
•	The ice rink will be too small to function as a facility important to the South East region
•	Hockey teams and supporters will not be separated
•	Facilities for officials will be inadequate
•	Longer journeys for most users and inadequate parking
Environmental waste
•	Energy to create ice will be wasted (the plan at Streatham was to use it to heat a swimming pool)
•	A waste to create a new building only to tear it down again in a few years
•	Longer journeys for most users, extra local traffic adding to air pollution
Crime and disorder
•	Always possible especially where there are competing teams and supporters
•	Site is ideal for crime - confined but with many bolt holes


For more information visit: www.donticebrixtonmarket.org

There is link to Lambeth planning page on the website. I also put link to the page u can comment on here:

http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/publ..._comments_entryform.aspx?caseno=L9K9JXBO0IZ00


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 31, 2010)

This is very good visual explanation


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 6, 2010)

http://planning-docs.lambeth.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00286183.pdf

I think design for new "Ice Rink" on Popes road looks like a Cowshed,


----------



## netbob (Nov 12, 2010)

Just done this, deadline is today. If you don't have time to write comments, it is possible to register a simple objection here: http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/publ..._comments_entryform.aspx?caseno=L9K9JXBO0IZ00


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2010)

Here's some photos of the car park as it is now:

















Curiously, the old car park attendant’s office is still manned.

More: http://www.urban75.org/blog/brixton-car-park-awaits-its-fate/


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 13, 2010)

Nice shots of car park. Ed

Good to record the old Bobby Sands on side of car park. A bit of Brixton history. Its been there for years.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 13, 2010)

memespring said:


> Just done this, deadline is today. If you don't have time to write comments, it is possible to register a simple objection here: http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/publ..._comments_entryform.aspx?caseno=L9K9JXBO0IZ00


 
Thanks memespring.

It appears people could have longer. The actual notice outside the Car park has different date. See my photo.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 13, 2010)

Received this from Lambeth


----------



## netbob (Nov 19, 2010)

It would appear that Steve Reed might have been misleading people when he said that reports of lost trade are purely anecdotal. I FOIed the occupancy rates and there seems to be a fairly clear downturn






FOI reply here:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/street_market_occupancy_rates#incoming-127612


----------



## Laughing Toad (Nov 19, 2010)

The figures would be more meaningful if they compared Brixton with similar markets. If markets all over the country show a similar decline then you have no case.


----------



## netbob (Nov 20, 2010)

On that rational then Steve Reed shouldn't be saying the opposite either then, no?

Actually I don't think you need data from other markets around the country, you really need more data from this one. I'm also waiting on an FOI for the number of parking tickets in the town centre (although I think the council might have told traffic wardens to go easy recently).


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Nov 20, 2010)

editor said:


> Curiously, the old car park attendant’s office is still manned.



Left the lights on too


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 5, 2010)

memespring said:


> It would appear that Steve Reed might have been misleading people when he said that reports of lost trade are purely anecdotal. I FOIed the occupancy rates and there seems to be a fairly clear downturn
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
This is really good info memespring.


----------



## lang rabbie (Dec 5, 2010)

memespring said:


> It would appear that Steve Reed might have been misleading people when he said that reports of lost trade are purely anecdotal. I FOIed the occupancy rates and there seems to be a fairly clear downturn
> 
> FOI reply here:
> 
> http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/street_market_occupancy_rates#incoming-127612


 

Q for Memespring So how do the four separate sets of time-series data in the FOI answer relate to the single run of figures used to construct that (very naughty) graph.  What weightings did you apply?  

Q for Lambeth:  What market stalls are covered by "Brixton Concourse" - the numbers appears to show an increase in occupancy from 2008-2009?


----------



## netbob (Dec 6, 2010)

lang rabbie said:


> Q for Memespring So how do the four separate sets of time-series data in the FOI answer relate to the single run of figures used to construct that (very naughty) graph.  What weightings did you apply?
> 
> Q for Lambeth:  What market stalls are covered by "Brixton Concourse" - the numbers appears to show an increase in occupancy from 2008-2009?


 
Lang Rabbie, you are right - in retrospect, I should have specifically asked for the actual number of pitches and used those (this would all be much easier if things were published proactively). As a result what is shown will overrepresent changes in the smaller bits of the market. 

However, I was trying demonstrate that there was an event last december when the car-park was closed (something the leader of the council was disputing) rather than the absolute figures, and to wrap it up in a single chart.

Here are the figures per section of the market, you can still clearly see the drop off:



This graph includes the full data set provided which also shows lower rates at the time the credit crunch hit at the tail end of 2008.


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2010)

Latest newletter:

*Demolition of former Pope’s Road car park update*
Demolition of the former car park is now being undertaken by DDS on behalf of the Lambeth council. It is anticipated that the car park will be fully demolished by the end of March 2011 but all dates are subject to ongoing negotiations with Network Rail.

The link bridge connecting Brixton Rec with Pope’s Road is planned for demolition on Sunday 12 December 2010. This will involve temporary road closures of Brixton Station Road and Pope’s Road. Alternative routes will be available.
A DDS site liaison officer is based in the car park kiosk for the duration of the project to address the concerns of local residents or businesses. Members of the public will be able to contact the site liaison officer during working hours and contact details are posted on the hoarding around the car park. Further information about the demolition is available on the council website http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/TransportStreets/Parking/WhereToParkParkingCharges/CarParks.htm

*Parking in Brixton town centre*
New Brixton town centre parking map
A new easy-to-use parking map has been produced for Brixton town centre area. This is part of the council’s plan to promote the more than 300 available parking spaces better. The map includes the 36 new free short-term parking bays that were introduced in the vicinity of the Pope’s Road car park following its closure.

The map was printed in the 1 December 2010 issue of Lambeth Life and is also available on the website or from various outlets around the town centre, including Olive Morris House customer centre and Brixton Library http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/...ParkingCharges/MapsOfWhereToParkInBrixton.htm

*Planning application for new off-street town centre car park*
A planning application has been made by Lambeth Council for a temporary town centre car park on the corner of Buckner Road and Porden Road, behind the Town Hall. The car park is expected to operate for up to three years and will accommodate approximately 33 car parking spaces.
The provision of additional town centre car parking is in response to some businesses’ and residents’ concerns about parking availability in the town centre of Brixton following the closure of Pope’s Road car park in December 2009. The planning application is likely to be considered by the Planning Applications Committee in January/February next year and further information will become available on the Planning Portal.

*Temporary ice rink at Pope’s Road update*
The statutory planning consultation for a temporary ice rink to be located on the site of the former car park in Pope’s Road has now closed. The application is to ensure the borough’s ice skaters have somewhere to continue skating whilst a new Streatham ice rink is built as part of the multi-million pound Streatham Hub project. The application has been made by Tesco, the council’s developer partner for the Streatham Hub project, who will also build and run the temporary rink until the new permanent rink is open and handed over to the council.

The former car park closed in December 2009 and is currently being demolished as it is a dangerous structure. The longer-term plan for this site is for a mixed-use development, which could include retail, housing and some parking.

The planning application is expected to be considered by the Planning Applications Committee in January/February next year and information will continue to be updated on the council website – http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/Environment/Regeneration/FutureLambeth/TemporaryIceRink.htm

Regards
Future Brixton Team
If you would like to be removed from this mailing list please reply to sender stating ‘remove from list’.

Physical Regeneration Team
Regeneration and Enterprise Division
London Borough of Lambeth
Email: futurebrixton@lambeth.gov.uk
Website: www.lambeth.gov.uk/futurebrixton


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 12, 2010)

The Council were not saying the car park so dangerous that it needed to be demolished some time ago. 

 Pope’s Road Car Park History

The Pope’s Road car park is a multi‐storey car park built about 1974. It is owned by the LB of Lambeth. At its
maximum capacity it had spaces for nearly 600 cars spread over 6 floors. However, because of its
deteriorating structural condition, the car park has been partially closed for some years. The condition
continued to deteriorate, giving rise to heath and safety concerns. On 4 November 2009 an inspection was
carried out by NPS London Ltd. The key item in the report is at 4.2.2 which begins: “The structure as a whole
is not safe …”. However, it then goes on to recommend immediate actions, “for the safe functioning of the
car park until the end of 2010”. Clearly, the car park was not seen as irreparable.
The LB of Lambeth appeared to accept this key conclusion and reported on its website: “Pope's Road car
park in Brixton will close temporarily on Saturday 19 December following health and safety concerns. A
structural survey has identified problems with parts of the concrete walls and ceilings that require urgent
work to make them safe. We have taken expert advice from structural engineers, who have concluded that
the car park should be sealed off in order to allow remedial work to take place. The car park will close at
midnight on Saturday 19 December and work is expected to take a minimum of two months. We are doing
all we can to minimise disruption and ensure that the car park reopens as soon as possible.”
However, rather than undertake the remedial works, the Council caused another survey to be undertaken
and reported the result on their website as follows: “Expert structural engineers, Lambert Smith Hampton,
have advised that the Pope's Road multi‐storey car park in Brixton be demolished because it is unsafe and
beyond repair. They conducted a number of tests including a panel abseil survey of the structure.”
On 9 June 2010 a “delegated decision” was taken to demolish the car park. It is understood that a contract
for the demolition has been let.

Pope’s Road Car and the Future Brixton Masterplan
The Future Brixton Masterplan of July 2009 specifically identifies the Pope’s Road car park as a site for
redevelopment. At 5.1.11 it states: “The masterplan proposes the development of a new town centre car
park at Popes Road/Brixton Station Road, with retail provision providing an active frontage at ground level.
This building will further house residential uses at upper levels. This mixed use development will provide
overlook from residential uses at upper floors, increasing safety and activity along Brixton Station Road.”
However, in the current economic situation there is no expectation that a developer will come forward to
undertake such a scheme for some time to come. Given that fact and the apparently inevitable demolition of
the car park, the expectation was that a surface level car park would be provided on the site until such time
as a developer might come forward. It should be noted that such a car park would be expected to generate
an annual income from parking charges of £284,000 (LB of Lambeth Cabinet Report 26 July 2010).


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 12, 2010)




----------



## Gramsci (Dec 12, 2010)

The variation on the Section 106 is at application stage now. Objections need to be in by 15th. The variation on the Section 106 is so that Tescos can put the ice rink offsite for 3 years whilst they are building there superstore. The previous Section 106 that was agreed insisted that the old rink remain in place until the new one is built. 

A Section 106 agreement is used when a large private development is planned. It is to make sure the community does not lose out on infrastructure when a private developer or company build a development.

planning referance 10/04049/S106

http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_searchresults.aspx

 10/04049/S106
“Application to vary the Section 106 (legal) Agreement dated 4 December 2008 in respect of planning permission
08/03477/FUL” was received by the LB of Lambeth from Tesco plc on 12/11/2010. The primary purpose of this
application is to change the currently required phasing of the works. This will enable them to clear the
Streatham Hub site and undertake all the construction in a single phase. This leads to the requirement for a
temporary site for the ice rink. This application is open for objection until 15/12/2010. The organisations
responsible for this briefing document strenuously object to it for reasons which include the following:

 It is not open to the LB of Lambeth to vary the section 106 agreement
The section 106 agreement was determined by the Mayor of London. Any variation of the agreement must
therefore be a matter for the Mayor.

The variation is not necessary
The only purpose of the variation is to save Tesco plc money. It appears that the company has persuaded the
Borough that the recession makes the Streatham redevelopment uneconomic as planned. However, the
company’s half year financial results for the 26 weeks ended 28 August 2010 show that the group’s sales
increased by 8.3% to £32,914 million. To be fair, the Tesco group is a global operation and the UK sector did
less well with sales increasing by “only” 5.9% to £21,870 million1. To put these figures of £32.9 and £21.8
billion for 6 months into perspective, in the 2010 UK Government Spending Review, the total expenditure
limit for Defence for 2010/11 is £36.9 billion for the year2.
So with annual UK sales exceeding the national defence budget, Tesco plc cannot afford to honour the
agreement it reached on how to build a new supermarket in south London.

 The variation opens the way to an inadequate replacement ice rink
The immediate, practical effect of Tesco plc being granted such an application is to open the way for the
temporary (for three years) ice rink on the Pope’s Road site. For the many reasons set out below in the
objections to that planning application below, the replacement rink would be totally inadequate and not fit
for purpose.

 The variation is perverse in the light of planning application 10/02434/FUL
As detailed above, the granted planning application 10/02434/FUL allows Tesco plc to increase the
floorspace of its proposed supermarket by some 56%. As a general rule of thumb, the larger a development,
the larger the community contribution by the developer through the section 106 agreement. In this instance,
having secured a huge increase in the size of its development, Tesco plc wishes to reduce its section 106
contribution by reducing its construction costs to the detriment and annoyance of two local communities.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 12, 2010)

http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=71631

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/...g/PlanningObligationsSection106Agreements.htm

links to info on Section 106 agreements


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 14, 2010)

Comments--------Submission Type: Customer objects to the Planning Application. 

Comments: This variation to the original Section 106 should not be allowed. The old agreement to keep the continuity of ice at Streatham was agreed with the Mayor of London. It is not up to the Council to change it. This is not being done not in the interests of Lambeth residents but because Tescos have decided to go back on there original agreement.  

They say that in the present economic climate the original agrement needs to be changed. Tescos are a large multinational company who are making sizeable profits. They can afford to keep to the original Section 106. 

 The other planning application for a larger store at Streatham has already been agreed. As Section 106 is related to size of development the size of the section 106 should be increased. The application does not do this. In fact it specifies the the £300k for leisure paid by Tescos is to be kept as it is and not increased. 

Im concerned that the document says the Tescos expect the Council to take the risk for finding a temporary site. This should not be the Councils problem. Its Tescos who want a larger store and also to move the ice rink off site. If the Council takes the risk and does not find a site what happens then? Is it liable financially? 

 I am concerned that the application says that if the basis for funding the scheme is changed and the risk moves away from Tescos then Tescos Section 106 commitment to the cost of paying for the development needs to be re looked at. What does this mean in practise?That several years down the line Tescos can wriggle out of commitment to paying for development? 

The paperwork provided for public to comment on begs more questions than it answers. It is superficial and the bare minimum needed. Its hard to comment on in detail as it does not provide any. Makes me think this application is purely to allow Council officers and Tescos to finalise a detailed variation without public scrutiny.

 I also do not like the way that this "variation" has been put forward. The three applications for the Streatham hub are linked but are being pushed forward at different times. This variation to the Section 106 should have been applied for first. Only if it is agreed should the Popes road car park application be put forward. Also the application for a larger store has been agreed. The issue of the Section 106 should have been raised at that application. As the development is larger so should have the Section 106 been increased. 

The way Tescos and sections of the Council are using the planning process does not facilitate community involvement in decision making. This is particularly pertinent as Lambeth is moving towards being a "Cooperative Council". 

In summary.

 The Mayor needs to be consulted on any variation to Section 106. As this is a strategically important sports site if the Mayor says that the original ice rink stays open at Streatham until the new one is built then this application should not be allowed. I dont understand why this application does not mention the Mayors involvement in this site.

 Tescos can afford to keep to the original agreement

 This application is not detailed so should be knocked back for more detail from relevant officers. 

The relationship between the Council and Tescos for the various "risks" in the development is of concern. It must be made clear so that Tescos some time later cannot offload problems onto the Council if the development goes wrong.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Dec 14, 2010)

excellent stuff Gramsci 

I find it hard to believe that Lambeth planners are not aware of Tesco's modus operandi in terms of applying for planning permission then constantly changing the goalposts over the coming months/years.


----------



## netbob (Dec 15, 2010)

All Labour councillors appear to have been told not to discuss any of this. I've emailed my (normally responsive) councillors a couple of times, and there is a wall of silence. 

One of may neighbours was nearly knocked over last week due to cars vying for the remaining parking spaces on the market.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Dec 16, 2010)

memespring said:


> One of may neighbours was nearly knocked over last week due to cars vying for the remaining parking spaces on the market.


 
1. People argue over parking spaces regardless of scarcity.
2. People who park their cars in large multi-story car parks sometimes injure pedestrians. I'll guess that the closure of the car park has, if anything, reduced pedestrian injuries.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 18, 2010)

Brixton Hatter said:


> excellent stuff Gramsci
> 
> I find it hard to believe that Lambeth planners are not aware of Tesco's modus operandi in terms of applying for planning permission then constantly changing the goalposts over the coming months/years.



Thanks. Its not all my stuff. I have taken it from a doc written to explain and summarise this issue. I will check to see if all of it is for public consumption and put up more of it.

I think Lambeth planners are aware of how developers work. In theory the application for an ice rink to replace the car park is put together by Tescos. 

This is a political planning application which is supported by the ruling Labour party. So the officers have to push it through or not try to hard to knock it back. However I notice that in all correspondence ( see Eds email from Future Brixton) they are careful not to say this. Though I notice the mask slips sometimes- as in SLP article where the Labour group complain that Sports England do not agree that the site is fit for purpose.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 18, 2010)

memespring said:


> All Labour councillors appear to have been told not to discuss any of this. I've emailed my (normally responsive) councillors a couple of times, and there is a wall of silence.
> 
> One of may neighbours was nearly knocked over last week due to cars vying for the remaining parking spaces on the market.



I think some Cllrs realise in planning terms its bollox. But under the leadership of Steve Reed they are being whipped. This should not happen in planning as it is quasi judicial. But there u go thats how politics works.

Still worth emailing Cllrs to make them know there is opposition.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Dec 19, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> Still worth emailing Cllrs to make them know there is opposition.



Or, more likely, widespread support.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 22, 2010)

Why "more likely"?


----------



## Laughing Toad (Dec 23, 2010)

Because skating rinks are popular. Dissused car parks are not.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 27, 2010)

U havent read this thread if that is all u can say.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 27, 2010)

Saw this in Brixton road


----------



## Streatham_Mao (Jan 5, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Or, more likely, widespread support.


 
[Citation needed]


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Or, more likely, widespread support.


I'm sure you'll be able to back up that claim right now.

Can't you?


----------



## netbob (Jan 5, 2011)

I havent had a proper chance to look yet, but here's an FOI of parking tickets for the period post-carpark closure. There's definitely something odd going on on Electric Lane where the council appear to have stopped prosecuting anyone (admission that there is a lack of parking for shoppers?).

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/parking_tickets_in_brixton_town#incoming-136198


----------



## happyshopper (Jan 5, 2011)

Seems more likely that they started to lock the gates.


----------



## netbob (Jan 5, 2011)

What gates? To the market? No change as far as I know.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jan 5, 2011)

editor said:


> I'm sure you'll be able to back up that claim right now.
> 
> Can't you?


 
Relax. It's an opinion not a claim.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 5, 2011)

happyshopper said:


> Seems more likely that they started to lock the gates.



yes what gates? I concur with Memsprings photos earlier on in this thread that there is a lot of parking there on Sundays. It does seem strange that tickets have gone down in exactly the areas where , now the car park is permanently closed, u would have thought parking would have increased. 

Have the parking wardens been told to back off by Council?


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 5, 2011)

memespring said:


> I havent had a proper chance to look yet, but here's an FOI of parking tickets for the period post-carpark closure. There's definitely something odd going on on Electric Lane where the council appear to have stopped prosecuting anyone (admission that there is a lack of parking for shoppers?).
> 
> http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/parking_tickets_in_brixton_town#incoming-136198



The officers dont exactly fall over themselves to get u the info. Its not rocket science to define the town centre.

Ive had a similar experience with officers. They have spent 4 months to find out if the Council own a piece of pavement. Not until then can they pursue the complaint I have put in. They say.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 24, 2011)

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=442&MId=7162

The planning application by Tescos , with support from Lambeth Council, is going to  Planning Committee on Wednesday 2nd Feb. Meeting starts 7pm. Its fairly high up on agenda.

I know that Friends of Brixton Market and the Market Traders are urging the public to attend the meeting. Members of the public can attend the meeting. Only those who have put in objections have right to speak.

The officer recommendation is , surprise surprise, to recommend approval.

I notice that the Council have put three applications together for this meeting. 

Variation of the Section 106 agreement.
Porden road car park application
Temporary ice rink at Popes road.

The links to pdf  in link are detailed background info written by officers. They also summarise the objections.

Its quite clear that officers have been told to bend over backwards to support these applications.


----------



## Streatham_Mao (Jan 25, 2011)

There's also a sitewalk on this Saturday (29th Jan), at 10:45am.  The public can't make representations to Councillors, but can at least listen to what they say while there.


----------



## editor (Jan 25, 2011)

Latest update:



> Dear Future Brixton mailing list
> 
> Temporary ice rink proposals to be considered
> 
> ...


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 25, 2011)

I got that from Future Tesco today as well. The Council cannot support an application by a private business. But the Council is using Future Brixton to phrase its emails in such a way that the application sounds reasonable.

Future Brixton was set up to consult on the development of the Brixton Masterplan. Future Brixton was supposed to continue consulting the local community in development of the plan.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 25, 2011)

The email from Future Brixton does not say that Tescos have forced the Council to change the original planning agreements to build a bigger store.

Also that Tescos agreed to keep continuity of ice at Streatham as the local community, skaters and Mayor wanted. (Section 106 agreement)

Lambeth should be referring the variation to the Section 106 agreement to the Mayor.

As Tescos have now got permission to build a bigger store the Section 106 agreement should be increased. As Section 196 agreements are based on the size of development.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 25, 2011)

Streatham_Mao said:


> There's also a sitewalk on this Saturday (29th Jan), at 10:45am.  The public can't make representations to Councillors, but can at least listen to what they say while there.


 
It is on Saturday 29th January at 10.45 to noon

meeting at Junction of Popes road and Brixton Station road 

Ive been to site visits before. Normally some of the Cllrs turn up, Tescos will be there and architects with plans. They will discuss technical aspects among other things. I have 2 invites as the Variation of the Section 106 is on the committee agenda. 

They are fairly informal.

If anyone is around and wants to go details are above.

U could ask a few questions


----------



## Streatham_Mao (Jan 26, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> It is on Saturday 29th January at 10.45 to noon
> 
> meeting at Junction of Popes road and Brixton Station road
> 
> ...


 
I personally can't make it - I have  to revise for an exam on Monday and weekends are the only time I'm not up and about before dawn.

But I am definitely going to the council meeting; I'll be out of the exam period and my Streatham Network blog doesn't write itself.


----------



## Skaters4the Hub (Jan 28, 2011)

*Mayor objects to Popes Road*

Planning laws are in question, how can Lambeth Council approve this scheme and not require permission from the Mayor, they are adamant they can ignore the Mayor's objection, they say this is not a planning application it is only a variation of a section 106 agreement which he has no jurisidiction over, so all Tesco's had to do was wait a few years, change their mind and apply to vary his conditions and poke two fingers up, this needs a public inquiry lets see wat the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has to say, come on Eric Pickles, clarify Planning Law please.

Boris Johnson objects to Popes Road temporary rink
Date: 25 January 2011
I refer to your letter received on 24 November 2010 consulting the Mayor of London on the above application to vary the Section 106 agreement in respect of planning permission 08/03477/FUL.
I note that the temporary off-site solution could improve the viability and deliverability of the Streatham Hub development (although the recent permission for the additional retail floorspace will also improve viability). The benefits of the final development particularly for ice skating and
general leisure and recreation are also understood and supported. The efforts to find a suitable alternative site are also acknowledged. However, the cumulative impacts of the deficiencies in the temporary solution at Pope's Road are such that that this does not represent continuity of ice rink provision of a comparable standard. I therefore object to the application to vary the Section 106 agreement. Signed Boris Johnson

Is the Mayor's objection worth the paper it's written on? Will Tesco's be allowed to flout conditions set by the Mayor without any recourse?

Skaters 4 the Hub


----------



## nagapie (Jan 28, 2011)

Probably not or he wouldn't write it. I imagine Boris would support Tesco so this makes him look like he's supporting communities but actually does nothing. The Brixton forum is depressing today.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 28, 2011)

It appears from what I have been told by someone who knows a lot about planning that the Mayor has problems in a "call in" of a variation to a Section 106.

 The original planning process for the Streatham hub included the Ice rink which , because it is of strategic importance for London , meant that the Mayor (Livingstone) could call in the planning application. It was him that insisted on continuity of ice and not allowing Tescos to open there store until the new rink was finished. This was down to the Mayor not Lambeth Council.

The Council/ Tescos are seeking to (only) vary the Section 106. It looks like the Mayor cannot call it in if he disagrees with the outcome. This has implications for the rest of London. If this is allowed to happen it means any developer in cahoots with a local Council can alter Section 106 agreements later on after the main planning proposal has been agreed. It could make a mockery of Section 106 agreements. One of the few ways that local communities have a say over profit driven developers.

The Popes road application is not , in planning terms, of enough strategic importance for the Mayor to call in. 

So there you have it. Lambeth Council have managed to separate out Popes road application from variation to the Section 106 to try and make sure the Mayor does not have a say. Also the application to increase the size of the propsed Tescos store was done separately from this application to vary the Section 106. In fact as Section 106 agreements are related to size of development the agreement should have been increased at that time.

However, im not an expert, there are ongoing discussions.

Considering the issues at stake the Council is pushing this forward as quickly as possible.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 28, 2011)

Streatham_Mao said:


> I personally can't make it - I have  to revise for an exam on Monday and weekends are the only time I'm not up and about before dawn.
> 
> But I am definitely going to the council meeting; I'll be out of the exam period and my Streatham Network blog doesn't write itself.


 
I heard a couple of days ago that they are also going to do a site visit of the Porden road site as well on Saturday. They will meet at the Town Hall 9.45pm. After that site visit they will go down to Popes road.

Also there is going to be some kind of presentation in the Rec.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 28, 2011)

Cut and pasted this from Officer report for the Committee meeting. So its already in public domain. Its good letter from LibDem Cllrs. Many of whom represent the Streatham area.

Planning Applications 10/04049/S106 and 10/03425 (Streatham Hub S106 
 revision and Temporary ice rink, Pope’s Rd) 

 We the undersigned  Streatham Liberal Democrat councillors object to the 
revision of the Streatham Hub Section 106 agreement which was designed to 
safeguard the provision of ice skating in Streatham and to secure its 
continuity on the existing site. 

The consultation process is prejudiced by the paucity of information regarding 
the changes.  The simple description on the planning notice is inadequate and 
the sole supporting document gives a 16-line “summary of principal 
variations” with a schedule of clauses which would be varied but no detail as 
to what the variation would be.  

At present there is a clause in the S106 (Schedule 6 para 10.2) stating that 
“no part of the Store…shall be occupied and no part of the Store shall open 
for trade or continue to trade unless and until…….the Developer has achieved 
Completion of the Leisure Centre.”   We have been informed that this  clause 
will be removed from a revised S106.  

Even if the clause were to  remain it would be no guarantee of a replacement 
facility in the circumstances where the existing rink is demolished.   The 
applicant Tesco proposes to demolish all buildings on site, including the ice 
rink and council-owned leisure centre but the applicant could simply leave the 
site in an undeveloped state until such time as it thought fit or convenient 
regardless of the interests or needs of the Streatham population.  

Given the length of this process, without a single thing to show for it, and 
given that it is almost eight years since planning permission was granted, it is 
unreasonable to expect Streatham residents and ice rink and leisure centre 
users to put their unconditional trust in Tesco to complete, or even begin, 
construction of this development.  

Demolition of the ice rink, the swimming pool/leisure centre, together with the 
Go-Kart track, will leave Streatham devoid of any active leisure facilities for 
young people and families for a substantial period, and without any guarantee 
of their eventual replacement.  This is unacceptable and unsustainable and 
would have a damaging effect on community cohesion.  

We therefore express extreme concern over demolition of the existing facility 
and replacing it with  a temporary facility.  The applicant claims that the 
current S106 makes the scheme unviable and that by demolishing the whole 
site it will become profitable but the Council has failed to scrutinise the 
financial justification for reneging on the existing agreement.  

We further object to Brixton Pope’s Road as the location of a temporary rink. 
 The proposed facility fails on a number of counts:  
• It is inadequate in size, lacks basic facilities and is technically 
unfit for purpose  

• It will not be financially viable  

• It fails to replace facilities currently available at the existing 
Streatham rink  

• It is not easily accessible  

• There is grossly inadequate parking provision   

 The proposal is opposed by local residents and the business community in 
 Brixton. 

 Cllr Judy Best, Streatham Wells Ward 
 Cllr Clive Bennett, St Leonard’s Ward 
 Cllr Jeremy Clyne, Streatham Hill Ward 
 Cllr Alex Davies, Streatham Wells Ward 
 Cllr Roger Giess, St Leonard’s Ward 
 Cllr Ashley Lumsden, Streatham Hill Ward 
 Cllr Daphne Marchant, Streatham Wells Ward 

Page 71


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 28, 2011)

Comment on Applications from Sport England.

http://www.sportengland.org/about_us.aspx


 Sport England 


 Location:   Multi-storey Car Park, Pope’s Road, London  

 Proposals: Redevelopment of the site to provide a temporary ice facility  for 
 a period of three years including changing rooms, café, spectator  seating 
 and associated works 

Thank you for consulting Sport England on this application. As the site does 
not include a playing field, Sport England has considered the application as 
a non-statutory consultee. 

Any assessment of the proposals for a temporary ice rink in Brixton Town 
Centre must also take into account its potential implications for the existing 
and proposed ice rink in Streatham. Sport England’s understanding is that 
the rationale for the current proposal it to enable cost savings to be made in 
implementing the Streatham Hub redevelopment, i.e. for it to proceed in two 
phases: demolition across the entire site, followed by construction of the 
Tesco store, leisure facilities and residential accommodation. In order to 
secure a continuity of ice provision, the proposal for a temporary ice rink in 
Pope’s Road is designed to ‘bridge the gap’ until the replacement ice rink on 
the Streatham Hub site is opened. 

Whilst this appears to offer a pragmatic solution, in practice the proposals 
raise a number of serious concerns which render it clearly inferior to the 
proposals under the existing planning permission and S106 agreement, that 
require construction of the new sports facilities, including the ice rink, before 
the existing rink is demolished. By this means, there is retention of current 
provision in the same location and to existing standards. This has clear 
advantages in satisfying the needs of existing users and sustaining their 
levels of participation, activity and viability.  

In contrast, the proposal to replace the existing facility by a temporary rink in 
Brixton Town Centre carries significant risks to the sporting interests of 
current users. This is because the location is almost three miles away, 
involving travel on congested roads; does not offer equivalent accessibility 
(a particular issue for ice hockey players with their bulky kits, and for more 
vulnerable users, including people with learning difficulties) and it lies in a 
different catchment area to the Streatham Ice Arena.  

The confined nature of the Pope’s Road site has also imposed significant 
design restrictions on the proposed facilities for the temporary rink, including 
lack of provision of separate officials’ changing (a requirement for ice hockey competitions) 
and drastically reduced seating capacity for ice hockey spectators.
 The impact of the latter on the continuing financial viability of clubs,
 from reduced gate receipts, could result in clubs folding or 
having to move elsewhere. They would then be less likely to return to 
Streatham when the replacement ice rink is opened. The interests of sports 
development and growing participation would clearly be best served by 
continuing to meet the needs of existing clubs and participants at their 
preferred location in Streatham.  

Sport England therefore considers firstly, that there are outcomes 
detrimental to the interests of sport that are likely to result from relocating 
the ice facility to a temporary rink in Pope’s Road; and secondly, that these 
detrimental outcomes can best be avoided if the existing S106 requirements 
are retained for the implementation of the planning permission for the 
Streatham Hub development.  

In the light of the above, Sport England considers it necessary to lodge an 
objection to this planning application.  

I would be grateful if you would inform me of the outcome of this application
 in due course by forwarding a copy of the decision notice. This is needed to 
update our database on planning application consultations.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 28, 2011)

from officers report. 

  Following the neighbourhood consultations, at the time of writing a total of 
284 responses have been received from local residents objecting to the 
application (of which 30 are a standard circulated letter - see below). There 
have been 12 letters of support and 1 comment received. 

For an planning application to get this many objections is a lot.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 28, 2011)

Excerpt from comments on application by Save Skating in Streatham

Save Skating in Streatham represent the following groups, teams, clubs and 
Ice Skating users: 

Skaters 4 The Hub 
Streatham Chiefs Hockey team 
London Bulldogs Hockey team 
Werewolves of London Special Needs Hockey team 
Warriors under 10’s Hockey team 
Mini Braves under 12’s Hockey team 
Braves Under 14’s Hockey team 
Scorpions Under 16’s Hockey team 
Girls under 16’s Hockey team 
Women’s Storm Division 1 Girls B Hockey team 
Women’s Storm Premier Girls A Hockey team 
Beginners girls Hockey team 
Figure Skaters 
Ice Dance Skaters including Elite Skaters 
Pro Instructors 
Sound Studio 
Night Club 
Skate Shop 
The Two Thousand general public who have signed our petitions 

 Background to the Application 

Continuity of Ice provision within the section 106 requires the existing ice rink be open throughout until the new Ieisure Centre is built and operational, only then can the existing ice rink be closed and demolished. This does not infer that an ice rink can be opened elsewhere i.e. completely removed from the current site. The Mayor of London was clear in his conditions to keep the existing rink open back in December 2004, as were GOL in March 2005. 

It is not evident that the  scheme is more easily delivered in terms of construction and financial feasibility (if Streatham site is cleared and ice rink "temporarily" moved off site), nor is the extent of the impact of the recession on Tesco. Year on year turnover and profits have consistently 
increased, with the first 6 months of 2010 alone showing a profit of £1.6bn, an increase of over 9% on the previous year. Tesco can plead the recession has impacted them but we do not accept this. Breaking the section 106 agreement just for financial reasons, especially as Tesco’s have already been given approval to increase the floor space to 60,000 square feet (an increase of 56%), means this additional potential increase in turnover will more than offset the costs of keeping their promise to build the Leisure Centre first on the Streatham Hub site. 

We do not accept that this has speeded up the process. We believe this has 
slowed down the project by well over a year whilst needless investigations have spent time and wasted money looking for alternatives that just don’t exist. Had Tesco started the Leisure Centre project back in early 2009 it would be nearing completion by now.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 28, 2011)

from Save Skating in Streatham.

 This bit shows that Transport assessment is needed. Officers report states that it unnecessary as Brixton as suitable (in there eyes) transport links. I find this unbelieveable. The Council ( sorry I mean Tescos) are proposing a major new events based building.

Officers also admit that whilst there will be areas to pick up and let off passengers on minibuses and coaches there is no provision at Popes road for any coaches to stay there until end of matches. Therefore coaches will have to park elsewhere. The officers give no idea of where.

Here is excerpt:

A transport assessment is required to explain how a potential 100 cars in the busy times can be accommodated in the Popes Road area without causing further serious congestion problems. For example we have repeatedly advised officers that the Werewolves of London special needs ice hockey team have their training on a Saturday afternoon from 3pm till 7pm. There are 65 disabled children with a wide spectrum of disabilities and the provision of 2 disabled bays is clearly unacceptable for their purposes. These children cannot be dropped off and left while parents, carers or volunteers try to find parking offsite. Distance matters greatly to these players and their attendance would be during the busiest time of the week for Brixton Market. The Werewolves of London are a perfect example of the Big Society where there are many volunteer helpers assisting these special needs children. The club will fold if adequate provision of parking next to the rink is not available. In addition, the parking provision for the traders is 
almost half of what they currently have for vans, 25 spaces instead of 42, this will put these 17 vans onto the surrounding streets and add to the conflict for parking spaces further, they will also have much further to carry their goods to and from their shops or stalls.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 28, 2011)

Noise pollution. When people commented on the application there had been no thorough analysis of noise problems for nearby residents. This was due to , officers say, that the Popes rd car park is a dangerous structure , and people were not allowed on site to test for noise.

Officers now say there should not be noise problems. Or in there analysis not above "ambient" noise levels. Noise levels are related to average background noise levels for an area.

Trouble is , from personal experience, once something is built and there are problems they never get sorted out. Officers do not have to live with it.

from Save Skating in Streatham:

Are there any adverse Impacts of noise pollution minimised? 

We are concerned that the applicant was not allowed access to the car park to carry out these studies due to health and safety reasons, and that a full 
submission will only follow after this submission, We are not convinced a fair assessment of the dangerous structure has been carried out and argue this 
report should be made public and a further assessment urgently carried out. We do not wish to be in conflict with the local residents over noise if this has not been resolved. Skaters will be arriving and leaving 7 days a week from 6am till 2am and they should not be put in a potential situation of conflict with residents and traders in Brixton. The noise from the ice rinks external plant area is likely to be intrusive particularly at night when ambient background noise is at its lowest. The survey identified as needing to be carried out separately has yet to be done and we are concerned that the external plant will disturb neighbours in close proximity at residential accommodation in Wincheap Court and Westgate Court on Canterbury Crescent. We are not satisfied that attenuation, enclosures or screening will control this noise.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 28, 2011)

The officers report to the committee states that Kate Hoey MP endorses the objections raised by local groups and Brixton residents and re-affirms that the applicant should honour its original obligations. (that is original Section 106 agreement).

Chuka MP for Streatham is not mentioned in report. However he has statement on his website:

http://www.chuka.org.uk/2010/09/streatham-hub-popes-road-temporary-ice-provision/

Here is excerpt:


Firstly, I should state that, as the Member of Parliament for Streatham, I have no legal power to affect this situation nor am I a party or signatory to any of the agreements between Tesco and the Council – it would be misleading for me to claim otherwise. My role – as an advocate for the area – is to ensure that as many of the voices and concerns of the community as possible are heard when decisions are made.

Secondly, there are a range of stakeholders with an interest in this development but – as the history of the project has demonstrated – those interests are not necessarily aligned and, even within the different groups concerned, there is a diversity of views too; I know this because I have spent much time consulting with all of them. For example, some ice rink user groups are happy to accept Pope’s Road as a temporary solution; others are not. Unfortunately this is not a project that will complete to the satisfaction of all involved – a degree of compromise on everyone’s part will be required.

That said, all are agreed on the principle that we all want to see the Streatham Hub completed as soon as possible, so that we can benefit from the fantastic leisure provision which it will provide, employment opportunities and new homes. My priority has always been to see the project completed as quickly as possible with this aim in mind whilst ensuring that, at the very least, there is ice provision for the current users of the ice rink in the interim.

Thirdly, the original s106 Agreement – agreed in 2007 – will be varied by Deed of Variation (if it has not been already) to allow for the revised 2010 plans to proceed. This is because Tesco would not agree to develop the Hub on the basis agreed in 2007, citing current economic conditions and commercial viability. I voiced some scepticism of their arguments in this regard given its pre-tax profits increased during the recession but their position remains unchanged. It is for this reason that Tesco paying for temporary provision pending completion of the scheme was agreed upon this year. There has always been a possibility that, should Tesco not deem the scheme commercially viable, they would walk away from the Hub project altogether leaving the future of ice skating in Streatham in peril – thankfully we did not reach this point. So whilst I have great sympathy with the SSS campaign objective to enforce the original s106 Agreement, I do not see how this can be done given what has come to pass and Tesco’s position. A lot has happened since the original 2007 agreement was concluded and I do not think we can wind the clock back (so to speak).

However, this does not mean that I am entirely happy with the Pope’s Road solution that has been proposed as things stand. It is vital that the concerns raised in relation to parking, community safety, spectator accommodation and transport are addressed ahead of the erection of the temporary provision. I understand that ice skating user groups met with Council officers yesterday and that progress towards the resolution of some of these issues has progressed.

Between now and the construction of the temporary provision at the end of next year, I will do all I can to demand that these issues are resolved. I met with Council officers and cabinet members during the summer with this is mind and I have written to Council officers for an update on progress in this regard which I will publish on this website in due course. I have also spoken with my colleague, Tessa Jowell MP, in relation to the concerns raised by the Market Traders Association of Brixton Market which is located in her constituency.

Finally, I am aware that the user groups of Streatham Swimming Pool feel that their concerns in relation to swimming provision in the vicinity have been overlooked somewhat given the focus on the ice rink. I was a frequent user of the pool myself as a child as I often competed there as a competitive swimmer. It is totally unsatisfactory that my constituents have been having to travel some distance in order to be able to continue to swim on a regular basis. This is an issue I have raised with the Council but my office will be seeking to arrange a meeting between myself and the stakeholder group for Streatham Swimming Pool imminently to see what further needs to be done.

If you wish to contact me further on this issue, please write to me at my constituency office or email me – contact details are here.

Kind regards,

Chuka

Unlike Kate he will go far.


----------



## quimcunx (Jan 28, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> from officers report.
> 
> Following the neighbourhood consultations, at the time of writing a total of
> 284 responses have been received from local residents objecting to the
> ...


 
Sorry for I have not been reading the thread.  I got the application notice.  I see it's Tesco applying. They were meant to build one on the old site, yes?  And is the carpark being demolished for this or for why? Tell me why I'm objecting and I'll get on it.  Can you sum up? 

e2a:  Oh, I suppose I could read the post immediately above this one.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 28, 2011)

http://www.chuka.org.uk/about-chuka/

He is a pretty boy


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 28, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> Sorry for I have not been reading the thread.  I got the application notice.  I see it's Tesco applying. They were meant to build one on the old site, yes?  And is the carpark being demolished for this or for why? Tell me why I'm objecting and I'll get on it.  Can you sum up?
> 
> e2a:  Oh, I suppose I could read the post immediately above this one.



I been putting up excerpts from officers report that should explain. Also some of the earlier posts on this thread give info.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 28, 2011)

Another thing of concern about these 3 linked applications is the lack of consultation. 

When the new Brixton Masterplan was developed much was made of involving the community. Future Brixton was supposed to continue this community based development. A new Town Centre Mge was set up with a Brixton Stakeholders Meetings held on a regular basis.

This has all been ditched for the sake of Tescos. The only group to be consulted here is Tescos.

Here is excerpt from Brixton Market Traders Federation comment to Popes road application.

 Before setting out the substance of the BMTF’s objection, it should be 
noted that neither the applicant nor the Council has engaged in any 
meaningful pre-application consultation with the BMTF or its members. 

There are three points we would wish to emphasise: 

a. There was no serious attempt by the Council to canvass the BMTF’s views before deciding that the site should be identified as the preferred location for the temporary ice-rink. Had these views been canvassed, and properly taken into account, it is unlikely that the site would have been selected for the reasons that we set out below. 

b. The two meetings reported at paragraph 6.2 of the Planning Statement submitted by the applicant in support of its application (“the Planning 
Statement”) did not constitute proper and effective consultation. The first was a relatively brief informal discussion, which was used essentially to inform the BMTF that the site was going to be used as the location for the temporary ice- rink rather than to canvass the BMTF’s views. The second was more formal, at which a letter was given to the cabinet member for Regeneration and the lead regeneration officer. the letter outlined the BMTP’s opposition to the closure of the car park and stated the need for wider consultation with all relevant Brixton town centre stakeholders. The proposed ice-rink use was at all times presented to the BMTF as a fait accompli, rather than a proposal at a formative stage, and the BMTF’s views were not being sought as to whether the proposal was or was not a sensible one to pursue. 

c. The clear views expressed by the BMTF at the pre-application stage as to the inadequacy and impracticality of the proposed alternative arrangements 
for stallholders’ parking have simply been ignored. 

The BMTF has been left with the very clear impression that, for commercial reasons, this application has been put together in considerable haste, without the benefit of any proper pre-application consultation or an adequate detailed understanding of the impacts or practicality of the proposal. This has manifested itself in the limited and superficial nature of the supporting material submitted by the applicant. For reasons that we explain below the net result is that the Council has not been provided with sufficient information to enable the impacts of the proposal to be assessed, and thus it is not in a position where it can properly determine the application.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 29, 2011)

The officers report state that a temporary car park in Porden road ( behind Town Hall) is a suitable replacement for a loss of parking at Popes road.

"The application does propose off street car parking facilities for ice users. There would be up to 23 spaces for ice users. Additionally the proposed temporary car park in Porden Road is only a short walk from the application site and there would be on street car parking available for ice users.

There would also be an off street coach drop-off / pick-up point dedicated to ice users and their supporters which would be available when the ice facility is in operation. 

It is considered therefore that there would be sufficient car parking on site 
and on street locally to accommodate car parking and the dropping off and 
collection of teams and supporters."

At the site visit today the Skaters turned up to show how awkward it is to walk from Porden road to the proposed site of ice rink in Popes road.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 30, 2011)

If u dont know Brixton walking from Porden road to the Rec is not a short walk. Its down from Town Hall through the busy Brixton road which is always busy with shoppers, those coming off tube, those waiting at bus stops and traffic. So the ice hockey players have to take all there kit through this to the Rec. 

Plus when officers say that there are drop off/ pick up points for coaches it turns out there is no dedicated areas for coaches to park. Between dropping off and picking up they have to make there own arrangements.

The dropping off point is next to Rec. This will be shared with Rec. The road is busy with a lot of other people parking up and traffic from Police station nearby. It is not equivalent replacement for facilities in Streatham.


----------



## fortyplus (Jan 31, 2011)

There was a site visit on Saturday to which I as an objector was invited, but I was working and couldn't go. Did anyone else go and has anyone got anything to report about it?  The planning meeting is at 7pm on Weds, apparently, in the Town Hall - but again, I don't think I can go.


----------



## netbob (Jan 31, 2011)

I didn't go on Saturday but will be there on Wednesday. I hope lots of people can make it, given the level of resistance to the project (Brixton residents, Streatham residents, Sport England, the mayor, market traders, Friends of Brixton Market, shop owners) hopefully there's a chance they might listen to some sanity if enough people turn up.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 31, 2011)

I went. The photos were from the site visit. Basically it was going around Porden road and the Popes road site so that Cllrs can see the actual site rather than just look at plans. A lot of people turned up and it was lively to say the least. A lot of irate parents from Streatham.

 Apart from the committee members some of the Streatham LibDem Cllrs turned up as well. Plus 2 Labour Cllrs one of whom has put in objection to Popes road because they are concerned about loss of parking. If the parking issue is resolved to there satisfaction they would not be against it.

Porden road really is not suitable as a car park imo. I can understand why the residents of Porden road are against it. Apart from the fact that it is not a suitable replacement for parking that will be lost in central Brixton- its to far away.

The Cllrs and objectors went around the Popes road site. The market traders turned up to that part of the site visit. 

There was just one person from Tescos and he was a planning consultant. The rest were Lambeth Officers who were trying to explain the application rather than Tescos. I felt a bit sorry for them. It clear they have been told from above to expediate these applications. They were getting the stick when imo it should have been Tesco down there at Popes road justifying it- its there application in theory.

Still as the Chair of the planning committee said the site visit was not supposed to be the actual discussion. That will take place on Wednesday.  

It looks like there will be a lot of people at the meeting. From chatting to a few people its quite normal for contentious applications to take hours to discuss and decide on. I got the feeling that the Chair wants people to have there say.


----------



## colacubes (Jan 31, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> It looks like there will be a lot of people at the meeting. From chatting to a few people its quite normal for contentious applications to take hours to discuss and decide on. I got the feeling that the Chair wants people to have there say.



I hope so.  This will be the second planning meeting I've been to since I've lived in central Brixton and I really feel that this is wronger than wrong.  It fucks up Streatham, imposes massive infrastructure on problems on central Brixton (I could do without being run over almost every time I come out of my flat ). and frankly panders to the big business whims of Tescos who have been fucking about trying to get out of redeveloping that site nearly as long as I've lived in South London (over a decade).


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 31, 2011)

memespring has also said that there have been parking issues in the market area since the car park closed. So have you had the same? 

The Council is trying to say the the replacement car park in Porden road will be a replacement. But imo its to far away and inconvenient to get to. In which case there will be more parking issue in central Brixton?


----------



## colacubes (Jan 31, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> memespring has also said that there have been parking issues in the market area since the car park closed. So have you had the same?
> 
> The Council is trying to say the the replacement car park in Porden road will be a replacement. But imo its to far away and inconvenient to get to. In which case there will be more parking issue in central Brixton?


 
We live together so the issues are slightly overlapping 

But seriously, will it fuck be comparable.  It's been terrible since they shut Popes Road and the ice rink will only make it worse.  I have other misgivings about the project as a whole but this is what we as local residents can argue on that might help.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 31, 2011)

If memespring can bring his photos that would be good


----------



## colacubes (Jan 31, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> If memespring can bring his photos that would be good



We're both coming so we'll bring as much as we can.  That was in our plan for what we want to say


----------



## fortyplus (Feb 1, 2011)

Good luck all for tomorrow.
- Porden road is not suitable as market parking, it's far too far away. If you parked there you might as well go to Tescos. Oh. Yes. I see. 
- The parking issue is about the market. The market needs parking as close to the market as Tescos has parking to its stores. 
- Skating belongs in Streatham. They're not the Lambeth Redskins.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Feb 2, 2011)

nipsla said:


> (I could do without being run over almost every time I come out of my flat )


 
The way to reduce traffic outside your flat is to reduce the number of available car parking spaces in the area. If there are fewer car parking spaces then people won't bring their cars here.


----------



## colacubes (Feb 2, 2011)

Just left the meeting after 4 hours. It'll be going gone midnight easily as they've still got a large amount of objections to go through and also a large chunk of the item to go.  My reading is that it'll go through but I sincerely hope I'm wrong. 

There's at least one hardcore urbanite still there so there may be updates later.


----------



## lordnoise (Feb 3, 2011)

If I remember correctly the bit of Streatham Common bordering the road of the same name opposite The Greyhound pub is a flat unremarkable area of municipal grass (the park does gets seriously interesting on many fronts further to the East). Would there really be a problem with constructing a temporary rink there and re-grassing it afterwards ?


----------



## editor (Feb 3, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> The way to reduce traffic outside your flat is to reduce the number of available car parking spaces in the area. If there are fewer car parking spaces then people won't bring their cars here.


If only life was so simple.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 3, 2011)

I took notes at the meeting and will do full report on the weekend. The Ed suggested that I start a new thread for that. Im a bit tired after that marathon meeting.

To summarise the three applications were passed.

The sole LibDem Cllr on the committee Cllr Palmer voted against all three applications- Porden Road car park , Ice rink at Popes road and variation to Section 106.

The Labour Cllr Edbrooke abstained on the vote to agree the Ice rink at Popes road and the Variation to Section 106.

The other three Labour Cllrs on the committee voted to agree all three applications with some extra conditiions.

The meeting was well attended by the public. Including Streatham skaters, Friends of Brixton Market, Brixton Society, Porden Road residents association , Brixton Market Traders Federation and Urbanites.

Several LibDem Cllrs from the Streatham area attended to oppose the application. Including Cllr Best ( who has done a lot ) and Cllr Clyne.

Labour Cllr Matt Parr who is Coldharbour Ward Cllr  ( the ward the Market is in) attended and spoke to oppose the replacement of the Car park by the Ice rink because he was not convinced there was adequate replacement  parking for the market.

There was at least one blogger there. See here:

http://www.streathampulse.com/2011/02/03/popes-road-planning-permission-passed/


----------



## netbob (Feb 3, 2011)

BTW: The headline facts were that Tesco admitted that:

1) The temporary ice rink would cost £3m to build and run i.e. exactly the same as the money the Streatham Hub will supposedly save by creating a temporary rink in Brixton.
2) The two years that _might_ be saved from the Streatham Hub project by the move to Brixton, but only take the project back to the original estimate of three years (Tesco upped the time frame for the project when they found the build was harder than they originally thought)
3) The only financial benefit for stakeholders will be for Tesco when they open their store on time (they actually admitted this to the committee)


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 4, 2011)

Correct memespring. 

I did find it somewhat odd that the Council Officers kept saying that the changes to the Section 106 were needed because the recession had changed the viability of the scheme. However the people from Tescos said that the money saved would be going into the rink at Brixton. It was a zero sum game. The Tescos reps did not mention the recession as a reason.


----------



## Streatham_Mao (Feb 5, 2011)

Not only that but, as numerous residents pointed out, the plans breached various policies.  The council seems really invested in this project. I can understand as leisure facilities in Lambeth are dreadful, but theyre willing to sacrifice a lot, it seems.


----------



## Skaters4the Hub (Feb 5, 2011)

*Onwards and upwards Judicial Review?*

We are beginning to investigate a Judicial Review of the Section 106 variation, there is no equivalence to the Streatham Ice Arena facilities at Popes Road, the distorted report full of inaccuracies prepared by DP9 is pure fantasy to conclude that Popes Road is not just the same as but better than Streatham's Ice Arena.
If we do go down this route it will be expensive, we will be looking for donations to help fund this, too many people and businesses will be impacted irreversibly by this crazy decision, lives and livelihoods’ will be at risk, it may create jobs in Brixton but what about all the jobs lost in Streatham. We will be setting. The threats of if the businesses in Brixton don’t respond to the opportunity created by the Ice rink coming to Brixton, others will is not just a hollow threat, gentrification of Brixton is on the cards and the multi-cultural businesses that meet the special needs of their customers are really under threat. Skaters do not come to go shopping, so there wil  be little benefit to businesses from these skaters, the only benefactor will be Brixton’s parking services who will be making millions out of our skaters and their parents  forced to pay to park.
 Insult No1- "This is gentrification of Brixton and you have not got your ticket".
Insult No 2. "White middle class people want to shop in Brixton and buy books and  cheese from cheese shops.  They want to stroll around Brixton and not have to look at 16 horrible looking meat shops on Electric Avenue, It is time for Brixton to move on". The insults came from 2 Councillors who got into their seats by their means necessary and forgot  the votes of the people who need the smelly meat shops, who can already buy both cheese and books in Brixton.  
Brixton Market is under threat, our youth will be under threat, our clubs and teams will not only be priced out of the rink but logistically, getting to it adds at least an hour to journey times, lack of space and storage will cause frustration, and lack of adequate parking close by will stretch patience not just of our users but also local businessmen and residents, how much pain are we supposed to live with,  just to appease Lambeth’s political ideology and increase the profitability of Tesco’s two years earlier than the original section 106 allowed them.
Watch this space we will be keeping all informed of our plans, you will be told how to donate if we proceed..


----------



## Streatham_Mao (Feb 5, 2011)

> Insult No 2. "White middle class people want to shop in Brixton and buy books and  cheese from cheese shops.  They want to stroll around Brixton and not have to look at 16 horrible looking meat shops on Electric Avenue, It is time for Brixton to move on". The insults came from 2 Councillors who got into their seats by their means necessary and forgot  the votes of the people who need the smelly meat shops, who can already buy both cheese and books in Brixton.


 
I saw a member of the audience round on Cllr Prentice for that one after the meeting.  I hope like hell my recorder caught the original line...


----------



## Rushy (Feb 5, 2011)

Skaters4the Hub said:


> Insult No1- "This is gentrification of Brixton and you have not got your ticket".
> Insult No 2. "White middle class people want to shop in Brixton and buy books and  cheese from cheese shops.".



I'm staggered that an experienced councillor would say that publicly. Even if it is exactly what they were thinking.

Who is alleged to have made "insult no.1" and what was the context?


----------



## Streatham_Mao (Feb 5, 2011)

And any idea *when* it was said?  I've got hours of audio here and it's quite easy to miss little bits.


----------



## colacubes (Feb 5, 2011)

Streatham_Mao said:


> And any idea *when* it was said?  I've got hours of audio here and it's quite easy to miss little bits.



I didn't hear it and left the meeting at 11pm if that helps with timing.


----------



## Streatham_Mao (Feb 5, 2011)

nipsla said:


> I didn't hear it and left the meeting at 11pm if that helps with timing.


 
Afraid not - I don't think I've even got that far in the audio.  Just passed Palmer's destruction of the officers' report which, by the way, was awesome.


----------



## lang rabbie (Feb 5, 2011)

Streatham_Mao said:


> And any idea *when* it was said?  I've got hours of audio here and it's quite easy to miss little bits.


 
I'm not convinced that Sally Prentice did say it on Wednesday.  I only heard it from one of the hecklers, who seemed to be recounting something from an earlier meeting Prentice had had with the market traders.   However, what Prentice did say in her rambling attempt to defend the indefensible was so patronising to the Brixton traders/residents that I'm not surprised many people think she had said that in the planning meeting.


----------



## Streatham_Mao (Feb 5, 2011)

lang rabbie said:


> I'm not convinced that Sally Prentice did say it on Wednesday.  I only heard it from one of the hecklers, who seemed to be recounting something from an earlier meeting Prentice had had with the market traders.



Well, I wasn't going to discount anything until I have been through the file.  If it's there, it's there.  If it's not, it's not.  It's dynamite either way, so I'd say it's in people's interest to prove it (or not).      



> However, what Prentice did say in her rambling attempt to defend the indefensible was so patronising to the Brixton traders/residents that I'm not surprised many people think she had said that in the planning meeting.


 
This.  She certainly said something close to it on Wednesday.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 5, 2011)

From my notes of the meeting here is what Cllr Sally Prentice said.

She was saying that the ice rink would be good for the local economy (of Brixton). It would bring in more people.

There was some barracking from the floor from traders and audience.

She then said that if "if existing businesses dont take advantage of new (oppurtunities?) then others will".

She imo lost it at that moment and had a go at the traders. 

There were comments at the back about "cheese shops" every time she spoke in favour of rink. It seems some time ago she made some remark about how she couldnt find a decent cheese shop in Brixton.

The gentrification insult I dont remember.

Gentrification is a Brixton issue. I dont think it is wise to bring it up. The opposition to the Ice Rink at Popes road was by a wide range of people. Some of whom might be characterised as white middle class. But other people wouldnt agree. Still the campaign to stop this application kept together. It brought together a disparate group of people. As Brixton is a complicated mix of people. Supporting the Traders against Tescos/ Lambeth is something we could all agree on. Even if we didnt agree on other issues re Gentrification.

I kept my remarks to the committee to planning issues around the Popes road development. So much time was spent on the arguments around the Section 106 and the overall problems of the Hub scheme that a lot of the issues around the application were not discussed in the end. 

Im really not happy about that. Normally issues of design , affects of on residents would be discussed. Even though the meeting was long it was not enough to cover all the issues in detail.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 5, 2011)

In this Fridays SLP Nadia Gilanis version is that Sally said

"If businesses in Brixton dont take this oppurtunity, there are other businesses who will."

Which is similar to my notes. I defer to Nadias expertise


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 5, 2011)

Cllr Palmer was the one Cllr was argued that it was ok to record the meeting.

I would like to give Cllr Palmer credit for his to the point questions. He was not prepared to be browbeaten by officers , chair or Tescos. As he knew he would be the only Cllr on the committee who would speak his mind he played an important role for those of us who opposed the applications.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 5, 2011)

Streatham_Mao said:


> Not only that but, as numerous residents pointed out, the plans breached various policies.  The council seems really invested in this project. I can understand as leisure facilities in Lambeth are dreadful, but theyre willing to sacrifice a lot, it seems.


 
This was what was not discussed in enough detail. Despite Brixton Society putting in why it had in its written submission.


----------



## Streatham_Mao (Feb 6, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> This was what was not discussed in enough detail. Despite Brixton Society putting in why it had in its written submission.


 
I've only lived in Streatham for a year and a bit (and spent the majority of that time in Uni at Holloway), but my personal impression was that the Labour Cllrs didn't really want to discuss any problems, let alone ones that hit the mark.


----------



## Streatham_Mao (Feb 6, 2011)

And, because I love you all, here's Prentice's second speech in full (4 MEG dl, MP3 file).  It kicks off about 4:15, but I think it's all worth a listen.


----------



## netbob (Feb 6, 2011)

Streatham_Mao said:


> And, because I love you all, here's Prentice's second speech in full (4 MEG dl, MP3 file).  It kicks off about 4:15, but I think it's all worth a listen.


 
Can you put it on youtube? / is it ok for me to do so?


----------



## Streatham_Mao (Feb 6, 2011)

memespring said:


> Can you put it on youtube? / is it ok for me to do so?



EDIT: Actually, feel free.  I was wondering about uploading the entire thing for people to explore, anyway.  The meeting just seemed too huge for people to hear unedited.

Just credit me as a source of the audio.


----------



## netbob (Feb 6, 2011)

Streatham_Mao said:


> EDIT: Actually, feel free.  I was wondering about uploading the entire thing for people to explore, anyway.  The meeting just seemed too huge for people to hear unedited.
> 
> Just credit me as a source of the audio.



Where should I link to? Or shall I just put Streatham_Mao ?


----------



## Streatham_Mao (Feb 6, 2011)

memespring said:


> Where should I link to? Or shall I just put Streatham_Mao ?


 
Heh, forgot about that. 

Uh, 'Mark Oxley of the Streatham Network' is good.


----------



## Dheffo (Feb 7, 2011)

Skaters4the Hub said:


> Insult No 2. "White middle class people want to shop in Brixton and buy books and  cheese from cheese shops.  They want to stroll around Brixton and not have to look at 16 horrible looking meat shops on Electric Avenue, It is time for Brixton to move on"


 
FFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU...............

If you want cheese shops, go move somewhere else. Brixton is brilliant for it's variety, not for the addition of ponce-shops.


----------



## Winot (Feb 7, 2011)

Dheffo said:


> FFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU...............
> 
> If you want cheese shops, go move somewhere else. Brixton is brilliant for it's variety, not for addition of ponce-shops.


 
In fact, Brixton has some great cheese shops - Spoon, Portuguese deli, Wild Caper, Rosies. As you say, variety is good.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 7, 2011)

Winot said:


> In fact, Brixton has some great cheese shops - Spoon, Portuguese deli, Wild Caper, Rosies. As you say, variety is good.


 
Not forgetting Iceland which does a Mature Forest White Cheddar:
http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2007/jun/whitecheddar


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 7, 2011)

perhaps she means something more like this

Ive never seen a Labour Cllr in Iceland. Iceland also do an affordable range of veggie food as well.

http://www.paxtonandwhitfield.co.uk/shop_content.php?coID=11


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 7, 2011)

Chuka changed his tune from when he wrote this:

http://www.chuka.org.uk/2010/02/umunna-says-tesco-should-put-up-or-shut-up/

Commenting on the current state of negotiations, Mr Umunna said: “If Tesco comes forward with proposals which are acceptable to the community and the council, it is crucial they are legally bound into their commitments. Any contract entered into with them must have teeth, and they should not be allowed to renege on any promises made.

“If Tesco do not come forward with proposals which are acceptable, the council should walk away from any deal and look to immediately progress the development of the Streatham Hub project on its own.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 8, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> perhaps she means something more like this
> 
> http://www.paxtonandwhitfield.co.uk/shop_content.php?coID=11


 
The gf would be pleased - her dad gives her £20 of Paxton cheese vouchers every Xmas. It would save her a journey.
Personally, the overwhelming cheesy whiff usually makes me gip.

Incidentally, was there any objection from Iceland re: car park closure? I would have thought they would be quite affected since they sell quite a lot of bulky stuff in high volumes.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 8, 2011)

No objections from Iceland or Morleys at the PAC but I heard some of the bigger stores in Brixton road did sign petition against losing car park.


----------



## Streatham_Mao (Feb 11, 2011)

Heh, I got an email from Cllr Clyne asking about the my audio files last night.  He said they could be important.  

Given everything, that's probably an understatement.  I don't think continuity of timetable was actually agreed, which seemed to be SISAG's main sticking point.  That'll go down well, and by well I mean really badly.   

Annoyingly my internet connection flakes out before I can get the files uploaded.  I may have to haul my laptop up to a wi-fi'd pub somewhere...


----------

