# Huge proposed development around Lambeth town hall promises 'community space and feel good vibes'



## editor (Oct 1, 2013)

We might be getting a 're-imagined' town hall and a 'new destination.'





> Transforming an early 20th Century civic building for a
> 21st Century Co-Operative Council
> •    Embrace heritage, enhance Brixton, enable Enterprise
> •    A catalyst for regeneration and investment





> THE TRIANGLE: A SPACE FOR EVERYONE
> •    A simple multi-use pavillion that exists purely for the Borough’s citizens: it is the glue
> that    links    the    Town    Hall    and    the    new    Civic    Offices
> •    The    Triangle    offers    the    flexibility    that    is    needed    to    attract    a    variety    of    different    types    of events making the public area at the rear of the Enterprise Centre a buzzing heart
> ...


http://futurebrixton.files.wordpres...oduction-presentation_16x9-final-low-res1.pdf - [Via]


----------



## editor (Oct 1, 2013)

More here: http://futurebrixton.files.wordpres...muse-presentation-for-co-production-event.pdf





It's all going to "creating community space and feel good vibes," which sounds awfully nice.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Oct 1, 2013)

And they say there is no money.
I wonder will all that glass be riot proof?


----------



## editor (Oct 1, 2013)

There's three proposed developments from Lambeth. Here's the good vibes one. I can't embed the video so you'll have to go here:

```
http://vimeo.com/75407690
```


----------



## Crispy (Oct 1, 2013)

Presumably this is funded by selling the "spare" land on the site (ie. the residential development on Porden Road, and the refurbishment of Ivor House)


----------



## trashpony (Oct 1, 2013)

A building is glue? 

This should be on the estate agent thread surely?


----------



## Rushy (Oct 1, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Presumably this is funded by selling the "spare" land on the site (ie. the residential development on Porden Road, and the refurbishment of Ivor House)


It was also supposed to be self funding, partly through cost savings. But I met a junior planning consultant working on the concept who was rather drunk and admitted that the savings were not going to be what they had expected.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 1, 2013)

What a surprise


----------



## Rushy (Oct 1, 2013)

There was a meeting today, 11.30 at the Town Hall and I forgot to go.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 1, 2013)

Looks like the Fridge Bar's a gonner. I won't miss that!


----------



## Chilavert (Oct 1, 2013)

Looks very impressive, much more aesthetically pleasing than what is there at the moment imo.

Edit: Looks pretty similar to Newham's HQ (for the time being at least) opposite City Airport


----------



## leanderman (Oct 1, 2013)

The big issue is: will there be schools and a GP surgery? Otherwise, it's just going to overload things further.


----------



## Tolpuddle (Oct 1, 2013)

Sure there will, wont be any council workers left to work in it!


----------



## Tolpuddle (Oct 1, 2013)

Chilavert said:


> Looks very impressive, much more aesthetically pleasing than what is there at the moment imo.
> 
> Edit: Looks pretty similar to Newham's HQ (for the time being at least) opposite City Airport


But will the cooperative light fittings cost £11000?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 1, 2013)

leanderman said:


> The big issue is: will there be schools and a GP surgery? Otherwise, it's just going to overload things further.


 
i think there are more chance of being winged horses that will take you to the shops.


----------



## pissflaps (Oct 1, 2013)

will there be winged horse parking facilities?


----------



## Chilavert (Oct 1, 2013)

Tolpuddle said:


> But will the cooperative light fittings cost £11000?


I suppose that depends on whether they fund the build through a PFI.


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 1, 2013)

editor said:


> There's three proposed developments from Lambeth. Here's the good vibes one. I can't embed the video so you'll have to go here:
> 
> ```
> http://vimeo.com/75407690
> ```



I wish I'd never watched that. 

It includes a still photo of a mime artiste. I should just stop there.  

Along with some f-ing awful use of image library 'youth' pictures. 

The proposed building opp St Matthews in one version is that brown brick / tiny windowed world of hell too. 

And reggae. Quite loud reggae that I'm assuming would be asbo'd if it was played anywhere near that new site.


----------



## editor (Oct 1, 2013)

snowy_again said:


> I wish I'd never watched that.
> 
> It includes a still photo of a mime artiste. I should just stop there.


Some things can't be unseen. Others should share our pain.


----------



## editor (Oct 1, 2013)

The aliens have landed here.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 1, 2013)

They're trees, hardly difficult to work out.


----------



## Onket (Oct 1, 2013)

TruXta said:


> They're trees, hardly difficult to work out.



But it's something to do with the Council, therefore must be criticised.


----------



## editor (Oct 1, 2013)

TruXta said:


> They're trees, hardly difficult to work out.


They'll still be space eggs for me.


----------



## pissflaps (Oct 1, 2013)




----------



## Winot (Oct 1, 2013)

editor said:


> Some things can't be unseen. Others should share our pain.
> 
> View attachment 41315



They're going to allow contributions to decision making to be made via the medium of mime.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 1, 2013)

editor said:


> They'll still be space eggs for me.


#bah/deleted#


----------



## T & P (Oct 1, 2013)

Are those solar panels on top of the new building?


----------



## editor (Oct 1, 2013)

T & P said:


> Are those solar panels on top of the new building?


I hope so. We need more of them around here.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 1, 2013)

T & P said:


> Are those solar panels on top of the new building?


If they're going to achieve BREEAM Excellent, CSH level 4, then yes, certainly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 1, 2013)

TruXta said:


> They're trees, hardly difficult to work out.



Giant egg podules is a much more interesting explanation, though, you destroyer of dreams!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 1, 2013)

T & P said:


> Are those solar panels on top of the new building?



And perhaps a green roof too, by the look of it?


----------



## Greebo (Oct 1, 2013)

I hate it.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 2, 2013)

The problem with this whole proposed development has been the lack of consultation.

The plans were developed by officers to an advanced stage without telling anyone.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 2, 2013)

Architect friend says 'at least they have some good architects in the running'.


----------



## gabi (Oct 2, 2013)

i quite like that. never thought id say that about anything lambeth proposed  altho i was happy to be proven wrong about the windrush square redevelopment, they did a good job on that.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 2, 2013)

Just clocked that Olive Morris House is going too. I know it's just me but I always liked that building (without some of the fence panel additions).


----------



## editor (Oct 2, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Just clocked that Olive Morris House is going too. I know it's just me but I always liked that building (without some of the fence panel additions).


It could be argued that the name is proving something of an embarrassment to the council given their recent attitude toward squatting. 


> The story of the first successful squatters of private property in Lambeth. In 1972, Olive Morris and Liz Turnbull, both members of the Brixton Black Panthers, occupied a flat above a launderette in Railton Road and successfully fought off attempts at illegal eviction. In doing so, they set an example for hundreds of homeless young people in Brixton and the flat remained squatted for many years.
> 
> At the end of 1972, Olive Morris and Liz Turnbull (Obi) found themselves without a place to live and not much money to rent. Taking the cue from a group of white women who had squatted a building on Railton Road and were running a Women’s Centre, they decided to inspect the area and find a suitable property.
> http://libcom.org/history/121-railton-road-lambeth


----------



## Rushy (Oct 2, 2013)

editor said:


> It could be argued that the name is proving something of an embarrassment to the council given their recent attitude toward squatting.



Are you suggesting that they are knocking it down on account of it carrying her name?
Seems a little unlikely.


----------



## editor (Oct 2, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Are you suggesting that they are knocking it down on account of it carrying her name?
> Seems a little unlikely.


Well, that's one rather curious (and extreme) way to spin my comment, but I do wonder whether the council might try to quietly get rid of the name if the area gets completely redeveloped.

After all, I imagine hardcore activist squatters aren't really the kind of thing that the 'community' council and their new development partners will want to celebrate or acknowledge in these glossy new builds.


----------



## Onket (Oct 2, 2013)

Knocking down a massive building is hardly 'quietly' getting rid of anything.

It's had long term leak related problems on the upstairs balconies, dunno if that's anything to do with it getting knocked down. Could be.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 2, 2013)

editor said:


> Well, that's one rather curious (and extreme) way to spin my comment, but I do wonder whether the council might try to quietly get rid of the name if the area gets completely redeveloped.
> 
> After all, I imagine hardcore activist squatters aren't really the kind of thing that the 'community' council and their new development partners will want to celebrate or acknowledge in these glossy new builds.



Sorry Ed. Sometimes I just don't realise how jolly extreme I am being.

The proposed building is called Olive Morris House too. So that's one less conspiracy theory for you to worry about for the time being.


----------



## editor (Oct 2, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Sorry Ed. Sometimes I just don't realise how jolly extreme I am being.
> 
> The proposed building is called Olive Morris House too. So that's one less conspiracy theory for you to worry about for the time being.


I wasn't proposing a 'conspiracy theory', just voicing an opinion. 

The council have a bit of a record of going back on their original plans for things so I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that a name change may happen further along the line.


----------



## newbie (Oct 2, 2013)

Have they even finished paying for either the build (1978) or the refit (2007) yet?


----------



## fortyplus (Oct 2, 2013)

gabi said:


> i quite like that. never thought id say that about anything lambeth proposed  altho i was happy to be proven wrong about the windrush square redevelopment, they did a good job on that.


that wasn't Lambeth's proposal, it came from Richard Rogers / the Architecture Foundation I think, part of a wider scheme to create more shared open spaces in urban areas.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 2, 2013)

Rushy said:


> It was also supposed to be self funding, partly through cost savings. But I met a junior planning consultant working on the concept who was rather drunk and admitted that the savings were not going to be what they had expected.



That is interesting as it is the rationale behind the scheme.

The development "partner" for the scheme will get Canterbury house office block as part payment.

They reckon the savings will also come by getting rid of what they regard as surplus Council office space. More "hot desking". Seems like they are envisaging a slimmed down Council.

The Labour Group and LDs argue about the office space issue. The Labour lot say the building at Vauxhall was a waste of money (it was LD idea). The LDs say the Town Hall proposals are costly and are not necessary.

imo its risky to get rid of office space. Once its gone thats it for any future Council. They got rid of surplus schools a while back and are now struggling to find land for schools.

The Cllrs are already thinking about the election next year. I reckon this scheme will be pushed forward as shining example of how Labour is doing a great job.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 2, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> And they say there is no money.
> I wonder will all that glass be riot proof?



I did notice that the blurb say there will be shutters to close off the public space planned. So yes it will be riot proof.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 2, 2013)

editor said:


> More here: http://futurebrixton.files.wordpres...muse-presentation-for-co-production-event.pdf
> 
> View attachment 41308
> 
> ...



I do not like the way the new building on Brixton Hill is higher than the original Town Hall buildings. The original Olive Morris house was built to a height that does not impose on the skyline.

Also the new building is just another bland glass box. They could try harder on design.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 2, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I do not like the way the new building on Brixton Hill is higher than the original Town Hall buildings. The original Olive Morris house was built to a height that does not impose on the skyline.
> 
> Also the new building is just another bland glass box. They could try harder on design.



We gotta go up as London's population increases!


----------



## CH1 (Oct 2, 2013)

Frankly I think these plans show a grandiosity and banality worthy of Benito Mussolini. The Co-op council's local inspiration is probably Tory Westminster Council - Brixton is being dragged into the 21st century much like the area round Victoria Station.
There doesn't seem to be much emphasis on employment generation, small businesses etc. Also Lambeth seem to be obstructing the proposed Workspace scheme at Toplin House (Ferndale Road Post office/Refugee Council building).  At least the Planning department are resisting Piano House going residential - and they have issued a decision holding Barratts to their section 106 agreement to provide office/retail space at Brixton Square.
I think packing more and more (mainly private) residential into Brixton without corresponding facilities is a disaster. We will end up as a sort of Earls Court - prime residential location with poor shopping and an incredibly busy tube station.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 2, 2013)

leanderman said:


> The big issue is: will there be schools and a GP surgery? Otherwise, it's just going to overload things further.



In the original Brixton Masterplan there was planned to be some kind of community medical facility. Did point this out a while back to an officer. He did not seem to know about it.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 2, 2013)

leanderman said:


> We gotta go up as London's population increases!



Maybe. But really poor design. There is the Town Hall and the former cinema now a club next to it. This building bears no relation to the rest of site. And looks to me that the Council is arguing that this is an example of thought out integrated design.


----------



## newbie (Oct 3, 2013)

Google Maps is so odd!

depending on exactly where you place the little yellow person in the area of the Porden Rd/Buckner Rd junction you can have Streetview from either 2008 or 2012 or, as you move about, both.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2013)

Onket said:


> Knocking down a massive building is hardly 'quietly' getting rid of anything.
> 
> It's had long term leak related problems on the upstairs balconies, dunno if that's anything to do with it getting knocked down. Could be.



From what a chap who used to work for Lambeth's "direct labour" building repairs told me, Olive Morris House has had pretty bad leakage problems (the balconies and upper window fitments especially) from when it was built onwards, and has cost the council (or rather, *us!*) a hefty sum every year "firefighting" the effects, so it could very well be that they've *finally* it's uneconomical to retain.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I do not like the way the new building on Brixton Hill is higher than the original Town Hall buildings. The original Olive Morris house was built to a height that does not impose on the skyline.
> 
> Also the new building is just another bland glass box. They could try harder on design.



I suspect that none of our current councillors and officers are willing to give hostages to fortune in the shape of choosing an "adventurous" design.


----------



## Onket (Oct 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> From what a chap who used to work for Lambeth's "direct labour" building repairs told me, Olive Morris House has had pretty bad leakage problems (the balconies and upper window fitments especially) from when it was built onwards, and has cost the council (or rather, *us!*) a hefty sum every year "firefighting" the effects, so it could very well be that they've *finally* it's uneconomical to retain.



Yeah, often seems a shame that total destruction is the chosen solution. There's something about OMH that I quite like.


----------



## fortyplus (Oct 3, 2013)

Have I got this? I am not sure I have been paying attention. 
There seem to be different proposals for a redevelopment of Olive Morris House and the Town Hall, proposed by different architectural practices. All the council's office functions will be in the new OMH, rather than scattered around the borough - this has been in the works for a while. Thus it has to be tall to fit everyone in. The architectural challenge is to make the height frame and enhance the old Ace and the Town Hall, including its tower. Tricky. 
One proposal seems to involve gutting most of the inside of the town hall to make a walkway through to a new space behind, linking everything together. That was the same one that seemed to suggest linking to St Matthews with a deftly-shaded bit of main road.  Lovely idea, but they don't seem to have worked out what to do with the traffic. It could go the other side of the church, across Windrush Square I suppose, as that is so last decade's project. 
Are there more than two proposed treatments? Is one favoured over the other?
Where do we go to comment on any of them?


----------



## Rushy (Oct 3, 2013)

fortyplus said:


> Have I got this? I am not sure I have been paying attention.
> There seem to be different proposals for a redevelopment of Olive Morris House and the Town Hall, proposed by different architectural practices. All the council's office functions will be in the new OMH, rather than scattered around the borough - this has been in the works for a while. Thus it has to be tall to fit everyone in. The architectural challenge is to make the height frame and enhance the old Ace and the Town Hall, including its tower. Tricky.
> One proposal seems to involve gutting most of the inside of the town hall to make a walkway through to a new space behind, linking everything together. That was the same one that seemed to suggest linking to St Matthews with a deftly-shaded bit of main road.  Lovely idea, but they don't seem to have worked out what to do with the traffic. It could go the other side of the church, across Windrush Square I suppose, as that is so last decade's project.
> Are there more than two proposed treatments? Is one favoured over the other?
> Where do we go to comment on any of them?



I think the proposed link is visual rather than closing traffic. A bit like they have done on the other side of the church with the raised cobbles adjacent to Windrush Square.

Olive Morris looks to be going fully resi from my brief look. The buildings lower down Brixton Hill* will be the offices.

*where Hambrook etc.. are.


----------



## stuff_it (Oct 3, 2013)

TruXta said:


> They're trees, hardly difficult to work out.


At least that's what you hope they are....


----------



## stuff_it (Oct 3, 2013)

editor said:


> Well, that's one rather curious (and extreme) way to spin my comment, but I do wonder whether the council might try to quietly get rid of the name if the area gets completely redeveloped.
> 
> After all, I imagine hardcore activist squatters aren't really the kind of thing that the 'community' council and their new development partners will want to celebrate or acknowledge in these glossy new builds.


Aye, but they could refurbish and change the name much more cheaply.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 3, 2013)

Onket said:


> Yeah, often seems a shame that total destruction is the chosen solution. There's something about OMH that I quite like.


Same here.

If it's a decision made by Lambeth then I wouldn't take it for granted that demolition is *actually* the most economical option.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 3, 2013)

Here is Olive Morris the squatter:


> The story of the first successful squatters of private property in Lambeth. In 1972, Olive Morris and Liz Turnbull, both members of the Brixton Black Panthers, occupied a flat above a launderette in Railton Road and successfully fought off attempts at illegal eviction. In doing so, they set an example for hundreds of homeless young people in Brixton and the flat remained squatted for many years.



In new development I want to make sure that her name is retained.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Oct 4, 2013)

For those that may have missed it. Organised Youth revive the history of the Brixton Black Panthers.
http://www.brixtonblog.com/organised-youth-revive-the-history-of-the-brixton-black-panthers/16297


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 4, 2013)

I've looked at the plans in more detail now. Some interesting stuff in there, including (as we should expect in modern building design) some good environmental and sustainability features. I like the idea of opening up the town hall, creating a new entrance in Buckner Road and a public thoroughfare right through the middle of the building. Whether Olive Morris House actually needs to be demolished and expensively rebuilt (rather than refurbished) I don't know, but it certainly fits with the current strategy of 'knock'em down and sell'em off'. 

As with always, the rub is in how it is financed. £30m is a lot of money. It is also coincidentally roughly the amount the council has cut from services as part of 'austerity'. I'd like to know more about how this is going to be paid for and I'm trying to find out...


----------



## Winot (Oct 4, 2013)

Different pot? (Capital rather than revenue)


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 4, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> As with always, the rub is in how it is financed. £30m is a lot of money. It is also coincidentally roughly the amount the council has cut from services as part of 'austerity'. I'd like to know more about how this is going to be paid for and I'm trying to find out...


 
I'm sure that is a coincidence tbh. It will almost certainly be paid for through some sort of long term finance agreement. So the cost will be calculated as an annual cost over x years - they won't have scraped together 30m from this year's budget to pay for it outright.

Which of course doesn't discount their ability to get a really, really bad deal on said finance agreement.


----------



## Onket (Oct 4, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> the current strategy of 'knock'em down and sell'em off'.


 
Getting rid of OMH in that way would certainly contribute towards paying for the new Town Hall development, tbf. As far as I know they only want one Council building in future, so won't need anything on the OMH site once the new place is up/running/in use.


----------



## Onket (Oct 4, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Which of course doesn't discount their ability to get a really, really bad deal on said finance agreement.


 
A given.


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 4, 2013)

I've had a look at the proposals which seem to include an awful lot of council offices still! I thought the plan was to get rid of much of this (much moved I thought to St Georges Wharf in Vauxhall?). And vague uses such as 'community' are a cop out - we all know that 'community' use brings in no money and it has to be subsidised. And yet more posh flats is s short term gain - we need employment generators longer term. Isn't this whole development called 'SW2 Enterprise Centre' - bugger all enterprising about the current proposals

Early on, I did comment on the website, that the Town Hall would be ripe for development as a luxury city hotel similar to the Bethnal Green one.... could have spa/gym/restaurants/conference facilities/wedding venue as well as a hotel. No one from the Council bothered to respond - so much for interacting with the community

what a load of old bullocks

EDIT: I've just noticed that they've changed the name of the develepment from SW2 Enterprise Centre (which I quite liked) to Your Town Hall!! Flipping cheek - so it is just a revamp for all those council workers


----------



## Onket (Oct 4, 2013)

sparkybird said:


> I've had a look at the proposals which seem to include an awful lot of council offices still! I thought the plan was to get rid of much of this (much moved I thought to St Georges Wharf in Vauxhall?).


 
They rent that and it's expensive.

As I said earlier, I think the idea is to have all Council staff in the one building, the Town Hall, rather than all over the place.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 4, 2013)

Onket said:


> They rent that and it's expensive.
> 
> As I said earlier, I think the idea is to have all Council staff in the one building, the Town Hall, rather than all over the place.


Yep - getting rid of the Vauxhall offices, I understand.


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 4, 2013)

Ah, I see - wonder why they ever moved into the Vauxhall offices then???

I'm not sure they all need to be in the same spot. I agree that those who have to deal with the public a lot need to be in places which are easy for the public to get to (eg the Town Hall) BUT for the behind the scenes workers could be located somewhere else (cheaper) and free up 'expensive' space for income generation


----------



## leanderman (Oct 4, 2013)

Aren't some services down in Brighton, council tax or parking? Presumably outsourced to Crapita or something


----------



## Dan U (Oct 4, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Aren't some services down in Brighton, council tax or parking? Presumably outsourced to Crapita or something



I do work for local government and whenever I am asked to post - always post in the 21st century - an invoice for a council in London to Sheffield or Andover or wherever they've housed the latest crapita outsourced shite i write that invoice off for months. I have not once been paid on time by them and you waste months chasing shadows in payment centres with no contact numbers etc. 

And i am a small business who is supposed to take priority. 

Bit of a derail really but they are a bunch of utter wankers and the quicker we realise they are a false fucking economy the better.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 4, 2013)

sparkybird said:


> Ah, I see - wonder why they ever moved into the Vauxhall offices then???
> 
> I'm not sure they all need to be in the same spot. I agree that those who have to deal with the public a lot need to be in places which are easy for the public to get to (eg the Town Hall) BUT for the behind the scenes workers could be located somewhere else (cheaper) and free up 'expensive' space for income generation


I agree - I don't think any of the services need High Street frontages as long as they are easily accessible and signposted. There is such demand for retail that it seems ridiculous to chog up the main road with office entrances. And it would be extra income.
I did make this point once before at a meeting ages ago (in relation to the redevelopment of OMH, I think) but was shot down for wanting to "hide" community services.


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 4, 2013)

Dan U said:


> I do work for local government and whenever I am asked to post - always post in the 21st century - an invoice for a council in London to Sheffield or Andover or wherever they've housed the latest crapita outsourced shite i write that invoice off for months. I have not once been paid on time by them and you waste months chasing shadows in payment centres with no contact numbers etc.
> 
> And i am a small business who is supposed to take priority.
> 
> Bit of a derail really but they are a bunch of utter wankers and the quicker we realise they are a false fucking economy the better.



One reason I never do any work for local councils -  they seem to forget that I have a mortgage and bills to pay each month......


----------



## Onket (Oct 4, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Aren't some services down in Brighton, council tax or parking? Presumably outsourced to Crapita or something



Southampton, I think.

And Yorkshire.

And Coventry (Capita).


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 4, 2013)

And council tax administration in Kent I think.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 4, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> It will almost certainly be paid for through some sort of long term finance agreement. So the cost will be calculated as an annual cost over x years - they won't have scraped together 30m from this year's budget to pay for it outright.


They reckon they can save £4.5m each year by consolidating offices - so over 5 years that would be £22.5m (though we've already heard that is looking optimistic.) The rebuild itself is being done by a developer, who will get given International House (big red brick tower block behind the Rec/opposite the Canterbury pub) in exchange. So yes, there won't be £30m changing hands (people like to tot up the figures and brandish a big number to make the development seem impressive.)

I'm interested in how the deal is being financed and how International House has been valued. If this scheme ends up costing more than expected (which is almost inevitable) I _assume_ the council will dip into its (allegedly) vast reserves, rather than adding it on to our council tax.

I've FOI'ed them on this anyway, so we should find out in 28 days


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 4, 2013)

Onket said:


> Getting rid of OMH in that way would certainly contribute towards paying for the new Town Hall development, tbf. As far as I know they only want one Council building in future, so won't need anything on the OMH site once the new place is up/running/in use.


Yeah I know that. It's just a shame we continually sell public assets. And the council is gambling it will never want to expand again. Once the property is gone, it's never coming back.

There must be a better way.

For example, if "asset disposal" is really required to fund new projects, why not sell off, say, half a building for property, retain the other half and retain the freehold. That way you get cash but retain public ownership of the land and some of the property. One day there won't be anything left to sell off. Look at what happened with the sell off of all the Lambeth schools in the 80s and 90s....we have a shortage of places and many local secondary-aged kids now have to go to Wandsworth, Southwark or Croydon to go to school.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 4, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> For example, if "asset disposal" is really required to fund new projects, why not sell off, say, half a building for property, retain the other half and retain the freehold. .



Basically what they are doing in Rushcroft road


----------



## editor (Oct 4, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> They reckon they can save £4.5m each year by consolidating offices - so over 5 years that would be £22.5m (though we've already heard that is looking optimistic.) The rebuild itself is being done by a developer, who will get given International House (big red brick tower block behind the Rec/opposite the Canterbury pub) in exchange. So yes, there won't be £30m changing hands (people like to tot up the figures and brandish a big number to make the development seem impressive.)
> 
> I'm interested in how the deal is being financed and how International House has been valued. If this scheme ends up costing more than expected (which is almost inevitable) I _assume_ the council will dip into its (allegedly) vast reserves, rather than adding it on to our council tax.
> 
> I've FOI'ed them on this anyway, so we should find out in 28 days


Be great if you put this together for a Brixton Buzz article too, if you fancy it. It's important that all this gets out.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 4, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Basically what they are doing in Rushcroft road


Perhaps, but I don't necessarily think asset disposal was _required_ in that case. And it remains to be seen whether the 22 units will be available for social rent.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 4, 2013)

editor said:


> Be great if you put this together for a Brixton Buzz article too, if you fancy it. It's important that all this gets out.


Yes I will do that. I might wait for the FOI to come back though...will give it some thought.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 4, 2013)

sparkybird said:


> I've had a look at the proposals which seem to include an awful lot of council offices still! I thought the plan was to get rid of much of this (much moved I thought to St Georges Wharf in Vauxhall?). And vague uses such as 'community' are a cop out - we all know that 'community' use brings in no money and it has to be subsidised. And yet more posh flats is s short term gain - we need employment generators longer term. Isn't this whole development called 'SW2 Enterprise Centre' - bugger all enterprising about the current proposals
> 
> Early on, I did comment on the website, that the Town Hall would be ripe for development as a luxury city hotel similar to the Bethnal Green one.... could have spa/gym/restaurants/conference facilities/wedding venue as well as a hotel. No one from the Council bothered to respond - so much for interacting with the community
> 
> ...



The first I heard that this project was being planned was when a website aimed at development partner appeared.

I have searched for that website and cannot find it now. 

The Future Brixton website makes much of "Co production" of this site. But it was not "Co produced" with local community.

There was some consultation. But that was after the main outlines of scheme were already planned by officers. 

What I object to is the Council trying to make out residents have a big say in this scheme. They did not. 

If the Council wants to do big projects that rationalise its assets fair enough. But please Council do not try and say its being done in conjunction with the community. Its not. 

It may or may not end up being a good scheme. But in reality the community do not have a say other than to vote this administration out if it ends up not working out.


----------



## Onket (Oct 5, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Yeah I know that. It's just a shame we continually sell public assets. And the council is gambling it will never want to expand again. Once the property is gone, it's never coming back.
> 
> There must be a better way.
> 
> For example, if "asset disposal" is really required to fund new projects, why not sell off, say, half a building for property, retain the other half and retain the freehold. That way you get cash but retain public ownership of the land and some of the property. One day there won't be anything left to sell off. Look at what happened with the sell off of all the Lambeth schools in the 80s and 90s....we have a shortage of places and many local secondary-aged kids now have to go to Wandsworth, Southwark or Croydon to go to school.



I agree. They don't always seem to have the same views as sensible people like you and me though!


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 5, 2013)

sparkybird said:


> Ah, I see - wonder why they ever moved into the Vauxhall offices then???
> 
> I'm not sure they all need to be in the same spot. I agree that those who have to deal with the public a lot need to be in places which are easy for the public to get to (eg the Town Hall) BUT for the behind the scenes workers could be located somewhere else (cheaper) and free up 'expensive' space for income generation



It was the LDs who acquired the offices in Vauxhall. Its been a bone of contention between th LD and Labour group for years.

Planning moved from Acre Lane to Vauxhall. In Acre Lane you could easily go and find info and talk to a planner. Also access planning documents etc. Once they moved up to Vauxhall this became not really possible.

It would be good if planning dept could be more accessible for general public.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 5, 2013)

Tried to find the website that the Council made to get developers to bid as development partner. Its been taken down.

It came up on other thread. See here.

I put up some quotes from the now gone website on that thread.


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 5, 2013)

I think the renaming of the development has taken down that website.....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Yeah I know that. It's just a shame we continually sell public assets. And the council is gambling it will never want to expand again. Once the property is gone, it's never coming back.
> 
> There must be a better way.
> 
> For example, if "asset disposal" is really required to fund new projects, why not sell off, say, half a building for property, retain the other half and retain the freehold. That way you get cash but retain public ownership of the land and some of the property. One day there won't be anything left to sell off. Look at what happened with the sell off of all the Lambeth schools in the 80s and 90s....we have a shortage of places and many local secondary-aged kids now have to go to Wandsworth, Southwark or Croydon to go to school.



All of whom have their own sell off-related issues in other depts.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 5, 2013)

sparkybird said:


> I think the renaming of the development has taken down that website.....





That website aimed at development partners was out before any consultation with residents. Which is the wrong way around. If the idea is that this is a Cooperative Council who want to Co-produce projects with the community then a website seeking development partners first is not the way to do it.

Taking it down is wiping out history of how this project has been developed.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 6, 2013)

This Youtube explanation of PFI was made in 2008, but the points still apply today. This new town hall scheme is the latest example of a PFI type scheme - the needs of the borough's residents are secondary. The needs of the financiers and property developers are actually paramount - whatever the council and it's consultants pretend.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 6, 2013)

Is the proposal actually a true PFI? ie. the building is effectively leased back?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 6, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Is the proposal actually a true PFI? ie. the building is effectively leased back?


If not it will be pretty massive "planning gain" for a residential development.
BTW someone mentioned about Phoenix House. Surely the rationale at that time was that Mary Seacole House - wholly owned by Lambeth - needed a major upgrade. The then council opted to sell that for redevelopment and move into the only suitably sized modern leased premises available - at Vauxhall.
Doing a sale and leaseback PFI deal on the Town Hall Campus is simply following on the slippery slope already started by the much reviled Liberal Democrat/Conservative council.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 6, 2013)

fortyplus said:


> Have I got this? I am not sure I have been paying attention.
> There seem to be different proposals for a redevelopment of Olive Morris House and the Town Hall, proposed by different architectural practices.
> Are there more than two proposed treatments? Is one favoured over the other?
> Where do we go to comment on any of them?



Here

This summarizes the Council reason behind the development. 

I see they used:



> We are currently in a competitive dialogue process with three developers. We expect to choose a preferred bidder in Autumn 2013.



Thats not a bad process to use. The developers are given a brief and then come up with solutions which are then discussed further. It is a longer way to choose a developer. It means both sides enter a discussion on the scheme before signing up to do it. 

It could have had more community input. Competitive dialogue takes time. 

Now its only little time to get in feedback on the 3 developers. I do not really understand why. 

There has been only one presentation on the 3 developers. During the daytime. 

Council chould have put up an exhibition of the three developers ideas in say the library. 



> As we are in competitive dialogue with three developers we have three different timescales at present but roughly speaking we are aiming to proceed as follows:
> 
> 
> *Autumn 2013* - Selection of preferred developer
> ...


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 6, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Is the proposal actually a true PFI? ie. the building is effectively leased back?



Says here that:



> *12. Will you be selling any land and / or any offices to developers? Couldn’t some or all of the spare offices be donated to the community?*
> Some buildings are occupied on a lease arrangement and will be vacated and returned to the Landlord on expiry of the lease. *Any money generated from disposals of leases will be crucial to ensuring that the project pays for itself.*
> 
> This investment will enable the Council to maximise the efficiency of the remaining offices and provide significant savings on our annual property costs.
> ...



So its not PFI it is supposed to be "self financing".

I also think the Council are looking at how costs savings from rationalizing there office space can be included in demonstrating that this project is at zero cost to Council.

So if they set out that they can save X millions a year from less office space over a period of years this could be included into making this project feasible.

Also looks like a developer will be able to sell some of the housing on the site. 

I reckon it will be similar to a PFI scheme in that the developer ( in theory) takes on the risk of building the scheme to time and cost.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 16, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> They reckon they can save £4.5m each year by consolidating offices - so over 5 years that would be £22.5m (though we've already heard that is looking optimistic.) The rebuild itself is being done by a developer, who will get given International House (big red brick tower block behind the Rec/opposite the Canterbury pub) in exchange. So yes, there won't be £30m changing hands (people like to tot up the figures and brandish a big number to make the development seem impressive.)
> 
> I'm interested in how the deal is being financed and how International House has been valued. If this scheme ends up costing more than expected (which is almost inevitable) I _assume_ the council will dip into its (allegedly) vast reserves, rather than adding it on to our council tax.
> 
> I've FOI'ed them on this anyway, so we should find out in 28 days


FOI reply came today....and it was useless. They didn't answer my question properly.

But they did release an interesting bit of information - apparently the development is going to cost *£50m* rather than the £30m originally estimated 

Brixton Blog have just posted an article suggesting residents are angry over the lack of consultation. Cllr Paul McGlone is getting upset about it on Twitter.


----------



## boohoo (Oct 16, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> FOI reply came today....and it was useless. They didn't answer my question properly.
> 
> But they did release an interesting bit of information - apparently the development is going to cost *£50m* rather than the £30m originally estimated
> 
> Brixton Blog have just posted an article suggesting residents are angry over the lack of consultation. Cllr Paul McGlone is getting upset about it on Twitter.



It's quite a huge change to the area. And not at all sympathetic to the area. It doesn't enhance Brixton. Feels like it's all about the money!


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 17, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> FOI reply came today....and it was useless. They didn't answer my question properly.
> 
> But they did release an interesting bit of information - apparently the development is going to cost *£50m* rather than the £30m originally estimated
> 
> Brixton Blog have just posted an article suggesting residents are angry over the lack of consultation. Cllr Paul McGlone is getting upset about it on Twitter.



Good article from Brixton Blog. 

Worth quoting:




> Alan Piper, secretary of Brixton Society, said he received an email to say the unveiling of the three proposals at the Ritzy cinema on October 1 had been cancelled. When he contacted Lambeth to check this he got no response so didn’t go to the meeting.
> He said: “The council must involve the community more at an early stage so they can head of problems later.
> 
> “Where there’s secrecy it tends to make people defensive. I would urge Lambeth to involve the community so they can head off problems at an early stage.



Brixton Blog 

Just added to the twitter. 

As article shows this project was done by officers. Community input was nil at beginning. The main outlines of the scheme have been decided before consulting. 

So people are just been asked to comment on the 3 developers.This is not Co Production or Cooperative Council. Its is a limited form of consultation.


----------



## newbie (Oct 17, 2013)

boohoo said:


> It's quite a huge change to the area. And not at all sympathetic to the area. It doesn't enhance Brixton. Feels like it's all about the money!



bigschemeitis. Wholesale rather than piecemeal change because apparently our heritage of intermixing different age, style & scale buildings has to be ditched in favour of visionary monolithic redevelopment. The trouble with the vision is that it'll all fade into obsolescence and/or fall apart together and have to be replaced wholesale again. Big development is bad in and of itself, whatever the apparent merits of any particular scheme.

But yes, it's all about the money, with a sideserving of the awards for the vision.


----------



## Pinggoombah (Oct 17, 2013)

newbie said:


> bigschemeitis. Wholesale rather than piecemeal change because apparently our heritage of intermixing different age, style & scale buildings has to be ditched in favour of visionary monolithic redevelopment. The trouble with the vision is that it'll all fade into obsolescence and/or fall apart together and have to be replaced wholesale again. Big development is bad in and of itself, whatever the apparent merits of any particular scheme.
> 
> But yes, it's all about the money, with a sideserving of the awards for the vision.


Isn't it about the height too? As more people live and work in the area, we need to increase the available floor space. The only place left to build is up.

Don't forget that the Bon Marche building and the Quin and Axtens building next to it on Brixton Road must have been quite bold and visionary in their day.


----------



## editor (Oct 17, 2013)

Pinggoombah said:


> Don't forget that the Bon Marche building and the Quin and Axtens building next to it on Brixton Road must have been quite bold and visionary in their day.


They weren't "visionary" or particularly "bold."

They were just solid examples of well built, confident, Victorian commercial architecture. Their appearance  was very much in tune with the popular styles of the day and I imagine would have been thought of as a welcome enhancement to the town landscape.


----------



## Onket (Oct 17, 2013)

editor said:


> They weren't "visionary" or particularly "bold."
> 
> They were just solid examples of well built, confident, Victorian commercial architecture. Their appearance  was very much in tune with the popular styles of the day and I imagine would have been thought of as a welcome enhancement to the toen landscape.


 
I dunno, I bet there were some complaining, as there always is about these things.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 17, 2013)

Pinggoombah said:


> Isn't it about the height too? As more people live and work in the area, we need to increase the available floor space. The only place left to build is up.
> 
> Don't forget that the Bon Marche building and the Quin and Axtens building next to it on Brixton Road must have been quite bold and visionary in their day.





editor said:


> They weren't "visionary" or particularly "bold."
> 
> They were just solid examples of well built, confident, Victorian commercial architecture. Their appearance  was very much in tune with the popular styles of the day and I imagine would have been thought of as a welcome enhancement to the town landscape.



Sandhurst Court (20/30s) on Acre Lane is probably a better example. That was apparently very controversial on account of its height and design.

Sadly it looks shit now, although it is about to be extended upwards and refurbished. There are no plans to replace the original windows though and without that the refurb can only be averagely successful. Architecturally, the building's integrity will be lacking.


----------



## lang rabbie (Oct 18, 2013)

[Puts on council regeneration person/property developer hat]
The whole redevelopment would become a lot more viable/generate substantially more funds if the Palladium/Fridge/Brixton Electric site was included and allowed the Town Hall campus to be concentrated.
Now where did I put those matches...
[/Takes off council regeneration person/property developer hat]


----------



## CH1 (Oct 22, 2013)

The Standard "Londoner's Diary" puts a new spin on the matter:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-workers-in-with-a-new-town-hall-8896945.html
(I hope they have it wrong about the Fridge - but there again maybe they just get their gossip from Urban75))


----------



## Pinggoombah (Oct 22, 2013)

CH1 said:


> The Standard "Londoner's Diary" puts a new spin on the matter:
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-workers-in-with-a-new-town-hall-8896945.html
> (I hope they have it wrong about the Fridge - but there again maybe they just get their gossip from Urban75))


They probably meant the Fridge Bar, which would be no loss.


----------



## editor (Oct 22, 2013)

There was some righteous anger from one person attending this 'urbanism' bash at the Town Hall today. She was rightly indignant at the prospect of Olive Morris House being turned into luxury flats (something the council members were unable to rule out completely) and made it clear that if any such proposal was put forward - and Morris's memory sullied by such an association - resistance would be _mighty_. She got my vote.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 22, 2013)

editor said:


> There was some righteous anger from one person attending this 'urbanism' bash at the Town Hall today. She was rightly indignant at the prospect of Olive Morris House being turned into luxury flats (something the council members were unable to rule out completely) and made it clear that if any such proposal was put forward - and Morris's memory sullied by such an association - resistance would be _mighty_. She got my vote.



Should be another primary school


----------



## Pinggoombah (Oct 22, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Should be another primary school


That's a lazy suggestion. You might as well suggest an art gallery or a museum.

The project depends on using the profit from residential accommodation to fund new council offices.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 22, 2013)

editor said:


> There was some righteous anger from one person attending this 'urbanism' bash at the Town Hall today. She was rightly indignant at the prospect of Olive Morris House being turned into luxury flats (something the council members were unable to rule out completely) and made it clear that if any such proposal was put forward - and Morris's memory sullied by such an association - resistance would be _mighty_. She got my vote.


Any more details - how many there, what was said like? I bet they didn't serve Brixton ales for the informal drinks!
I should have noted the event and attended myself. Must diary in 30th October - Somerleyton Road briefing room 8 at 6.30pm


----------



## CH1 (Oct 22, 2013)

Pinggoombah said:


> That's a lazy suggestion. You might as well suggest an art gallery or a museum. The project depends on using the profit from residential accommodation to fund new council offices.


The way tings are going now in Brixton they could have a fee paying "Free School" then you'd both be satisfied.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 22, 2013)

Pinggoombah said:


> That's a lazy suggestion. You might as well suggest an art gallery or a museum.
> 
> The project depends on using the profit from residential accommodation to fund new council offices.



Seems like fair enough suggestion to me from leanderman 

Does the project depend on profit from residential accommodation? 

The workings of what makes this project feasible I find hard to understand. 

The project is about reducing the office space the Council have in there possession. As Council say they can make better use of less office space. 

The developer will be paid in kind by for example getting the office block "International House" by the Brixton Rec. With the understanding that a planning application for change of use to residential would be looked upon favourably. 

So its not the profit from residential that this project depends on. The development partner is being paid in kind to take on risk of building the Town Hall project. 

What I do not understand is that ,given with the savings from getting rid of office space and giving the developer International House (and the Olive Morris site for housing possibly),  the project should cost the Council anything at all.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 22, 2013)

editor said:


> There was some righteous anger from one person attending this 'urbanism' bash at the Town Hall today. She was rightly indignant at the prospect of Olive Morris House being turned into luxury flats (something the council members were unable to rule out completely) and made it clear that if any such proposal was put forward - and Morris's memory sullied by such an association - resistance would be _mighty_. She got my vote.



Did anything come up about affordable housing?

Was chatting to some people in Iceland today ( not the kind of people who guzzle champagne at C&F) and there is a lot of anger about lack of affordable housing, benefit cuts, the bedroom tax etc.

They all wanted copies of the Housing Activist newsletter.


----------



## jimbarkanoodle (Oct 23, 2013)

i hope we dont lose the Fridge?!


----------



## editor (Oct 23, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> They all wanted copies of the Housing Activist newsletter.


I've posted it up here:  http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/10/...in-somerleyton-road-brixton-see-leaflet-here/


----------



## Crispy (Oct 23, 2013)

jimbarkanoodle said:


> i hope we dont lose the Fridge?!


It's left in place in all three options. Not going anywhere.


----------



## Pinggoombah (Oct 23, 2013)

Crispy said:


> It's left in place in all three options. Not going anywhere.


They probably meant the Fridge Bar, which would be no loss.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 23, 2013)

Pinggoombah said:


> They probably meant the Fridge Bar, which would be no loss.


Yes - that's going as I understand it. Not the Electric.
I know a lot of people who will be pleased.
I wonder if the lease is up of whether it is a compulsory purchase or...what?

It would be nice if the Electric could get a facelift in the course of works. Not necessarily back to what it was, but it is not really a fine example of what it currently is.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 23, 2013)

It's alright on the inside, but the facade is a mess. They don't even have proper lettering for the NOW SHOWING sign above the door. It's made out of gaffer tape ffs.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 23, 2013)

Yep - I was specifically meaning the outside. Inside is not bad - though nothing special. Don't love the blue and gold but they've certainly made an effort to restore some of the old features.


----------



## jimbarkanoodle (Oct 23, 2013)

Crispy said:


> It's left in place in all three options. Not going anywhere.


 
Ah that's ok then. I read it in the standard, high standard of journalism eh?


----------



## jimbarkanoodle (Oct 23, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Yep - I was specifically meaning the outside. Inside is not bad - though nothing special. Don't love the blue and gold but they've certainly made an effort to restore some of the old features.


 
they had a massive boombox thing on the front of it when it first re-opened as Electric, only lasted a couple of months though and they took it down again.

Probably Foxtons fault


----------



## CH1 (Nov 5, 2013)

The town hall development was on at "cabinet" tonight.
The selected developer is " MUSE"
There was some argy bargy over how much affordable housing would be incorporated.
Lib Dem leader Ashley Lumsden implied it was only 20% - half the council's target.
Cllrs Lib Peck or Paul McGlone did not state that it was definitely 40%, but mocked Cllr Lumsden's affiliation to the co-alition government.
Cllr Rachel Heywood  mentioned a consultation meeting in which Liz Obi had said that Olive Morris should be commemorated if the present Olive Morris House was redeveloped.
Cllr Lumsden claimed that he had a more cost effective alternative to the redevelopment proposal - but he did not elucidate, saying that he would present it at full council on 20th November.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jan 15, 2014)

Looks like this is set to go ahead............ttp://www.cnplus.co.uk/news/contracts/muse-to-confirm-50m-lambeth-town-hall-redevelopment/8657543.article?blocktitle=Contracts&contentID=4111


----------



## editor (Jan 15, 2014)

I've posted up a piece here: 
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/01/muse-set-to-confirm-50m-lambeth-town-hall-redevelopment-scheme/


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 15, 2014)

I am rather concerned about the affordable housing element. Appears there are no cast iron guarantees that it will be 40%.

How is the Council going to stop a developer "partner" from using "feasibility" to reduce the affordable housing element later on? As Barratts did on the Brixton Square development.

On the "Social Housing" thread I put up the Lambeth Green Party press release. Post 82.


Lambeth Green Party dug out the last election manifesto of the Lambeth Labour. In this they promised all new developments would be 50% affordable.

 2010 local election manifesto 

Its on page 13.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jan 16, 2014)

Pleased that I kept that manifesto both online and offline. It should come in handy over the coming months. I've got a hard copy of a 2010 election leaflet from my local Labour Cllrs promising "free swimming for every resident."

It's kept beside the door, waiting for the smiley Labour Doorstop thing


----------



## editor (Jan 16, 2014)

Tricky Skills said:


> Pleased that I kept that manifesto both online and offline. It should come in handy over the coming months. I've got a hard copy of a 2010 election leaflet from my local Labour Cllrs promising "free swimming for every resident."


Good work. I've just added it to the Brixton Buzz feature and now I'll start reminding Labour via Twitter.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 16, 2014)

Tricky Skills said:


> Pleased that I kept that manifesto both online and offline. It should come in handy over the coming months. I've got a hard copy of a 2010 election leaflet from my local Labour Cllrs promising "free swimming for every resident."
> 
> It's kept beside the door, waiting for the smiley Labour Doorstop thing



I noticed the free swimming. What happened to that? Its not cheap swimming at the Rec anymore.


----------



## Greebo (Jan 16, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I noticed the free swimming. What happened to that? Its not cheap swimming at the Rec anymore.


Tbf if you go there during the offpeak hours, are on certain benefits, and have got the right card*, you can swim for free.  Under 16s can also swim there for free if they turn up by a certain time at the weekend.

Edited to add:  *Real Plus


----------



## editor (Jun 30, 2014)

Update on upcoming public consultations; Public consultations start for new £50m Lambeth Town Hall ‘Campus’


----------



## CH1 (Jul 8, 2014)

I went to a stakeholders meeting yesterday about the MUSE development Your New Town Hall. The meeting was in a small room on the 5th floor of Brixton Rec.

There was a representative of MUSE/Morgan Sindall, the scheme architect, a couple of Lambeth regeneration people, a facilitator and a minute taker. We weren't given any notes or documentation - and introductions were very brief and informal.

There were only 5 members of the public there - 4 connected with the Brixton Society and one with Brixton Stop the War coalition.

Issues brought up were
1. why was the event not well advertised and attended [MUSE said they had done their best and spent out on advertising]
2. *Olive Morris House*. MUSE have decided that Olive Morris House is a defective building and is not cost effective to refurbish. They also say that it is necessary to use the Olive Morris House site to build residential flats in order to make the sums add up for the development as a whole.

Two members of the public were vehemently opposed to demolishing Olive Morris House, and suggested an independent survey should be done to ascertain the facts - the developer's view being clearly not impartial.

The people running the meeting did not take this on board at all. The demolition and replacement of Olive Morris House is clearly a key part of their scheme.

A member of the pubic produced a print-out showing that the Olive Morris House service centre costing £3.1 million had only been completed in 2008, and been short-listed for an architectural award.

The MUSE representative was adamant that OMH is a poor quality building even so. 

3. *Hambrook House*: the MUSE representative playfully suggested she was perhaps being provocative by suggesting that there should be a 22 storey tower fronting onto Brixton Hill. However she said that their consultations with residents (and Porden Road residents seemed to have had a lot of recognition from MUSE and it's architect) led them to re-balance the scheme. Residents wanted a higher tower at the front on Brixton Hill and a lower residential block with less overshadowing behind it (between Porden Road and Arlington Lodge).

4. The architect spoke at length about his vision of the new town hall - particularly at the rear long the Buckner Road which is currently not really a public area. He saw this as suitable for a sculpture garden with trees and access into the Town Hall from the gardens. He was also keen to make a further access to the rear of the building along a glazed-roof walkway between the Registry Office area and the Electric building.

They were rather back-pedalling on the impression I had gained that the Town Hall was being turned over to business units and council functions transferred to the new building behind. It seems that the basement area of the town hall may be destined for hot-desking business start ups etc, but the council chamber and other functions will remain, as will the Assembly Hall.

5. The Pièce de résistance  of the scheme is of course the new block situated on the site of Town Hall Parade and backing onto Buckner Road. We all felt the prooposed new service centre there was much too small compared to Olive Morris House - and in the new building the service centre is proposed to be surrounding an atrium, and is in turn surrounded by the social services offices (to be relocated from Phoenix House when their lease expires in 2018).

The justification for shrinking the Service Centre was that more and more council services are done online so personal visits to the council are not necessary (both MUSE and Lambeth representatives were quite sure of this). 

My own view is that the scheme MIGHT be cost neutral to the council, or even beneficial, but it seems to me that it implies further job cuts down the line, as I can't see how all the functions of Olive Morris/Phoenix House/Wanless Road/Ivor House can fit in the new building.

Final thought - this was clearly more of a focus group than any democratic form of consultation. Mr Brixton Stop the War wanted a councillor to be present. Not sure I wanted that - but it does seem that Lambeth Labour party are very good these days at initiating stuff and then letting the officers and consultants get on with it.

This is not democracy - and there isn't much we can do about it now, with only 4 out of 63 Lambeth Councillor being non-Labour.

If anyone else wants to see the current proposals, or air their views there is another stakeholder meeting tomorrow (also in  Brixton Rec).

http://sut1.co.uk/sLKK4pGtsLi5uruKj...ZNQlxaBxoeHRkYCAIGAgYCEwR-S19dGQ56SDA2KycjIDI.

The link enable you to register with Eventbrite. They didn't seem to be checking tickets though.


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2014)

CH1 said:


> I went to a stakeholders meeting yesterday about the MUSE development Your New Town Hall. The meeting was in a small room on the 5th floor of Brixton Rec.
> 
> There was a representative of MUSE/Morgan Sindall, the scheme architect, a couple of Lambeth regeneration people, a facilitator and a minute taker. We weren't given any notes or documentation - and introductions were very brief and informal.
> 
> ...


This was posted as B Buzz by a user:


> Just picked up that the Customer Service Centre at Olive Morris House has been shortlisted for the New London Awards 2014. Details are on the Centre for the Built Environment website. Now what’s the sense in demolishing a building which provides Lambeth’s award-winning customer service centre and deskspaces for 590 workers and moving everyone 150 metres down the road to the new town hall – when the Council already has a perfectly good building at Olive Morris House? I went back and checked the finances out and discovered that the work to create the OMH Customer Service Centre (completed in 2008) cost £3.1 million (got this figure from the website of the quantity surveyors for the project so I know it’s accurate). I really think we need to be asking senior managers in Lambeth to give us a reasoned justification for closing down Olive Morris House, cos I haven’t seen one yet. toho


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2014)

I can't find Olive Morris House in the NLA shortlist...am I being blind?

http://newlondonarchitecture.org/awards_2014/shortlist-announced/


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2014)

teuchter said:


> I can't find Olive Morris House in the NLA shortlist...am I being blind?
> 
> http://newlondonarchitecture.org/awards_2014/shortlist-announced/


It's not listed but if you look at the page you can see why you might think that:


> *Olive Morris House, Brixton*
> A project was appointed by Lambeth Council in early 2006 to design a flagship Joint Service Centre to replace the outdated and undersized existing customer facility. The brief was to provide an open-plan flexible space organised in accordance with the Council?s specific customer centre model stipulating a variety of service desk types, waiting area, meeting rooms and staff accommodation.
> 
> A bespoke furniture system has been designed for the varied service desks with materials and finishes selected from a modest palette reinforced with accent colour, controlled graphics and video walls. The result is a robust and contemporary designed Centre that is hoped will provide an environment to change public perception and attitude towards Council Services.
> ...



http://www.newlondonarchitecture.org/project.php?id=997&name=olive_morris_house_brixton


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 9, 2014)

CH1 - thanks for that really helpful post and info. You have spurred me on to stop being so lazy and get involved so I'll go to the one at the Rec this evening and report back

So OMH has not been shortlisted for an award - it it just listed as a project in the NLA website


----------



## CH1 (Jul 9, 2014)

sparkybird said:


> CH1 - thanks for that really helpful post and info. You have spurred me on to stop being so lazy and get involved so I'll go to the one at the Rec this evening and report back
> 
> So OMH has not been shortlisted for an award - it it just listed as a project in the NLA website


I agree I can't see it in the list on the short-list page. Maybe High Definition has more info?

Brixton IS listed under the Masterplanning category (inevitably - there's so much going on!)


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 9, 2014)

Hi folks

Just got back from the meeting at the Rec. I think me and Mr Sparkybird gate crashed as it was listed as a 'stakeholders' group (we are mere residents). However, good job we did as there were just 5 of us - the others representing 2  local societies and 1 Labour Cllr. I shudder to think what the meeting cost in consultant time (a grand?).....per person it's ridiculous!

Not much more to add to CH1's excellent report really - except that the 22 storey building on the site of Hambrook House was really the elephant in the room - all focus seemed to be on the town hall (new and old) and the 'public realm' (ie the Buckner Road corridor behind the old town hall from Acre Lane to Brixton Hill) - which will be gated (large gates) at night to discourage anti social behaviour.

The consultant was keen to find out our experience of the town hall and what would make us use the new one more. The other 3 participants visit it for meetings, but I think I've only ever been in it once in 13 years - and that was to attend the first consultation meeting on this project. One person mentioned the astronomically high cost of hiring a room (cheapest £51/hour) and so has his committee meetings else where (£17.50/hour). This would need to be addressed otherwise the community use will be zero. I said that nothing in the new proposals would make me visit it - essentially it's staying much the same - just with a cafe round the back.

Most interesting was the need to 'find a use' for the block where the current print/press works are (behind Ivor House). The residents on Porden Road want a building to be retained to discourage break ins. A museum of Lambeth/civic art gallery was suggested to nods all round. That is more likely to make me visit.

Affordable housing - we were told 40%, but not Ivor House (which will be all private) and all the new residential blocks will have commercial use on the ground floor. I came away not really clear about how the affordable housing is made up eg shared ownership, social housing. It will all be run by housing associations - not by the council.

Some heated discussion about Wanless Road which is oddly part of the scheme even though it's in LJ. The site of the dog pound has been earmarked for private housing, with no consultation. Red faces all round - Muse said that they were sure they could 'offer' some public realm improvements in the area (as a pay off)

Quite frankly, while I had an interesting and informative evening, quite how they can call this community consultation is beyond me. Every single person round the table was white middle class (and mostly middle aged). I think they'd have been better spending the grand on Nando's vouchers and holding the consultation there - at least you might reach a few more representative residents and visitors then (plus I like Nandos). I used to manage community consultations for a borough wide environmental charity and one of the key things we did was to organise events that were likely to draw local people in - eg kids events, picnics, football tournaments, craft activities - and then chat to them about the issues. Sitting with in a room for 2 hours with people like me isn't going to appeal to many!


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2014)

sparkybird said:


> I think me and Mr Sparkybird gate crashed as it was listed as a 'stakeholders' group (we are mere residents). However, good job we did as there were just 5 of us - the others representing 2  local societies and 1 Labour Cllr. I shudder to think what the meeting cost in consultant time (a grand?).....per person it's ridiculous!



Who are they classing as "stakeholders"?

I would have liked to have been there (partly as I live close to the Wanless Rd site). But the first I knew about it was seeing CH1 mention it in his post yesterday. I registered for tickets but was too late back from doing things in town that I had to do...things I could have replanned with a bit more notice.

As I mentioned on the LJ thread I would also like to have been at the specific Wanless Rd consultation but again only had about two weeks notice (letter through the door) and was away on holiday when it happened.


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 9, 2014)

I think there are more consultations this weekend - at least this was mentioned


----------



## CH1 (Jul 9, 2014)

sparkybird said:


> Hi folks
> Just got back from the meeting at the Rec. I think me and Mr Sparkybird gate crashed as it was listed as a 'stakeholders' group (we are mere residents). However, good job we did as there were just 5 of us - the others representing 2  local societies and 1 Labour Cllr. I shudder to think what the meeting cost in consultant time (a grand?).....per person it's ridiculous!  ...................................
> ..............................................................
> Quite frankly, while I had an interesting and informative evening, quite how they can call this community consultation is beyond me. Every single person round the table was white middle class (and mostly middle aged). I think they'd have been better spending the grand on Nando's vouchers and holding the consultation there - at least you might reach a few more representative residents and visitors then (plus I like Nandos). I used to manage community consultations for a borough wide environmental charity and one of the key things we did was to organise events that were likely to draw local people in - eg kids events, picnics, football tournaments, craft activities - and then chat to them about the issues. Sitting with in a room for 2 hours with people like me isn't going to appeal to many!


This is a worrying point. I invited a friend who happened to be black to our consultation. So out of 2 consultation meetings only one black person was involved - accidentally at that.
Moreover apparently if I hadn't posted on Urban earlier there might have only been three people at the meeting this evening.
It's a bit pathetic isn't it?


----------



## leanderman (Jul 10, 2014)

CH1 said:


> This is a worrying point. I invited a friend who happened to be black to our consultation. So out of 2 consultation meetings only one black person was involved - accidentally at that.
> Moreover apparently if I hadn't posted on Urban earlier there might have only been three people at the meeting this evening.
> It's a bit pathetic isn't it?



Does this level of community apathy surprises anyone?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 10, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Does this level of community apathy surprises anyone?


I don't think you can blame it entirely on community apathy if no-one actually knows the consultations are happening and that they can attend.


----------



## editor (Jul 10, 2014)

CH1 said:


> This is a worrying point. I invited a friend who happened to be black to our consultation. So out of 2 consultation meetings only one black person was involved - accidentally at that.
> Moreover apparently if I hadn't posted on Urban earlier there might have only been three people at the meeting this evening.
> It's a bit pathetic isn't it?


I think that apathy may also be fuelled by a feeling of utter disenfranchisement and a sense of pointlessness in the face of careerist politicians, super slick buzzword presentations that make no sense to most normal people, and a sense of whatever you say they'll just go and do what the fuck they want anyway.

I'm not saying everyone thinks that of course, but I've certainly heard varieties of the above used as reasons why people aren't interested in getting involved (sorry, 'engaging') - and I can certainly empathise with why they may feel that way.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 10, 2014)

editor said:


> I think that apathy may also be fuelled by a feeling of utter disenfranchisement and a sense of pointlessness in the face of careerist politicians, super slick buzzword presentations that make no sense to most normal people, and a sense of whatever you say they'll just go and do what the fuck they want anyway.
> 
> I'm not saying everyone thinks that of course, but I've certainly heard varieties of the above used as reasons why people aren't interested in getting involved (sorry, 'engaging') - and I can certainly empathise with why they may feel that way.


I'm inclined to think MUSE are treating these meetings as focus groups and didn't want too many people there. Compare this with these FLUID Brixton Central co-design workshops. There is another one of these tonight (Thursday) 7.30 pm at the Town Hall.

The FLUID things I've been to have had 50-100 people there and been major organised discussions. The technique there is to compromise the participants's integrity and get them to play the council's game: identifying assets for sale or redevelopment in order to pay for community benefits as a by-product.

On the other had MUSE simply seem to be trying out ideas:
1. What if we had a 22 storey tower block on the site of Hambrook House?
2. How about gating off Buckner Road and having a garden area there during the day?
3. What can be done to improve useability of meeting rooms in the Town Hall?
4. Olive Morris House has got to go for X,Y,Z reasons.
etc.

FLUID are on again tonight at the Town Hall with their 12 designated areas for "improvements" in Brixton Road/Atlantic Road and the arches in "Brixton Central"
Registration is available here:
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/brix...erence-group-tickets-12000637229?ref=wpwidget


----------



## CH1 (Jul 10, 2014)

sparkybird said:


> Hi folks
> Just got back from the meeting at the Rec. I think me and Mr Sparkybird gate crashed as it was listed as a 'stakeholders' group (we are mere residents). However, good job we did as there were just 5 of us - the others representing 2  local societies and 1 Labour Cllr. I shudder to think what the meeting cost in consultant time (a grand?).....per person it's ridiculous!
> 
> Not much more to add to CH1's excellent report really - except that the 22 storey building on the site of Hambrook House was really the elephant in the room - all focus seemed to be on the town hall (new and old) and the 'public realm' (ie the Buckner Road corridor behind the old town hall from Acre Lane to Brixton Hill) - which will be gated (large gates) at night to discourage anti social behaviour.
> ...


Brilliant. You've got in some of the stuff I had forgotten about - meeting room charges, gates for Buckner Road, affordable/social housing. 
Your group discussed the dog pound, so I guess someone was from LJ or neaby.
Thanks for the additional information.


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 10, 2014)

editor said:


> I think that apathy may also be fuelled by a feeling of utter disenfranchisement and a sense of pointlessness in the face of careerist politicians, super slick buzzword presentations that make no sense to most normal people, and a sense of whatever you say they'll just go and do what the fuck they want anyway.
> 
> I'm not saying everyone thinks that of course, but I've certainly heard varieties of the above used as reasons why people aren't interested in getting involved (sorry, 'engaging') - and I can certainly empathise with why they may feel that way.



I certainly didn't see anything 'slick' last night - it was just a few people round a table having a chat. I think the community engagement consultants for the town hall scheme have failed to deliver any really. I mean who wants to sit in a room for 2 hours on a Wed evening looking at plans? Only the sort of people who turned up, natch. They need to get much more creative about how to draw people in.

I'll continue to attend and make a PITA of myself....


----------



## leanderman (Jul 10, 2014)

I am sure the agencies could try harder but the vast majority of residents don't care - or consider themselves too busy.

There are so many distractions: TV, gigs, gym etc

And society is probably less homogeneous than before. Streets have a rapid 'churn' of residents - I wonder how many current residents lived here 10 or 20 years ago.

My neighbour, who has lived in the road since the 1960s, said she did not come outside at our street party because she knew no one!


----------



## leanderman (Jul 10, 2014)

sparkybird said:


> They need to get much more creative about how to draw people in.



Beer!


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 10, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Beer!



Exactly - or at least a Nando's as per my suggestion. I worked for over 10 years in the voluntary sector running and managing community consultation-  you have to bribe people otherwise no one comes (except the white, middle class, middle aged ones of course.....)


----------



## leanderman (Jul 10, 2014)

sparkybird said:


> Exactly - or at least a Nando's as per my suggestion. I worked for over 10 years in the voluntary sector running and managing community consultation-  you have to bribe people otherwise no one comes (except the white, middle class, middle aged ones of course.....)



Was amazed daughter #2 loved after-school French club until I discovered the teacher handed out biscuits


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 10, 2014)

sparkybird said:


> Exactly - or at least a Nando's as per my suggestion. I worked for over 10 years in the voluntary sector running and managing community consultation-  you have to bribe people otherwise no one comes (except the white, middle class, middle aged ones of course.....)


That might get more people in, but is there really a lot of point unless there's actually an interest in listening to what they have to say?

While I don't live in Brixton any more, I do live in another area of London where there is a lot of development work with the associated consultation meetings (held in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard" of course, but you do see them sometimes) and the reason I don't go is that the council have made it abundantly clear they don't give a shit what residents think, to the extent of defying court orders. If people don't have confidence that anything they say will be taken into account why _should_ they turn up?


----------



## leanderman (Jul 10, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> That might get more people in, but is there really a lot of point unless there's actually an interest in listening to what they have to say?
> 
> While I don't live in Brixton any more, I do live in another area of London where there is a lot of development work with the associated consultation meetings (held in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard" of course, but you do see them sometimes) and the reason I don't go is that the council have made it abundantly clear they don't give a shit what residents think, to the extent of defying court orders. If people don't have confidence that anything they say will be taken into account why _should_ they turn up?



Bit chicken and egg though isn't it? 

They can safely ignore a handful of people.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 10, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Bit chicken and egg though isn't it?
> 
> They can safely ignore a handful of people.


They can safely ignore very large numbers of people, if they're not organised outside of the planning process. Meetings where lots of locals have turned up haven't changed the council's mind in H&F at all, and if they get too uppity they get thrown out.

What has changed the council's mind is changing the council  they forgot about the fact that pissing everybody off can result in that happening. But if local elections aren't nearby, that is not a great solution, and it isn't an official part of local planning "consultation".


----------



## leanderman (Jul 10, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> They can safely ignore very large numbers of people, if they're not organised outside of the planning process. Meetings where lots of locals have turned up haven't changed the council's mind in H&F at all, and if they get too uppity they get thrown out.
> 
> What has changed the council's mind is changing the council  they forgot about the fact that pissing everybody off can result in that happening. But if local elections aren't nearby, that is not a great solution, and it isn't an official part of local planning "consultation".



We have only ourselves to blame - we prefer to watch TV or whatever.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 10, 2014)

leanderman said:


> We have only ourselves to blame - we prefer to watch TV or whatever.


Prefer to watch TV vs what?


----------



## leanderman (Jul 10, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Prefer to watch TV vs what?



Get involved in the community


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 10, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Get involved in the community


Lots of people get involved with issues involving the community. Even given the hugely transient populace round here, people still do stuff.

What I'm saying is that turning up to planning meetings is not necessarily a pointful activity in the first place if nobody cares what you say when you are there (unless you agree with existing policy) and it's probably rational to watch Game Of Thrones instead and just campaign in other ways at other times.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2014)

out of curiosity can they prove title to the land?


----------



## Rushy (Jul 11, 2014)

Council always complain how difficult it is to contact people for consultation .  As I suggested on Windrush Square,  just hang a huge well designed  banner and info board on the site for 8 weeks and most people locally affected by the proposal  will see it. Back then they said it was a great idea "can't believe no one has thought of this"  and would do it. Do you think they did? The one day  consultation on site was pretty good but you either had to know about it or be passing (with time to stop)  on the day in question.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 11, 2014)

leanderman said:


> We have only ourselves to blame - we prefer to watch TV or whatever.


It doesn't exactly help if a meeting is timed to start in the early evening or late afternoon.  Anything timed between 4 and 8pm is going to automatically exclude a lot of people, because of the school run, commuting home, the evening meal, and god forbid that you might want time to relax before you go out again.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 11, 2014)

CH1 said:


> The FLUID things I've been to have had 50-100 people there and been major organised discussions. The technique there is to compromise the participants's integrity and get them to play the council's game: identifying assets for sale or redevelopment in order to pay for community benefits as a by-product.



That was the feeling I got.

When I started to voice concerns I was at one point told by the head of Fluid that I was cynical. 

I did feel the consultation was nudging participants to play the Councils game.

This is one of the off putting things about consultation. They are structured in such a way that if one goes "off message" it does not go down well.


----------



## Kutuzov (Aug 10, 2014)

CH1 said:


> I went to a stakeholders meeting yesterday about the MUSE development Your New Town Hall. The meeting was in a small room on the 5th floor of Brixton Rec.
> 
> There was a representative of MUSE/Morgan Sindall, the scheme architect, a couple of Lambeth regeneration people, a facilitator and a minute taker. We weren't given any notes or documentation - and introductions were very brief and informal.
> 
> ...



The bloggers have caught up with Lambeth Council's plans for a 22-storey residential tower  as part of its "new town hall" plan, as originally revealed here by CH1 last month. Seems like Labour couldn't resist cashing in on soaring property values in Brixton.


http://insidelambeth1.wordpress.com/

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/08/...-in-design-for-your-new-town-hall-in-lambeth/


----------



## Crispy (Aug 11, 2014)

I think "mystery" is pushing it a bit; that's very obviously a residential building.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 11, 2014)

Crispy said:


> I think "mystery" is pushing it a bit; that's very obviously a residential building.


I think the sense is that a mystery tower block has appeared in the architects visuals which did not exist in the proposals they were consulting on.

Possibly "Ad hoc redesign for "Your New Town Hall" scheme incorporates tower block sticking out like a sore thumb" might have been better from your point of view?  Doesn't sound so enticingly mysterious though.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Aug 11, 2014)

The Council is now recruiting an Internal Comms bod to help sell the good news story of Your New Town Hall to all staff.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2014)

Tricky Skills said:


> The Council is now recruiting an Internal Comms bod to help sell the good news story of Your New Town Hall to all staff.


good news stories sell themselves, it's only bad news which needs a helping hand


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 11, 2014)

Crispy said:


> I think "mystery" is pushing it a bit; that's very obviously a residential building.



I went to the last 'consultation' meeting. This will be residential. Initially it was not going to be so high, but the residents of Porden Road objected to having a mid level block so close to them, so now the housing is stepped down at Porden Road and built up high on Brixton Hill. This is so the same no's of flats/sq footerage can be squeezed onto the site as before - you can see this in the drawing


----------



## Rushy (Aug 11, 2014)

sparkybird said:


> I went to the last 'consultation' meeting. This will be residential. Initially it was not going to be so high, but the residents of Porden Road objected to having a mid level block so close to them, so now the housing is stepped down at Porden Road and built up high on Brixton Hill. This is so the same no's of flats/sq footerage can be squeezed onto the site as before - you can see this in the drawing


It dwarfs everything around it including the church and town hall clock tower. There is nothing of this size anywhere near. It is even almost a third more floors than the towers in Herne Hill. It looks quite bizarre.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 11, 2014)

I suspect it's designed to shock, so the Porden Road residents will accept the midrise


----------



## CH1 (Aug 12, 2014)

Happened upon a picture of a dominating 22 storey residential building - albeit this is the 1902 Flatiron building on the corner of Broadway and 5th Avenue.
I think the pic does illustrate the general effect, if they did actually go ahead with the revised New Town Hall scheme.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 12, 2014)

The Flatiron is an office building with higher ceilings than typical residential, which would make the proposal a bit shorter. Also, that image is deliberately set up to make the tower look as tall as possible. It shows the thinnest aspect and uses one point perspective so the top doesn't diminish with height.

It wouldn't be as imposing as that image implies.

Still, quite a bit taller than anything else in Brixton (International House and Star House)


----------



## lang rabbie (Aug 12, 2014)

It is arguable that the proposed groundscraping seven storey new civic offices building would do more to destroy the setting of the Town Hall clock tower and St Matthew's Church.


----------



## High Definition (Jan 18, 2015)

lang rabbie said:


> It is arguable that the proposed groundscraping seven storey new civic offices building would do more to destroy the setting of the Town Hall clock tower and St Matthew's Church.



Just finished doing a response to the latest "Your New Town Hall" plans (deadline was last Friday 16th).  While I was researching this I discovered that the proposed six or seven storey new Civic Building at 2 - 7 Town Hall Parade conflicts with what the draft Lambeth Local Plan says about the site - which is that “substantial increases in height are unlikely to be acceptable given the existing townscape and nearby heritage assets” (i.e. the town hall tower and St Matthews Church).  

Below is a link to a PDF version of the relevant bit of the draft Lambeth Local Plan.   Lambeth published a series of amendments to the Plan at the end of last year  - but none of these related to the section I've just quoted.

http://lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default...osed_Submission_261113-2_Part_11_Brixton3.pdf 

Really don't see how their proposal for a six or seven storey Civic Building building can be seen as compatible with the draft Local Plan.


----------



## High Definition (Jan 19, 2015)

Meant to add to earlier post that Lambeth wouldn't need a new six storey office building next to the Town Hall if they kept Olive Morris House.  

There are 571 deskspaces in OMH now and the Customer Service Centre on the ground floor.  The new Civic Centre will contain 1650 deskspaces.  So 35% of the new office space is required just to replace the office space in OMH. (The deskspace figures are from the office accommodation strategy report that went to Cabinet in November 2013).  

In addition, if OMH goes, then the whole of the ground floor of the new Civic Building will be occupied by a new customer service centre to replace the one in OMH - approx 16% of the floor area of the building.

35% + 16% = 51%

If the Council retained OMH as offices and kept the Customer Service Centre there, then by my calculation the space requirement for the Civic Centre would be at around 50% less and the new building wouldn't need to be twice the height of the town hall buildings next door. 


Found this


----------



## Rushy (Jan 19, 2015)

High Definition said:


> Meant to add to earlier post that Lambeth wouldn't need a new six storey office building next to the Town Hall if they kept Olive Morris House.
> 
> There are 571 deskspaces in OMH now and the Customer Service Centre on the ground floor.  The new Civic Centre will contain 1650 deskspaces.  So 35% of the new office space is required just to replace the office space in OMH. (The deskspace figures are from the office accommodation strategy report that went to Cabinet in November 2013).
> 
> ...


The point is though that all of the town hall construction is being paid for by the developers who get to build the flats. They would get to build a whole lot less flats and therefore would, in theory, not pay for the development of the new Town Hall. (Not that I want that huge tower, by the way). How many floors is it supposed to be now?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jan 19, 2015)

The Environmental Impact Assessment published in November had it down to 14 floors.


----------



## Rushy (Jan 19, 2015)

More than double anything it is intended to replace in the development. Wowzers.


----------



## superfly101 (Jan 19, 2015)

Wasn't there a couple of millions of work on the OMH  roof to make it more environmentally friendly a year or so ago? 

I do know 1st hand they had no idea about how air conditioning worked! Keeping the doors open purposely is not how it works. Although it does really make the people  (and staff) as hot and cranky as they possibly could be.


----------



## Onket (Jan 19, 2015)

Keeping the doors open lets pigeons in, so I've heard.


----------



## High Definition (Jan 20, 2015)

Rushy said:


> The point is though that all of the town hall construction is being paid for by the developers who get to build the flats. They would get to build a whole lot less flats and therefore would, in theory, not pay for the development of the new Town Hall. (Not that I want that huge tower, by the way). How many floors is it supposed to be now?


If the new Civic Centre only needs to be 3 storeys high (rather than six), then the subsidy required will be less.  The developers are already getting the Hambrook House site and Ivor House for housing.  That should be enough to pay for the new town hall.


----------



## Rushy (Jan 20, 2015)

High Definition said:


> If the new Civic Centre only needs to be 3 storeys high (rather than six), then the subsidy required will be less.  The developers are already getting the Hambrook House site and Ivor House for housing.  That should be enough to pay for the new town hall.


Should it? I've really no idea.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 21, 2015)

Rushy said:


> The point is though that all of the town hall construction is being paid for by the developers who get to build the flats. They would get to build a whole lot less flats and therefore would, in theory, not pay for the development of the new Town Hall. (Not that I want that huge tower, by the way). How many floors is it supposed to be now?



Is it? I thought that at least some of the funds will be from disposal of other Council office sites. 



> Some buildings currently used by the council are occupied on a lease arrangement and will be vacated and returned to their landlords on expiry of the leases. Any money generated from disposals of leases will be crucial to ensuring that the project pays for itself.
> 
> This investment will enable the council to maximise the efficiency of the remaining offices and provide significant savings on our annual property costs.


----------



## Rushy (Jan 21, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Is it? I thought that at least some of the funds will be from disposal of other Council office sites.


So what? A commercial deal was arrived at which included a transfer of land on which a developer expected to be allowed to build and sell a number of properties.  In return they agreed to build the town hall. During the initial stages of consultation they found that they could only build a proportion of the original planned flats. The deal changes.


----------



## CH1 (Jan 21, 2015)

Rushy said:


> The point is though that all of the town hall construction is being paid for by the developers who get to build the flats. They would get to build a whole lot less flats and therefore would, in theory, not pay for the development of the new Town Hall. (Not that I want that huge tower, by the way). How many floors is it supposed to be now?


I would just like to correct some terminology here.

They are not building a New Town Hall - it is going to be a "civic centre" and will contain a "customer service centre" (as currently in Olive Morris House and recently refurbished for £2.5 million) and "offices" - as currently leased from St George property company in Vauxhall.

This was in a 2005 Council report:

1.1 Lambeth Council holds a 999-year lease on the office building at 10 Wandsworth Road. Council staff will move into the building shortly. Officers in the Corporate Facilities Management team have applied to assign an official name to the building.

4.2 The company that owns the freehold for the building, St George South London Ltd, has been informed of the proposals.

Maybe Rushy can explain why the present council are claiming that somehow the Phoenix House lease runs out and the council need to move their offices (again)? Looks like the lease is good for another 990 years to me! 

The council have officially denied that they are building a New Town Hall - even though the project is branded "Your New Town Hall"

Confused? I certainly am!


----------



## Greebo (Jan 21, 2015)

CH1 said:


> <snip>The council have officially denied that they are building a New Town Hall - even though the project is branded "Your New Town Hall"
> 
> Confused? I certainly am!


Come off it, this is Lambeth; nothing ought to surprise you about what happens.

This is the same council which wrings its hands over the length of the housing list, while blocking up flats for 16 years instead of making them habitable and reducing need.</derail>


----------



## Rushy (Jan 21, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Maybe Rushy can explain why the present council are claiming that somehow the Phoenix House lease runs out and the council need to move their offices (again)? Looks like the lease is good for another 990 years to me!


Maybe you should explain why I should be expected to know the answer to that or explain that to you?!

All I am saying is that if someone constructs a deal on a premise, and that premise turns out to be inaccurate, then the deal fails unless a work around can be found. The premise was that a certain number of flats could be built by building to a certain height over the entirity of a particular site. That height proved to be problematic in relation to Arlington Lodge. So they reduced the height at the rear of the site and increased it at the Brixton Hill side. I don't like it and will object. But the reason they have proposed it, to maintain the same number of flats whilst building lower at the rear, seems perfectly clear to me.


----------



## CH1 (Jan 21, 2015)

Rushy said:


> Maybe you should explain why I should be expected to know the answer to that or explain that to you?!


I just thought you might have heard stuff through the grapevine - such as Lambeth sold and leased back on Phoenix House for example.

Look what a mess International House became - Lambeth apparently did just this on that building, then had to buy the freehold back in order to progress their fiendish plans.

Just saying.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 21, 2015)

Rushy said:


> So what? A commercial deal was arrived at which included a transfer of land on which a developer expected to be allowed to build and sell a number of properties.  In return they agreed to build the town hall. During the initial stages of consultation they found that they could only build a proportion of the original planned flats. The deal changes.



I am not having a go Rushy.

Unlike the other sites I have not followed the "your new Town Hall" development plans. Partly as officers already went ahead with it and then decided to consult. Which put me off. Its been a bizarre exercise. Its part of Future Brixton but also part of Council office accommodation strategy. Which is getting rid of office space as Council argue they do not need so much. Which is not proven to me. I was just quoting what Council say on their website. Which of course makes it all clear to joe public

Reading the posts by High Definition and CH1 the whole consultation on the scheme is a mess.


----------



## Manter (Jan 22, 2015)

Why do hints have to have such cheesy names? 'Your town hall'- vomit.


----------



## High Definition (Feb 19, 2015)

As it’s a while since anyone has added anything to this thread and, to my  mind at least,the 7 storey civic building and the 14 storey montrocity planned for the Hambrook House site are two of the worst threats to the character of Brixton Centre (far worse than the neon-lit advertisement hoarding on the front of the Prince of Wales), I thought it would be worth reviving the thread with an update on the affordable housing element.


Those of you with long memories, might recall that back in November 2013 when Cabinet approved the appointment of MUSE, we were told that the Town Hall development (including Hambrook House, Ivor House and Olive Morris House) would create 275 housing units (of which 40% would be affordable). Lambeth were still claiming 275 units as late as August 2014.  Then, in December 2014 Cllr Paul McGlone posted a blog on the “Your New Town Hall” website in which, the eagle-eyed amongst us at least, might have spotted that the figure for new housing units across the YNTH site had gone down to 200.  CH1 and I were at a meeting with Cllr McGlone and Lambeth officers earlier this week at which we discovered that the number of housing units has shrunk yet again – to 196.


This, of course, means that the number of affordable homes produced is shrinking fast.  Lambeth’s target (but no guarantee it will be achieved) is that 40% of homes will be “affordable”, of which 70% should be rented and 30% intermediate.  It’s debatable whether intermediate housing counts as “affordable” – even Lambeth’s 2012 Housing Needs Assessment admits that just 3% of households in housing need in the borough can afford intermediate housing.  If we disregard the intermediate, then Town Hall sites will produce just 37 affordable rented flats.  (Calculation - 40% of 196 is 78 “affordable” homes. 70% of 78 is 37).


To put this into perspective, in 2010 Lambeth had around 1,090 empty council homes, of which 848 had been empty for more than 3 months.  (Figures were provided by Lambeth as a result of an FOI request from the Evening Standard – haven’t been able to find anything more recent).   37 new affordable rented homes across the Nu Town Hall sites (including that 14 storey blot on the landscape planned for the Hambrook House site seems to me to be a trickle in the ocean compared with the 800+ empty homes council-owned homes across the borough.


----------



## editor (Feb 19, 2015)

High Definition said:


> As it’s a while since anyone has added anything to this thread and, to my  mind at least,the 7 storey civic building and the 14 storey montrocity planned for the Hambrook House site are two of the worst threats to the character of Brixton Centre (far worse than the neon-lit advertisement hoarding on the front of the Prince of Wales), I thought it would be worth reviving the thread with an update on the affordable housing element.
> 
> 
> Those of you with long memories, might recall that back in November 2013 when Cabinet approved the appointment of MUSE, we were told that the Town Hall development (including Hambrook House, Ivor House and Olive Morris House) would create 275 housing units (of which 40% would be affordable). Lambeth were still claiming 275 units as late as August 2014.  Then, in December 2014 Cllr Paul McGlone posted a blog on the “Your New Town Hall” website in which, the eagle-eyed amongst us at least, might have spotted that the figure for new housing units across the YNTH site had gone down to 200.  CH1 and I were at a meeting with Cllr McGlone and Lambeth officers earlier this week at which we discovered that the number of housing units has shrunk yet again – to 196.
> ...


Nice analysis - can I lob that on Buzz?


----------



## High Definition (Feb 19, 2015)

editor said:


> Nice analysis - can I lob that on Buzz?


Of course


----------



## leanderman (Feb 19, 2015)

High Definition said:


> As it’s a while since anyone has added anything to this thread and, to my  mind at least,the 7 storey civic building and the 14 storey montrocity planned for the Hambrook House site are two of the worst threats to the character of Brixton Centre (far worse than the neon-lit advertisement hoarding on the front of the Prince of Wales), I thought it would be worth reviving the thread with an update on the affordable housing element.
> 
> 
> Those of you with long memories, might recall that back in November 2013 when Cabinet approved the appointment of MUSE, we were told that the Town Hall development (including Hambrook House, Ivor House and Olive Morris House) would create 275 housing units (of which 40% would be affordable). Lambeth were still claiming 275 units as late as August 2014.  Then, in December 2014 Cllr Paul McGlone posted a blog on the “Your New Town Hall” website in which, the eagle-eyed amongst us at least, might have spotted that the figure for new housing units across the YNTH site had gone down to 200.  CH1 and I were at a meeting with Cllr McGlone and Lambeth officers earlier this week at which we discovered that the number of housing units has shrunk yet again – to 196.
> ...



Very interesting.

Not much can be done without increasing the share of 'affordable units' to more than 40 per cent.

But why has the overall number of units fallen 29 per cent?


----------



## High Definition (Feb 19, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Very interesting.
> 
> Not much can be done without increasing the share of 'affordable units' to more than 40 per cent.
> 
> But why has the overall number of units fallen 29 per cent?


 
Thanks

The 40% affordable is only a target, not a guarantee.  With Lambeth trying to squeeze other things out of the site (new offices, replacement customer service centre, open space) I can't see the actual % of affordable being more than 40% and could well be less. 

Why has the overall number of housing units fallen?  We were told this was because of quality issues - which I think means that Lambeth have decided they can't get 275 units out of the sites and still comply with minimum space and daylight/sunlight standards.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 24, 2015)

A few more details on the tower that will replace Hambrook House.

The minutes have now been published for a meeting that took place between the Council, Muse and local residents. They hint at what sounds like a Poor Doors situation for the new building.

Plus the affordable housing in the new tower will be "between 33% - 40%."

BBuzz piece.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 24, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> A few more details on the tower that will replace Hambrook House.
> 
> <snip> the affordable housing in the new tower will be "between 33% - 40%."
> 
> BBuzz piece.


So much for official handwringing about housing need in the borough.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2015)

Greebo said:


> So much for official handwringing about housing need in the borough.



"Lambeth Council are shit-eating hypocrites!" non-shocker.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 24, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> A few more details on the tower that will replace Hambrook House.
> 
> The minutes have now been published for a meeting that took place between the Council, Muse and local residents. They hint at what sounds like a Poor Doors situation for the new building.
> 
> BBuzz piece.



Also they are going to put the "affordable housing" at the ground level at the back. ie in the dark.

Heard ex New Labour advisor Matthew Taylor talking about poor doors on the radio.

He chairs the "Social Integration Commission"

There report on page 19 says that Councils should ban poor doors on developments as they stop integration. 




> 19
> Neighbourhoods
> 
> Our neighbourhoods and communities shape and are shaped by the ways in which we interact
> ...



Taylor on the radio put a good defence of the report. He was asked would not having poor doors increase costs. He said the issue is what kind of society did you want to live in. At some points if it cost more then so be it.

My point is if a centre New Labour advisor can argue against poor doors you would have thought Lambeth would not have them on one of its developments. And apart from the poor door issue they are segregating the affordable housing from the for sale housing. This is also an issue about stopping mixing.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 15, 2015)

This one is a bit technical. I think that I just about get it...

'Built asset consultant' EC Harris has been given a further £328,000 as part of this project. This is on top of the £204,000 it bagged back in 2012. The extra money was never part of the plan. But the work needs doing.

And what is that work?

Cost consultancy 

BBuzz piece.


----------



## Dan U (Apr 15, 2015)

You won't get it but it would be fascinating to see a copy of the invoice submitted for that under FOI


----------



## Twattor (Apr 16, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> This one is a bit technical. I think that I just about get it...
> 
> 'Built asset consultant' EC Harris has been given a further £328,000 as part of this project. This is on top of the £204,000 it bagged back in 2012. The extra money was never part of the plan. But the work needs doing.
> 
> ...



Typically these days the employer's agents/cost consultants might get a fee of somewhere between 1-1.5% of the build value.  

Consultant's works are often "at risk" until a build contract is awarded, so no contract no fee.  It looks like Muse have been awarded the contract to develop, in which case the consultant would be entitled to draw down the first bit of their fee for all of the work done that far; and because the works to date might have gone on for years that might be 40% of their total fee.

The consultant's appointment will generally be on the basis that there is one basic design, developed by one design team, so they only have to procure the design team and cost the proposals once.  If for some reason that this doesn't work out and they have to sack a design team, start a new design from scratch, price it all over again then there might be an entitlement to further costs.  This additional work could be billed at hourly rates.  If you consider that the charge out rates for a senior member of staff may be a couple of hundred pounds an hour, and you may get three or four members of staff at a meeting then a meeting lasting a couple of hours may cost the Council a few thousand pounds once you've thrown in the travel costs etc.  One of those a week will soon rack up the costs, and that is before they even start on the proper work.


----------



## happyshopper (Apr 21, 2015)

Just received formal notification of the two planning applications

*
*


----------



## CH1 (Apr 22, 2015)

happyshopper said:


> Just received formal notification of the two planning applications


Here are the links:
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NMX0RHBOJWZ00
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NMYGSQBO0I000

Deadline for comments 12th May.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 22, 2015)

A cut and paste from the main Brixton thread:

OK - here's the BBuzz piece on the two planning applications.

Thoughts:

A deadline of May 12 is not realistic. Three years in the planning, three weeks to take on board a mass of information and then form an opinion. If passed (and it will be...) then this will change central Brixton forever.

The planning portal is clunky. We already knew that. But how are you expected to comment if the docs haven't been uploaded yet?

The tower block remains - 14 stories. The number of new homes appears to have gone down from 275 at one stage to 120 - 94 in the tower block and the remainder in a refurbished Ivor House.

There is no mention whatsoever of Olive Morris House. Maybe a separate planning application is to follow.

Plus bye bye Firdge Bar. I wonder if a CPO was ever needed, or if a settlement was reached?


----------



## High Definition (May 11, 2015)

I’m finishing off comments on the New Town Hall and Olive Morris House planning applications – deadline for these to be sent in to Lambeth planning is tomorrow 12th May. 


Had a look at the Lambeth planning website just now and noticed there are only 5 objections  - including one from the owners of the Fridge bar.  Hopefully a lot more will come in before the deadline.


I agree with all the points other objectors have made to the 14 storey building planned for the Hambrook House site and the 6 storey Civic Building.  If the applications gets the go-ahead then Brixton’s historic centre will be dominated by two monolithic tower blocks, more than twice the height of any surrounding buildings, dwarfing views of the Town Hall tower from Brixton Road and looming up in the background behind St Matthews Church and the Peace Garden. 


Lambeth and MUSE claim that any damage to the townscape or local historic buildings is not significant and is justified by the public benefits that the scheme will deliver  - this argument is set out in the pre-application advice provided by Lambeth planners (appended to the Planning Statement which can be downloaded from the Council website).


However, now that we have the actual figures for housing and office floor space, the promised public benefits (affordable housing and improved office space) are hardly impressive.  Take each of these in turn:


Housing - yes, we need new affordable housing in Brixton.  The reality, however, is that the development will provide a relatively insignificant number of truly affordable homes.


The development will provide a total of 194 new homes – 94 on the Hambrook House site, 74 at Olive Morris House and 26 at Ivor House.  The Planning Statement claims that 78 (40%) of these will be affordable.  However, 23 of the claimed affordable homes will be provided as shared ownership units.  Lambeth’s Housing Needs Assessment 2012 estimates that just 3% of households in housing need in the borough can afford intermediate housing while 97% are only able to afford affordable rented housing.  If the 23 intermediate units are excluded from the affordable total, then the Town Hall site and Olive Morris house sites will produce just 55 affordable rented flats.


While 55 new homes will go some way to meeting housing need in the borough, the total is not particularly impressive when measured against total need in the borough. To put this into perspective, in 2010 Lambeth had around 1,090 empty council homes 848 had been empty for more than 3 months.  (Figures were provided by Lambeth as a result of an FOI request from the Evening Standard).


New Civic Building - I don’t disagree with the principle that concentrating council office-based staff in the centre and saving running costs is a good idea.  However, now that existing and proposed floorspace figures are available, it’s not at all clear to me that this objective couldn’t have been achieved, more cheaply and with less damage to Brixton Centre, by refurbishing the existing buildings around the Town Hall.


As was picked out in the summary in the Buzz last month, the new Town Hall proposals will result in a very big reduction in the amount of Council office space in Brixton now. 


I checked the figures and now seems the new Civic Building (with 11,084 sqm office and customer service space) will provide 4,800 sqm LESS space than exists now at 2-7 Town Hall Parade (3,241 sqm), Ivor House (3,354 sqm), Hambrook House (2,860 sqm), Olive Morris House (7,229 sqm) – an overall reduction of 29%. 


You might ask how Lambeth are proposing to relocate all their office staff to Brixton and fit everyone into a new office building which has nearly 30% less space than they have now.  The answer – set out in the Planning Statement  - is that this will be achieved mainly by expecting Lambeth staff to “hot desk” (arrangements by which Council staff will have access to shared desks at a ratio of 7 desks per 10 fulltime employees rather than being provided by individual desks of their own).


This suggests that the objective of concentrating Council staff in and around the Town Hall could have been achieved by retaining and refurbishing existing buildings and then introducing the same hot desk regime proposed for the new Civic Centre.  Would have allowed Lambeth to make the same savings from relocating staff to Brixton from other parts of the borough (and sell Phoenix House, their most valuable office asset), and would have retained the Customer Service Centre at Olive Morris House (rather than chucking away the £3.1 million invested in 2008).  Why didn't they go for this option, instead of option for the grandiose Nu Town Hall project. 


Would be interesting to see the financial figures for the New Town Hall scheme – would it be worth an FOI? – but even without these it’s beginning to seem to me that Lambeth’s  New Town Hall scheme is an unnecessary vanity project.



.


----------



## Tricky Skills (May 17, 2015)

Cllr Paul McGlone is due to update Full Council on Wednesday about Your Nu Town Hall. Nothing much new - 47% 'affordable' homes, 194 homes in total, work is due to start later this year.

There is an interesting update though about the possibility of the police and helath services also using the space. Do they reall need this?

BBuzz piece.


----------



## CH1 (May 17, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Cllr Paul McGlone is due to update Full Council on Wednesday about Your Nu Town Hall. Nothing much new - 47% 'affordable' homes, 194 homes in total, work is due to start later this year.
> 
> There is an interesting update though about the possibility of the police and helath services also using the space. Do they reall need this?
> 
> BBuzz piece.


It wouldn't be too surprising under sod's law if the Police migrated to the Nu Town hall site - after all the Met has spent millions on 367 Brixton Road in recent years.


----------



## High Definition (May 17, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Cllr Paul McGlone is due to update Full Council on Wednesday about Your Nu Town Hall. Nothing much new - 47% 'affordable' homes, 194 homes in total, work is due to start later this year.
> 
> There is an interesting update though about the possibility of the police and helath services also using the space. Do they reall need this?
> 
> BBuzz piece.


Doesn't seem that Cllr McGlone has actually bothered to read the Town Hall and Olive Morris House planning applications (either that or he's rubbish at maths).

He says that 47% of flats will be "at affordable rent levels".	

The figures quoted in the Planning Statement are that 55 of the 194 flats will be social rented (34 in Hambrook House and 21 in Olive Morris House).  55 out of 194 is 28.3%.

The development will also include some intermediate (i.e. shared ownership) flats  - 14 flats in Hambrook House and 9 in Olive Morris House.  However, these won't be at "at affordable rent levels".   







  .


----------



## High Definition (May 20, 2015)

High Definition said:


> Doesn't seem that Cllr McGlone has actually bothered to read the Town Hall and Olive Morris House planning applications (either that or he's rubbish at maths).
> 
> He says that 47% of flats will be "at affordable rent levels".
> 
> ...


Found out how Cllr McGlone got to 47% - by including the intermediate (shared ownership) flats and by lumping in the flats which will be built on the Wynne Road site.


----------



## CH1 (May 20, 2015)

High Definition said:


> Found out how Cllr McGlone got to 47% - by including the intermediate (shared ownership) flats and by lumping in the flats which will be built on the Wynne Road site.


Is this a land swap then?

They were going on about developing Wanless Road Loughborough Junction as part of the deal, then they dropped Wanless Road for unspecified reasons. Now they are going to develop Wynne Road.

Assuming they mean the building more of less opposite the Wynne Road Sorting Office - why was that particular site not bundled in with the fourth regeneration of the Stockwell Park Estate which adjoins it?

Lambeth really are nuts - they still have all these little nuggets of unused surplus property 20 years after they started to sell them off.

Yet most of their time lately they have been energetically evicting housing co-ops etc actually creating homelessness.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 23, 2015)

Olive Morris house will go as part of this redevelopment.

The Remember Olive Collective are holding a rally opposite Olive Morris house this Friday.

The also have a petition to urge Council to keep the memory of Olive Morris alive with a permanent memorial. 



> retain a public facing memorial of Olive Morris to ensure that the black community struggle is not erased from the history of Brixton.


----------



## Leon Kreitzman (Jul 1, 2015)

editor said:


> We might be getting a 're-imagined' town hall and a 'new destination.'
> 
> View attachment 41307
> 
> ...


Can anyone help. I have asiduously attended the cnsultations about Y


editor said:


> The aliens have landed here.
> 
> View attachment 41316


----------



## Leon Kreitzman (Jul 1, 2015)

editor said:


> The aliens have landed here.
> 
> View attachment 41316


----------



## Leon Kreitzman (Jul 1, 2015)

Can anyone help. I have assiduously attended the YNTH consultation meetings and over two years I have asked repeatedly for the financial justifications and assumptions of the scheme. I eventually got these figures for the running costs alleged savings.

I know nothing about local authority finances but I thought that the council recovers 50%+ of business rates paid in Lambeth, so it would recycle back at least £800000 reducing the alleged savings to a maximum of £3700000 p.s. If the other figures are that flaky then the saving dwindles to much smaller amounts. Am I right in my thinking?

I have got nothing on capital costs.I am told that there will be nil capital costs, but nobody will tell me how much is going in buying out of leases; who will own the freehold on OMH; whether the council is putting up money upfront ;who is paying the costs associated in moving staff about.

Please help if you can

Leon Kreitzman

YNTH forecasted annual revenue savings
£'000
Rents
1,419
Insurance
20
Rates
1,637
Security
401
Cleaning
376
Electricity
418
Gas
63
Water and Sewerage
37
Planned Maintenance
48
Reactive Maintenance
8
Parking
72
Total
4,500


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 1, 2015)

Leon Kreitzman said:


> Can anyone help. I have assiduously attended the YNTH consultation meetings and over two years I have asked repeatedly for the financial justifications and assumptions of the scheme. I eventually got these figures for the running costs alleged savings.



I don't claim to understand the finance. My one observation though concerns the existing 12 Council office blocks that are being sold. No one is talking about the money that this will generate.

The line that Your Nu Town Hall will come at no cost to the tax payer is deceiving. The 12 blocks are owned collectively by the borough. Selling them on comes at a cost in terms of selling on the assets that belong to Lambeth.

It is a similar argument for libraries with regards the Minet and Waterloo.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 1, 2015)

Leon Kreitzman said:


> Can anyone help. I have assiduously attended the YNTH consultation meetings and over two years I have asked repeatedly for the financial justifications and assumptions of the scheme. I eventually got these figures for the running costs alleged savings.


I would say those figures are speculative.

You are dealing here with a development which looks like a PFI but doesn't admit to this. The planning applications are in the name of Muse, not Lambeth Council. Muse is a subsidiary of Morgan Sindall Group plc.

The scheme seems very sensitive to residential development volumes. When it turned out they could not develop Wanless Road depot for some reason they had to add in an newly found development site in Wyne Road.

They are very insistent that they cannot afford to lose residential at Olive Morris House or Hambrook House by reducing the height - otherwise the sums don't add up.

I think what we have here is Muse Development offering a bespoke solution for Lambeth and Lambeth are just backing off, and ducking all responsibility for the consequences, hoping that their dream offices will come true.

Of course us residents have been through this loop 2 or 3 times some of us and await the outcome with cynicism.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 2, 2015)

Lambeth Planning getting a little ahead of themselves. I've just received a consultation letter dated tomorrow, 3 July regarding revised plans for the Town Hall site.

15/02276/FUL If anyone is interested. I haven't looked at it yet myself.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 2, 2015)

Rushy said:


> Lambeth Planning getting a little ahead of themselves. I've just received a consultation letter dated tomorrow, 3 July regarding revised plans for the Town Hall site.
> 
> 15/02276/FUL If anyone is interested. I haven't looked at it yet myself.


Sheet 1: Summary of Amendments to the ‘Your New Town Hall’ Development (15/02776/FUL & 15/02264/FUL)) and associated Listed Building Consent (15/02263/LB)
• An Environment Statement Addendum Report has been produced in response to an internal Environmental Statement (ES) review, undertaken by Arup on behalf of the Local Planning Authority. However, it should also be noted that the information contained within the ES Addendum does not alter the conclusions reached in the original submission version of the ES.
• In addition to the ES Addendum Report an updated version of the Flood Risk Assessment (ES Appendix Ref SWD1) is submitted in respect of both the YNTH and Olive Morris House applications (reference 15/02276/FUL and 15/?????/FUL respectively).
• Updated Plans Pack and Schedule for YNTH only (15/02276/FUL. An overview of the key changes are as follows:
o Civic centre - Ground Floor Level Increased to +19.55;
o Hambrook House - Tower corner balconies and internal flat layouts revised with refuse store entrance repositioned;
o Ivor House - Retail door position altered with corner dormer window revised/removed.
• Updated Transport Assessment Technical Note (YNTH/Olive Morris) ;
• Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation for YNTH Site (reference 15/02276/FUL) only;
• Updated CIL forms for YNTH Site (reference 15/02276/FUL) only;
• Updated Sustainability & Energy Statement for both the YNTH (15/02276/FUL) and Olive Morris House (15//FUL) applications;
Please note that any comments previously made in writing to the Council on any of the YNTH applications (LPA Ref. Nos. 15/02276/FUL. 15/02264/FUL and 15/02263/LB) remain valid and as such will continue to be taken into consideration by the Local Planning Authority in the determination of the applications (as amended).

Are we any wiser?


----------



## Twattor (Jul 2, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Sheet 1: Summary of Amendments to the ‘Your New Town Hall’ Development (15/02776/FUL & 15/02264/FUL)) and associated Listed Building Consent (15/02263/LB)
> • An Environment Statement Addendum Report has been produced in response to an internal Environmental Statement (ES) review, undertaken by Arup on behalf of the Local Planning Authority. However, it should also be noted that the information contained within the ES Addendum does not alter the conclusions reached in the original submission version of the ES.
> • In addition to the ES Addendum Report an updated version of the Flood Risk Assessment (ES Appendix Ref SWD1) is submitted in respect of both the YNTH and Olive Morris House applications (reference 15/02276/FUL and 15/?????/FUL respectively).
> • Updated Plans Pack and Schedule for YNTH only (15/02276/FUL. An overview of the key changes are as follows:
> ...



Without actually looking at any of the documents I'll make a couple of predictions:

The corner balconies will now have posts, either supporting them or more likely in the corner to support the structure. It is very expensive to cantilever a floor slab, and feature glazed corners are one of the first things to get rid of to save money
The CIL payment will have been revised to reflect a viability study which shows the scheme is barely breaking even and can't possibly withstand the additional cost of paying CIL. 
Someone tell me if I'm right?


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 5, 2015)

Having attended some of the early meetings, I've not been actively involved much recently (but thanks to all here who have posted what's going on). I see there are two open days this coming week. I will definately get along and report back.

They are at the town hall on Thursday 9 July, 11am to 6pm and Friday 10 July, 9am to 2pm

Apparently plans, models and documents will be available. Officers from Lambeth and the developers, Muse will be on hand to answer questions. You then have until 24 July to comment

http://futurebrixton.org/townhall/open-days/


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 7, 2015)

sparkybird said:


> Having attended some of the early meetings, I've not been actively involved much recently (but thanks to all here who have posted what's going on). I see there are two open days this coming week. I will definately get along and report back.
> 
> They are at the town hall on Thursday 9 July, 11am to 6pm and Friday 10 July, 9am to 2pm
> 
> ...



I notice the convenient times. Good for officers. Rubbish for a lot of residents.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 7, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> I don't claim to understand the finance. My one observation though concerns the existing 12 Council office blocks that are being sold. No one is talking about the money that this will generate.
> 
> The line that Your Nu Town Hall will come at no cost to the tax payer is deceiving. The 12 blocks are owned collectively by the borough. Selling them on comes at a cost in terms of selling on the assets that belong to Lambeth.
> 
> It is a similar argument for libraries with regards the Minet and Waterloo.



This is a very good point.

Behind the Town Hall plans was the Councils office accommodation strategy which assumed less office space was needed.

Despite the Town Hall site being in the Brixton Masterplan area this scheme was not co produced. It was decided on by Cllrs and officers in relation to the office accommodation strategy. Why I lost interest in it as it was clear that consultation was going to be minimal. The overall strategy had already been decided.

The fact that the Impact Hub which was in Town Hall is being moved to anther temporary site- Pop Brixton - shows that the selling off of office space could lead to shortage of space in future. Also surplus office space could have been redeveloped for housing instead of Council knocking down existing estates ( Cressingham etc)

The whole your Nu Town Hall was the opposite. This was decided by officers not joe public.

BTW Mace are also



> Lambeth Council appointed Mace as the multi-disciplinary project/construction manager to manage and co-ordinate the delivery of the council's property refurbishment programme for a minimum period of 3 years.



Who writes this shit?



> Formerly a hierarchical and territorial space management ethos prevailed. This has been replaced by a corporate strategy with regards to space planning and office accommodation moves. All space planning and moves are centrally coordinated through the existing space planning team provided by Workplace Architects, the project / construction manager and facilities management provider.


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 12, 2015)

OK sorry for the delay in posting up. Yes, I agree the times were rubbish - but I had taken some time off work this week, so happily it coincided.

I popped in on Friday morning (at 10 and then again at 11am) - no sign of any council officers, just 1 person each from the architects and the developers. Not exactly overwhelmed with people. 

The points I took away were
1. The Press Building is going to be a 218 cycle store for Lambeth employees *only*. Plus quite a large area of dedicated showers and lockers. I was told that this would be sufficient for 15% of the total no. of Lambeth staff on site to use. I don't how many staff actually do cycle at the moment and how many will be encouraged to by this? It's quite a big space. 
I asked about public bike stores/Boris Bikes and was told that there would be some Boris ones nearby.
2. The 20 storey building is now going to be 14 storeys, but with lower ones around it (10 at the front, stepping down to 4, I think at the back). The figures I was given for across the site housing were 40%  affordable of which 70% social rent and 30% shared ownership. The flats will be 1,2 and 3 beds. All the 3 beds will be social rent (I did think at that point, well that's because even a banker won't be able to afford a 3 bed flat!) and the only ones with gardens will be these ones.
3. All housing will be car free (i.e. you can't get a residents permit if you live there). However, the housing at Olive Morris house will have some disabled parking spaces  - making use of the existing basement.
4. I had been under the impression that the Old Town Hall was not going to be much used by Lambeth, but in fact I reckon 50% at least will still have Council functions. The ground and lower ground floors will be the Impact Hub (I still don't really understand this) and rooms for community use (but not free). The central courtyard will be improved and can be used by people getting married for photos etc. I like this
5. Ivor House is getting a 1 storey mansard extension and will be all private flats with retail at ground level (retails at ground level also at Olive Morris).
6. A cafe use proposed for just behind Ivor House on Buckner Road
7. Access along Buckner Road to the back of the Fridge will be retained, but controlled. Porden Road will be come 2 way (in and out onto Acre Lane) so that vehicles can service the new flats/existing houses
7. They are hoping to get planning permission by Sept and phase 1 will be 2-2.5 years at which point Lambeth officers will move into their new building and work will start on phase 2 (Olive Morris House and the Old Town Hall).

SB


----------



## CH1 (Jul 12, 2015)

sparkybird said:


> They are hoping to get planning permission by Sept and phase 1 will be 2-2.5 years at which point Lambeth officers will move into their new building and work will start on phase 2 (Olive Morris House and the Old Town Hall).


Presumably they need to begin with the new service centre on the site of the emergency housing department.
Is the residential on the site of Hambrook House part of this first phase, or is it later on, tied in with the Olive Morris redevelopment?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 12, 2015)

Interesting that the tower has been reduced to to 14 storeys. I wonder how that decision came about?


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 12, 2015)

CH1  - I think from memory the New Town Hall and Hambrook House are phase 1 and Old Town Hall and Olive Morris House phase 2 (once they've decanted the officers).

Tricky - I guess it was overwhelming objections and I know the Porden Road residents pushed to get the rear storeys lowered. The developer hinted that of course it was never going to be 22 storeys, but we had to push our luck (maybe I'm paraphrasing here...) The knock on effect, she said is that LBL is making less money out of the development. I asked how this was going to impact and she said they were looking at cost savings in the design e.g. in the New Town Hall glass that changed colour in sunlight, which is effectively cheaper than installing blinds in the development. (pfft, I thought this would have been a given!)


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 12, 2015)

Don't forget that all of this is being delivered at no extra cost to the taxpayer.

So there.


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 13, 2015)

How about a prime site actually MAKING some money for the tax payer?


----------



## CH1 (Jul 15, 2015)

Further to my comments up thread about how Wynne Road seems to be lumped into the package as a replacement for the proposed redevelopment of the council's Wanless Road depot there have been developments at Wynne Road.

I passed there this morning and was quite surprised to see a tower crane in the middle  of a flattened site where the council offices formerly stood (only a month or so ago).

The hoarding surrounding the site says that it is a Pocket Living development financed with the help of the Mayor of London.

I'm wondering if it is included in Your New Town Hall so Lambeth get a targeted amount in subsidies from the Mayor of London by "achieving" a certain quota of shared ownership.

The Pocket Living website says only those on less than £71,000  are eligible (no super rich they say and definitely no buy to let).

Pic of what it will look like on their website:
Wynne Road SW9, Brixton - 25 one bedroom Pocket apartments


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Pic of what it will look like on their website:
> Wynne Road SW9, Brixton - 25 one bedroom Pocket apartments
> View attachment 74094


Anther stunningly original contribution to area, stuffed full of vernacular detail!

But hooray if it is actually affordable.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 15, 2015)

editor said:


> Anther stunningly original contribution to area, stuffed full of vernacular detail!
> 
> But hooray if it is actually affordable.


Hardly a beauty - but the offices were equally nondescript!


----------



## Belushi (Jul 15, 2015)

editor said:


> But hooray if it is actually affordable.



Not for most people unfortunately, better than nothing but they're aimed squarely at young middle class first time buyers



> Pocket homes are for middle-income workers, not the super-rich


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Not for most people unfortunately, better than nothing but they're aimed squarely at young middle class first time buyers


I forgot. The faces of poor people don't fit in the borough any more.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 15, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Not for most people unfortunately, better than nothing but they're aimed squarely at young middle class first time buyers


I find it difficult to track this - as my own career followed an inverted "W" income-wise before it went down the pan completely.
In any case my starter home (in 1978) was a one bedroom flat in Effra Court.
I would be interested to know how these pocket apartments compare with that.

They don't sound very middle class to me - in terms of size and facilities. Maybe that's all you get for being middle class in 2015?


----------



## Belushi (Jul 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> They don't sound very middle class to me - in terms of size and facilities. Maybe that's all you get for being middle class in 2015?



Big time.


----------



## Winot (Jul 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> The Pocket Living website says only those on less than £71,000  are eligible (no super rich they say and definitely no buy to let).



"You must earn below £71k, and the average income of a Pocket buyer is closer to £40k."

If not the super rich, still in the top 20% (if you're an individual).

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/25/uk-incomes-how-salary-compare

(Edit - Torygraph link replaced with Urban-friendly Guardian link)


----------



## SpamMisery (Jul 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I find it difficult to track this - as my own career followed an inverted "W" income-wise before it went down the pan completely



Isn't an inverted "W" an "M"? 

Is the £72k salary limit per household (i.e. combined couples income) or per person?


----------



## SpamMisery (Jul 15, 2015)

Winot said:


> "You must earn below £71k, and the average income of a Pocket buyer is closer to £40k."
> 
> If not the super rich, still in the top 20% (if you're an individual).
> 
> ...



£70+ puts you in the top 4% doesn't it? Unless I'm reading the below link wrong (on my teeny tiny mobile screen)


https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax


----------



## Winot (Jul 15, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> £70+ puts you in the top 4% doesn't it? Unless I'm reading the below link wrong (on my teeny tiny mobile screen)
> 
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax



Yes, but £71K is the upper cut-off for ownership with average closer to £40K, so I was guesstimating what income deciles that range covered.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 15, 2015)

Those figures are for Britain aren't they. London would look pretty different, I think.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> They don't sound very middle class to me - in terms of size and facilities. Maybe that's all you get for being middle class in 2015?



http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...ive-12-to-a-house-like-students-10390163.html


----------



## Twattor (Jul 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Further to my comments up thread about how Wynne Road seems to be lumped into the package as a replacement for the proposed redevelopment of the council's Wanless Road depot there have been developments at Wynne Road.
> 
> I passed there this morning and was quite surprised to see a tower crane in the middle  of a flattened site where the council offices formerly stood (only a month or so ago).
> 
> ...



This is really interesting.  Pocket living build micro flats, much smaller than anything built in accordance with the mayor of london's design standards (which are basically parker morris plus). Social housing (inc shared ownership) has always had to meet space standards, and this greatly inflates the build costs as the bulk of the cost is in the fabric of the building - fancy tiles/kitchens/bathrooms are a fraction of the cost of the structure.  This is why private developers are always horrified by the size of the s106 units.

Some councils, such as the People's Republic of Islington won't permit Pocket Living on their patch, simply because they don't build units that meet their standards for habitable space.  

I should be surprised that Lambeth welcome them, but I'm not.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 16, 2015)

Note the hallowed "property ladder" is currently rigged so many ordinary people stand a good chance of never achieving 100% ownership of even a leasehold property (unless they are lucky enough to be able to exercise the right to buy that is).


----------



## leanderman (Jul 16, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Note the hallowed "property ladder" is currently rigged so many ordinary people stand a good chance of never achieving 100% ownership of even a leasehold property (unless they are lucky enough to be able to exercise the right to buy that is).



Rungs now too far apart


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2015)

Twattor said:


> This is really interesting.  Pocket living build micro flats, much smaller than anything built in accordance with the mayor of london's design standards (which are basically parker morris plus). Social housing (inc shared ownership) has always had to meet space standards, and this greatly inflates the build costs as the bulk of the cost is in the fabric of the building - fancy tiles/kitchens/bathrooms are a fraction of the cost of the structure.  This is why private developers are always horrified by the size of the s106 units.
> 
> Some councils, such as the People's Republic of Islington won't permit Pocket Living on their patch, simply because they don't build units that meet their standards for habitable space.
> 
> I should be surprised that Lambeth welcome them, but I'm not.


Don't forget that Lambeth welcomed with open arms The Collective into Pop Brixton, who pride themselves on stripping out buildings and packing them with "as many compact living spaces as the property will allow."

https://www.thecollective.co.uk/the-collectivist/reza-merchant--strength-in-numbers


----------



## Gniewosz (Jul 19, 2016)

If of interest... council has lost a FOI/EIR request on the grounds of public interest, and is required to publish the non-redeacted financial viability assessment for the Nu Town Hall development site by 11 August 2016...
https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2016/1624606/fer_0608537.pdf

Not the clause 46 in the Info Commissioner's report: 
"The Commissioner notes that this case is slightly different in that the scheme proposes to deliver 47% affordable housing, over and above the council’s core strategy policy. However, it is noted from the council’s submissions that this is due to an agreement in place with the developer to transfer ownership of some of the site over to it and the Commissioner notes that even though 47% was agreed the developer still wished to maintain that only 16% was justified." 

It looks like they are giving the developers Muse some of the land....


----------



## ricbake (Sep 14, 2017)

Anyone want to run an Enterprise Hub in YNTH the basement of the Town Hall?

Service Charge £54,000 pa Business rates to be advised - 

Your New Town Hall - Enterprise Hub - Lambeth - has to tick the "Vibrancy" box

Brixton is world renowned for its extraordinary character, vibrancy and richly diverse cultural history!

The council is seeking a workspace operator to take a lease on the YNTH basement space. 
The council expects the Operator to manage a workspace that will provide the following benefits: 
● A vibrant Enterprise Hub facility at the heart of the council’s new YNTH building. 
● Affordable and flexible workspace for start-ups and small businesses; supporting delivery of the council’s Future Lambeth inclusive growth ambition and BEAP. 
● Increased number of CDI businesses within the local area, including some business with high growth potential. 
● Positive connections and collaboration between the workspace provider, businesses located within the enterprise hub, and local community organisations, supporting local take up of opportunities. 
● Events and workshops that (a) support business development, and (b) bring local residents into the space (particularly younger residents) during non-working hours to inspire and 
10 support understanding of entrepreneurship, career and employment pathways in the creative and digital sectors. 
● The successful organisation will be required to include a component of the space which is dedicated for use by a local social enterprise, third sector or community organisation(s). 
Third sector / community engagement as a key part of the Enterprise Hub offer. 
The council sees a specific opportunity for the Enterprise Hub to raise awareness of creative and digital industry employment and education pathways, 
supporting disadvantaged residents to access these important growth sectors for the borough.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 15, 2017)

ricbake said:


> Anyone want to run an Enterprise Hub in YNTH the basement of the Town Hall?
> 
> Service Charge £54,000 pa Business rates to be advised -
> 
> ...



Isn't this just following the rules on tendering? Impact Hub were in Town Hall. When building works started helpfully  the Council suddenly found space in Pop Brixton for them. My understanding was this was temporary until ",Your New Town Hall" was finished.

Then Impact Hub would move back.

Or have I got this wrong?

The above as by Council sounds like what Impact Hub were meant to do?

Impact Hub are something  that Nu Labour love.


----------



## ricbake (Sep 17, 2017)

Could be..

This from 3 years go - http://yournewtownhall.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/YNTH-Intro-Boards.pdf


----------



## editor (Oct 21, 2020)

Sure is delivering on those benefits

Lambeth Council to spend £200,000 on improving the Brixton Customer Services Centre – despite only being open for two years


----------

