# Canterbury Arms, Brixton to be turned into flats -  planning application



## colacubes (Feb 28, 2013)

The Canterbury is applying for change of use:

http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=MI5YIGBOHV000

May be of particular interest to ianw and Nanker Phelge .


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Feb 28, 2013)

nipsla said:


> The Canterbury is applying for change of use:
> 
> http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=MI5YIGBOHV000
> 
> May be of particular interest to ianw and Nanker Phelge .


 
Thanks for the heads up....


----------



## editor (Feb 28, 2013)

nipsla said:


> The Canterbury is applying for change of use:
> 
> http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=MI5YIGBOHV000
> 
> May be of particular interest to ianw and Nanker Phelge .


----------



## clandestino (Feb 28, 2013)

Wow, what does that mean I wonder? Thanks for the tip-off.


----------



## clandestino (Feb 28, 2013)

I hope we last until November. We're due to celebrate 10 years of doing HDIF at the Canterbury this November. 

http://www.howdoesitfeel.co.uk/nov72003.html


----------



## editor (Mar 3, 2013)

Here's the outline of the application:


> Application for a certificate of lawfulness (Proposed) with respect to the change of use of the ground floor public house (Use Class A4) to Retail (Use Class A1) / Financial and Professional Services (Use Class A2) / Restaurants and Cafes (Use Class A3).


----------



## Kanda (May 20, 2013)

A2? 

Will it become a Hedge Fund I wonder...


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 20, 2013)

They'll sell it to developers/Lambeth Council I reckon. It's right in the middle of the bit they want to redevelop - International House, the ice rink/car park etc.


----------



## editor (May 20, 2013)

I fear Brixton's about to lose another pub sooner or later


----------



## thriller (May 20, 2013)

is that the pink pub opposite that council canterburry crescent building?


----------



## editor (May 20, 2013)

Pink? It's always been yellow and black, unless they've suddenly changed the paint scheme.


----------



## thriller (May 20, 2013)

i think I'm thinking of the wrong pub. there is one opposite the lambeth building near brixton police station. swear it was a pink external coloured wall pub. maybe not.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 20, 2013)

As someone said on another thread, it's owned by Conway Taverns, a small family firm of pubs. Apparently they've been slowly selling off one or two pubs here & there over the past few years.

There was some discussion on the boards back in March about the Canterbury change of use application.


----------



## gabi (May 21, 2013)

that would be a fucking tragedy. i love that place. properly old school, complete with the grumpiest landlord on earth. i assumed the family owned it? he certainly runs it like his personal fiefdom...


----------



## footballerslegs (May 21, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> They'll sell it developers/Lambeth Council I reckon. It's right in the middle of the bit they want to redevelop - International House, the ice rink/car park etc.


 
That's what I've heard - for housing development, eventually linked into work around the ice rink.


----------



## Kanda (May 21, 2013)

footballerslegs said:


> That's what I've heard - for housing development, eventually linked into work around the ice rink.


 
Who owns the Ice rink?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 21, 2013)

Kanda said:


> Who owns the Ice rink?


Lambeth.

It was supposed to be turned back into a car park - but I can't see it happening. The land is too valuable. Especially now they can't build on the Rec. So I think it will be a massive development of flats/shops/offices - I'll eat my hat if it isn't. (Possibly with a small amount of parking attached.)


----------



## editor (Jun 11, 2013)

It's definitely a goner. ianw Nanker Phelge

*Proposal to turn Brixton’s Canterbury Arms into 40 apartments – exhibition on 27th June*
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/06/...s-into-40-apartments-exhibition-on-27th-june/


----------



## colacubes (Jun 11, 2013)

Shit   I'd seen the change of use had been approved but was hoping it was just speculative   Another pub bites the dust


----------



## clandestino (Jun 11, 2013)

Bugger.


----------



## clandestino (Jun 11, 2013)

Our night there on Friday was fantastic, this is so sad...
http://www.howdoesitfeel.co.uk/photos.html


----------



## editor (Jun 11, 2013)

So on the 'definitely going sometime' list we have the Canterbury and the Grosvenor, and then there's that question mark hanging over the Windmill.    It really sucks.


----------



## editor (Jun 11, 2013)

Anyone know who May Developments are?
The address they listed for feedback - 7 Bayley Street, London WC1B 3HB - has been used by at least one other development under a different name.


----------



## Chilavert (Jun 11, 2013)

More 'executive style apartments' ffs?

Sad times.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 11, 2013)

editor said:


> It's definitely a goner. ianw Nanker Phelge
> 
> *Proposal to turn Brixton’s Canterbury Arms into 40 apartments – exhibition on 27th June*
> http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/06/...s-into-40-apartments-exhibition-on-27th-june/


 
Blimey. 40 units is no small scheme. I expect 5 maybe 6 stories of apartments on top of mixed-use ground floor. Possibly taller, if they keep to the existing building line (ie. not building on the front garden, which would probably be allowable, given the standalone nature of the site.)


Chilavert said:


> More 'executive style apartments' ffs?


Those words in quotes are not in the press release. These are just apartments. London needs as many as can be built. But not at the expense of pubs


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 11, 2013)

editor said:


> So on the 'definitely going sometime' list we have the Canterbury and the Grosvenor, and then there's that question mark hanging over the Windmill. It really sucks.


 
is there?  shit


----------



## clandestino (Jun 11, 2013)

editor said:


> Anyone know who May Developments are?
> The address they listed for feedback - 7 Bayley Street, London WC1B 3HB. - has been used by at least one other development under a different name.


 
Same PR contact in both cases though - Camargue PR.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 11, 2013)

Yeah, it's very common for these "consultations" to be handled at arms length via a PR firm.


----------



## editor (Jun 11, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Blimey. 40 units is no small scheme. I expect 5 maybe 6 stories of apartments on top of mixed-use ground floor. Possibly taller, if they keep to the existing building line (ie. not building on the front garden, which would probably be allowable, given the standalone nature of the site.)


The press release noticeably adds that the development will stand "opposite the Council’s 11-storey International House. " I'm thinking the number of storeys wasn't slipped in there by accident.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 11, 2013)

editor said:


> The press release noticeably adds that the development will stand "opposite the Council’s 11-storey International House. " I'm thinking the number of storeys wasn't slipped in there by accident.


Yep. However, it is not an inappropriate site for a taller building, IMO. The mansion blocks the other side of International House are 5 stories, and the Rec is even taller.

I predict a residential conversion for International House btw.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jun 11, 2013)




----------



## boy about town (Jun 11, 2013)

I will for the moment refrain from expressing my true feelings on this out of respect for those within and who will have to deal with this


----------



## Belushi (Jun 11, 2013)

Where are all the people moving to Brixton for the vibrant nightlife going to go once all the pubs and clubs become 'apartments'?


----------



## leanderman (Jun 11, 2013)

Belushi said:


> Where are all the people moving to Brixton for the vibrant nightlife going to go once all the pubs and clubs become 'apartments'?


 

They probably don't go to pubs like the Canterbury. More like the Grand Union, Market House, Prince Regent, Seven etc.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jun 11, 2013)

boy about town said:


> I will for the moment refrain from expressing my true feelings on this out of respect for those within and who will have to deal with this


 
I feel you you, mate. I feel for the family. I feel sick about it all really.


----------



## shygirl (Jun 11, 2013)

Are the family pissed off about it?  I will be so sad to see it go, as its my nearest pub and I've grown fond of Brian over the years in spite of his sometimes (less so now) outrageous remarks.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 11, 2013)

Wasn't this pub a favourite with boys in blue at one time ?


----------



## editor (Jun 11, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> Wasn't this pub a favourite with boys in blue at one time ?


Yep. It was a copper's pub for a long time.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 11, 2013)

editor said:


> Yep. It was a copper's pub for a long time.


 

where do they drink now?


----------



## editor (Jun 11, 2013)

leanderman said:


> where do they drink now?


 
I think the station got downsized, so there's a lot less of 'em. There was some talk of a big refurbishment going on and staff being transferred elsewhere. 

I'm trying to find out more about this May Developments (Brixton) Limited bunch. So far, I've found out that they're registered as a private limited company with share capital, incorporated in Jul 2012 and registered to: 
5Th Floor Kinnaird House
1 Pall Mall East
London


> May Developments (Brixton) Limited was registered on 02 Jul 2012 with its registered office in London. The business has a status listed as "Live"and it currently has 2 directors. May Developments (Brixton) Limited has no subsidiaries.
> https://www.duedil.com/company/08126858/may-developments-brixton-limited


 


> David Paul Mccormack - Director
> Service Address:
> London
> United Kingdom
> ...


----------



## editor (Jun 11, 2013)

Ah, here's more on Mccormack:
https://www.duedil.com/director/915346304/david-paul-mccormack


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 11, 2013)

editor said:


> Yep. It was a copper's pub for a long time.


I didn't use this pub all that often, the last time I recall the fuzz were very thin on the ground......


----------



## madolesance (Jun 11, 2013)

shygirl said:


> Are the family pissed off about it? I will be so sad to see it go, as its my nearest pub and I've grown fond of Brian over the years in spite of his sometimes (less so now) outrageous remarks.


 
I believe they are selling up, cashing in. After many years in the area they probably see it as a time to move on, perhaps retire with a load of cash as they own the pub. Makes sense for them. Back to Ireland, money for the kids. Irish publicans never really expected to see themselves retiring in England, especially the ones that bought freehold/ property. It's their retirement fund and given how places like Brixton are now. 
Cashing up make a lot of sense!


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jun 11, 2013)

madolesance said:


> I believe they are selling up, cashing in. After many years in the area they probably see it as a time to move on, perhaps retire with a load of cash as they own the pub. Makes sense for them. Back to Ireland, money for the kids. Irish publicans never really expected to see themselves retiring in England, especially the ones that bought freehold/ property. It's their retirement fund and given how places like Brixton are now.
> Cashing up make a lot of sense!


 
Believe based on what?


----------



## leanderman (Jun 11, 2013)

madolesance said:


> I believe they are selling up, cashing in. After many years in the area they probably see it as a time to move on, perhaps retire with a load of cash as they own the pub. Makes sense for them. Back to Ireland, money for the kids. Irish publicans never really expected to see themselves retiring in England, especially the ones that bought freehold/ property. It's their retirement fund and given how places like Brixton are now.
> Cashing up make a lot of sense!


 

If they owned the site, that is megabucks.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jun 11, 2013)

leanderman said:


> If they owned the site, that is megabucks.


 
If. I'm not sure this is the case given they had no knowledge of the change of use application.


----------



## editor (Jun 11, 2013)

madolesance said:


> I believe they are selling up, cashing in. After many years in the area they probably see it as a time to move on, perhaps retire with a load of cash as they own the pub. Makes sense for them. Back to Ireland, money for the kids. Irish publicans never really expected to see themselves retiring in England, especially the ones that bought freehold/ property. It's their retirement fund and given how places like Brixton are now.
> Cashing up make a lot of sense!


Pretty sure that they don't own the site. I heard that they won't even be able to stay in the neighbourhood after the sale goes through and will be moving out of London.


----------



## madolesance (Jun 11, 2013)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Believe based on what?


 
"My understanding* is that the Canterbury is owned by Conway Taverns - the same small family group that also owns the Marquis of Lorne. They owned about 20 pubs in their heyday, all backstreet boozers, which are being slowly sold off as the backstreets become worth something - the Crown and Anchor on Brixton Road being a classic example. Don't know what that means for the Canterbury though as I think that was the most profitable of the bunch".


----------



## madolesance (Jun 11, 2013)

Some one is cashing in. Hope the folks in the Canterbury at the moment are part of it.


----------



## editor (Jun 11, 2013)

madolesance said:


> Some one is cashing in. Hope the folks in the Canterbury at the moment are part of it.


I frankly doubt it.


----------



## Winot (Jun 11, 2013)

leanderman said:


> where do they drink now?



Grand Union, Market House, Prince Regent, Seven etc.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jun 11, 2013)

madolesance said:


> Some one is cashing in. Hope the folks in the Canterbury at the moment are part of it.


 
Methinks not! The family I'm talking about is the family that lives in and runs that place. Not the family that owns places and sells them off.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jun 11, 2013)

Winot said:


> Grand Union, Market House, Prince Regent, Seven etc.


 
For fear of shooting myself in the foot here, do places like Market House have regulars?

This is not me being cynical.


----------



## gabi (Jun 12, 2013)

I highly doubt places like the Market House have regulars.

What a fucking shame about the Canterbury. It was my refuge from various Mrs's for years. Even the coppers who drank and watched footy in there were not all that bad. Wheres the family (Mary et al) of to then?


----------



## leanderman (Jun 12, 2013)

Nanker Phelge said:


> For fear of shooting myself in the foot here, do places like Market House have regulars?
> 
> This is not me being cynical.



I have always wanted to be a 'regular' somewhere, anywhere, but I have never quite pulled it off.


----------



## clandestino (Jun 12, 2013)

I emailed the PR firm asking for a possible timescale. This was their response:

We are holding a public exhibition on the proposals on 27 June 2013,
when members of the public will be able to have their say.  We expect a
planning application to be submitted later this summer. 

In terms of timescales for the closure of the pub, this is obviously
dependent on the planning process. However, we can say that based on
past experiences, it is highly unlikely to be this year.  We will be
updating the blog regularly, which should feature more accurate
timescales as the planning process progresses.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 12, 2013)

Nanker Phelge said:
			
		

> For fear of shooting myself in the foot here, do places like Market House have regulars?
> 
> This is not me being cynical.



No.


----------



## editor (Jun 12, 2013)

ianw said:


> I emailed the PR firm asking for a possible timescale. This was their response:
> 
> We are holding a public exhibition on the proposals on 27 June 2013,
> when members of the public will be able to have their say. We expect a
> ...


I've added that to the article on Brixton Buzz. Hopefully you'll get quite a few more club nights in!


----------



## clandestino (Jun 12, 2013)

It would be nice to reach our 10 years of HDIF at the Canterbury anniversary in November. It would be nicer still for the pub not to shut at all.

On what grounds could permission be denied? Do petitions make any sort of difference to these kinds of decisions?


----------



## clandestino (Jun 12, 2013)

10 years...


----------



## colacubes (Jun 12, 2013)

The change of use has already been agreed.  So for the development not to happen will depend on legitimate planning issues i.e. the design, impact on local amenities, impact on transport etc etc  And petitions will make bugger all difference.  People will need to actually object to the planning application when it happens.  And then turn up to the meeting and ask to speak about the application.  I've been at planning meetings before and any applications that didn't have objectors or supporters was waved through on officers advice.

Tbh - the best that will happen is the closure is delayed.  It's highly unlikely it will be stopped altogether. 

The other things is to look at local listing as a community asset - might be worth speaking to someone from the George IV campaign.  Even then it would only kick in if the building was sold on again I think.  Tricky Skills might be able to shed more light on that?


----------



## CH1 (Jun 12, 2013)

editor said:


> I'm trying to find out more about this May Developments (Brixton) Limited bunch.


The Brixton Buzz link to the May Developments  Canterbury Arms webpage doesn't work now - it is at   
http://www.maydevelopmentsbrixton.blogspot.co.uk/
The PR firm seems very high powered: http://www.camarguepr.com/ and they claim St Modwen (owner of the Elephant and Castle shopping centre) as a client. 

I wonder whether the pub is owned on lease from Lambeth Council.  If the lease were expiring that would explain developers sniffing around apparently with co-operation of the council.  The change of use application was approved on 17th April BTW.

My idea about the lease is pure speculation - but it would be logical. After all the the car park and the Brixton Rec sites must have been compulsory purchased back in the 1960s or 1970s. The Royal Vauxhall Tavern freeholder is Lambeth Council - an area which has always similarly been on the threshold of major redevelopment.

What we need is a member with business access to the Land Registry (or a mole in Planning & Regeneration).


----------



## Rushy (Jun 12, 2013)

CH1 said:


> What we need is a member with business access to the Land Registry (or a mole in Planning & Regeneration).


 
It is owned by Conway Taverns but May Developments, or whatever they are called has registered an option. I.e. They have probably paid an amount to CT for the right to purchase the property for an agreed sum in a defined period. They can then apply for planning permission and go through with the purchase if the application is successful or not it if rejected. I'd imagine CT had no idea that an 11 storey building might be possible on the site.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jun 12, 2013)

There's no harm in applying to Lambeth Council to have the Canterbury listed as an Asset of Community Value, as was the case for the George. Does anyone know the precise details of the ownership of the building? Is it being bought by the developer? If the sale has yet to go through, then now is the time to apply for listed status. This will give the 21 names needed on the Right to Bid application a six month moratorium to try and buy the pub, should it go on the market. What made it tough for the George was that no sale was involved, simply a change of lease.

Disclaimer: I work for Locality. The advice that we always give community groups is to use Right to Bid if there is a realistic chance of a local group taking over the pub and running it successfully. To use the legislation as a blocking mechanism will frustrate the developers, but it won't help the prospect of a community pub being achieved.

Getting listed with Lambeth Council should be simple. It's a pub - it offers 'social well being' 

As The George found out, policy is everything though when it comes to planning. Localism and... co-operation aren't even a close second.

Happy to help out further.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 12, 2013)

No sale has been registered yet - only granting of an option (presumably to buy) - so listing could prevent sale to the developer if funds could be raised to buy. Unless CT were completely unaware of the site value when negotiating with the developers the site will be very expensive indeed.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 12, 2013)

Rushy said:


> It is owned by Conway Taverns but May Developments, or whatever they are called has registered an option. I.e. They have probably paid an amount to CT for the right to purchase the property for an agreed sum in a defined period. They can then apply for planning permission and go through with the purchase if the application is successful or not it if rejected. I'd imagine CT had no idea that an 11 storey building might be possible on the site.


Didn't know there were options on property deals - but that sounds v plausible.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 12, 2013)

Crispy said:


> I predict a residential conversion for International House btw.


I am surprised they didn't turn International House into an hotel years ago when they had Kunick Leisure as their "partners" running the Rec. It's all interconnected and Kunick also managed hotels.
So judging by Courtenay House etc you're probably right on that one.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jun 12, 2013)

Now would be the time then for any community group to consider a listing. Lambeth Council has to make a decision within six weeks of receiving the form.

My Community Rights can offer any immediate advice about possible funding options.

Once again - 21 names is easy. Thinking it through and the what if... is what any group needs to consider ASAP.

A reminder of what was achieved with The Ivy House over in Southwark:


----------



## Rushy (Jun 12, 2013)

CH1 said:


> Didn't know there were options on property deals - but that sounds v plausible.


 
It's on the land registry charges register - dated July 2012.


----------



## editor (Jun 12, 2013)

Update. It's going to 30 metres high. Would that make it 9/10 storeys high?


> The building will be approximately 30 metres tall. The existing building will be demolished and replaced with a redesigned building that looks to incorporate many of the architectural features found around Brixton. The details of the design along with images will be on display at the exhibition.


Not happy about them demolishing the current building. It's fine piece of architecture.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 12, 2013)

What





Tricky Skills said:


> Now would be the time then for any community group to consider a listing. Lambeth Council has to make a decision within six weeks of receiving the form.
> 
> My Community Rights can offer any immediate advice about possible funding options.
> 
> Once again - 21 names is easy. Thinking it through and the what if... is what any group needs to consider ASAP.


 
What happens if a community group successfully buys it and then it fails? Can they sell it?


----------



## Crispy (Jun 12, 2013)

editor said:


> Update. It's going to 30 metres high. Would that make it 9/10 storeys high?


 
Yep. I'll have to check, but that's shorter than International House I think. Residential floors are usaully shorter than commercial.

I've checked. By counting bricks, the 11 floor Intl. House is 38m high, so the residential would be about as high as a 9 floor version.


----------



## editor (Jun 12, 2013)

The more I think about it, the more unhappy I am about them demolishing that building.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jun 12, 2013)

Rushy said:


> What
> 
> What happens if a community group successfully buys it and then it fails? Can they sell it?


 

The group would have the same commercial responsibilities as any other business. Ultimately bankruptcy could be an option, although how this would work out with various grants and funding streams involved, I'm not entirely sure.

Hence the importance of coming up with a business plan first, rather than just a knee jerk reason for stopping development per se.


----------



## boy about town (Jun 12, 2013)

madolesance said:


> I believe they are selling up, cashing in. After many years in the area they probably see it as a time to move on, perhaps retire with a load of cash as they own the pub. Makes sense for them. Back to Ireland, money for the kids. Irish publicans never really expected to see themselves retiring in England, especially the ones that bought freehold/ property. It's their retirement fund and given how places like Brixton are now.
> Cashing up make a lot of sense!


 
This is completely incorrect and a long way from the truth !


----------



## leanderman (Jun 12, 2013)

editor said:


> The more I think about it, the more unhappy I am about them demolishing that building.



It could be worse, it could be a Tesco.

And we need housing. Lots of it. 

Apparently shared equity too and a 2,000 sq ft community space.


----------



## editor (Jun 12, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Apparently shared equity too and a 2,000 sq ft community space.


Only an unspecified “proportion” of the apartments will be shared equity.


----------



## twistedAM (Jun 12, 2013)

editor said:


> Only an unspecified “proportion” of the apartments will be shared equity.


 
Wasn't that what Barratt's said in that new place next to Granville Arcade?


----------



## leanderman (Jun 12, 2013)

Of course


----------



## Rushy (Jun 13, 2013)

Tricky Skills said:


> The group would have the same commercial responsibilities as any other business. Ultimately bankruptcy could be an option, although how this would work out with various grants and funding streams involved, I'm not entirely sure.
> 
> Hence the importance of coming up with a business plan first, rather than just a knee jerk reason for stopping development per se.


 
Fair comment. I haven't been in there for more than ten years and am more interested in the principle than in this particular case.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jun 15, 2013)

Spoke to Brian this afternoon; he was true to form.
Went a bit racist midway through the conversation blaming Somalis for breeding like rabbits and buying up all the property in North London. That's why working class folk cannot get housed in Brixton. Even by his standards that's bonkers.
Fact is the whole step family are racist, it's one of the many reasons i stopped drinking in that Old Bill shit hole.
It has never been part of the community other than feeding the old school Canterbury Crescent alcoholics, most of whom are now dead because of alcohol, those that survived have been banned and/or drink in The Beehive. It's only the Police and passing trade from The Academy that keep them floating.

The green space at the back of Westgate Court, which forms part of Canterbury Gardens Estate, will be converted into a communal garden for the new residents of the proposed development at the expense of current tenants and leaseholders, none of whom can gain access to it anyway. Moreover, they have not access to it for at least the last fifteen years.
Maybe the 50% of tenants of Westgate Court who have not exercised their "Right To Buy" should join the other 50% of spivs who have already cashed in. They won't have to wait five years to exercise their right to sell.
Word is Westgate Court is earmarked to be demolished. Call it "concrete cancer", call it what you like.
All of this explains why proposed essential external works to the structure of Westgate Court, which is falling apart, have been delayed and frustrated by certain leaseholders of Westgate Court and Lambeth Council.
International House will be converted into residential property. That's nailed on! They have never found a purpose for that building that filled it with enough workers.

Brixton has never been a village, never needed a village. We don't need the village people but they will keep coming! They need to come, they are being encouraged to come! Someone is making a shed load of money somewhere and council tenants in council homes are being forced out of central Brixton.

Now, that's what i call class war!

Are you up for it?


----------



## gabi (Jun 15, 2013)

He is racist in an old school way. I noticed that the first few times I went there. He would stand at the door and bar certain people from entering, saying the place was full, when it clearly wasnt. He did have issues with Muslim Somalis just coming in to watch football, obviously without buying beer due to their religion. I think that was the main issue. But I think it's also a generational thing. I know thats an easy excuse, but for better or for worse I know some older people who are good people but have fucked up backwards views on race.

He also once threw me out because New Zealand (im a kiwi) thrashed Ireland in the rugby


----------



## Winot (Jun 15, 2013)

Sounds dreadful.


----------



## gabi (Jun 15, 2013)

No, quite to the contrary. It was a brilliant pub. Particularly when he wasn't about tho tbh.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 15, 2013)

The only good thing in that is the pulling down of international house, a more horrible, depressing building I've never come across.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jun 15, 2013)

nagapie said:


> The only good thing in that is the pulling down of international house, a more horrible, depressing building I've never come across.


 

It's not being "pulled down"


----------



## nagapie (Jun 15, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> It's not being "pulled down"


 

That's a shame.


----------



## Mr Retro (Jun 16, 2013)

That's the saddest news I've heard for a long time. It was our local when we lived in Brixton and we always make the effort to get down there when we are back in London. When it closes we probably won't bother to go to Brixton now.

Brian and his family did more for the local community in Brixton than anybody else I met in the 9 years I lived there. All of it quietly and without fuss. Probably less so in the last 6-8 years than before that as those people he helped and who needed his help die and move away.

Everybody who walked in the door was treated the same, if you treated his pub and staff with respect you were extended the same courtesy. If you did not you were out on your ear and not in a gentle way. 

It will be sadly missed
I'll be travelling to Brixton for the closing party


----------



## gabi (Jun 17, 2013)

Not my recollection at all in terms of his sense of inclusivity, but there ya go. Great pub though. Been going there for almost 15 years pretty much every week to watch United. I love Brian's unofficial 'commentary'  And his hand crafted signs warning people not to use mobile phones and recommending how many pints per half they should consume.


----------



## Thaw (Jun 17, 2013)

gabi said:


> Not my recollection at all in terms of his sense of inclusivity, but there ya go. Great pub though. Been going there for almost 15 years pretty much every week to watch United. I love Brian's unofficial 'commentary'  And his hand crafted signs warning people not to use mobile phones and recommending how many pints per half they should consume.


 
What is the target pintage? I reckon I would normally do max 3 per game - 1 just before kick-off, 1 just before half-time and then 1 for the last half-hour


----------



## leanderman (Jun 17, 2013)

DrunkPushkin said:


> What is the target pintage? I reckon I would normally do max 3 per game - 1 just before kick-off, 1 just before half-time and then 1 for the last half-hour



Textbook!


----------



## mxh (Jun 17, 2013)

gabi said:


> Not my recollection at all in terms of his sense of inclusivity, but there ya go. Great pub though. Been going there for almost 15 years pretty much every week to watch United. I love Brian's unofficial 'commentary'  And his hand crafted signs warning people not to use mobile phones and recommending how many pints per half they should consume.


 
Go in to watch United. You deserve banning.


----------



## Peanut Monkey (Jun 17, 2013)

editor said:


> So on the 'definitely going sometime' list we have the Canterbury and the Grosvenor, and then there's that question mark hanging over the Windmill. It really sucks.


 
What's the deal with the Windmill? Be gutted if that went, spent a lot of my younger years in there...


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

Peanut Monkey said:


> What's the deal with the Windmill? Be gutted if that went, spent a lot of my younger years in there...


All I've managed to extract from tip lipped folks involved is that it's been sold.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 26, 2013)

colacubes said:


> People will need to actually object to the planning application when it happens. And then turn up to the meeting and ask to speak about the application. I've been at planning meetings before and any applications that didn't have objectors or supporters was waved through on officers advice.


 
Good point.

Just checked there blog and there are not any proposals on it yet.

Looks to me that the developers are working with officers to produce a scheme. Makes sense from a developers point of view. This is pre application consultation. Which a sensible developer will agree to do. Looks like this development company know what they are doing. Does not mean I agree with scheme. Just that any objections need to be to the point.




> Our proposed new building backs onto the Council-owned Brixton Ice Rink – Planet Ice – and stands opposite the Council’s 11-storey International House. Both of these are due to be brought forward for redevelopment by the Council in the next few years. This scheme will therefore be an important first phase of the regeneration of the immediate area and it is hoped that the quality of the building we are proposing will have a positive effect on the adjacent sites. Once the adjoining sites are brought forward by the Council, it will form part of a coherent new mixed-use area. It is intended that our
> scheme will also help to improve community safety and make Canterbury Crescent and the link through to the Rec and market more welcoming for pedestrians.


 
So the application will be one where officers advise planning committee to approve.

As its a large scheme I will be interested to see what the "affordable" element will be in the planning application. That definitely will be worth commenting on.

The application for this site will give some indication of what the officers want to do with the rest of the site. Now that they cannot knock down the Rec and move it to the old car park/ ice rink site.


----------



## editor (Jun 26, 2013)

I'll be along Thursday. 
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/06/...s-into-40-apartments-exhibition-on-27th-june/


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jun 26, 2013)

Landlord only has until August (unconfirmed). Some of my neighbours are saying demolition of the Canterbury Arms begins sometime in late August 2013.  I think that is a bit quick and smells of bullshit but it does seem like a done deal.
I will also attend.


----------



## gabi (Jun 26, 2013)

DrunkPushkin said:


> What is the target pintage? I reckon I would normally do max 3 per game - 1 just before kick-off, 1 just before half-time and then 1 for the last half-hour


 

my other half took a pic the last time we were in, dunno if it displays or not as my fascist workplace blocks such things..


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jun 26, 2013)

gabi said:


> my other half took a pic the last time we were in, dunno if it displays or not as my fascist workplace blocks such things..


 
I don't know if it's my browser but it doesn't display.


----------



## gabi (Jun 26, 2013)

ah ill post it later.. basically a pint per half anyway


----------



## boy about town (Jun 26, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Spoke to Brian this afternoon; he was true to form.
> Went a bit racist midway through the conversation blaming Somalis for breeding like rabbits and buying up all the property in North London. That's why working class folk cannot get housed in Brixton. Even by his standards that's bonkers.
> Fact is the whole step family are racist, it's one of the many reasons i stopped drinking in that Old Bill shit hole.
> It has never been part of the community other than feeding the old school Canterbury Crescent alcoholics, most of whom are now dead because of alcohol, those that survived have been banned and/or drink in The Beehive. It's only the Police and passing trade from The Academy that keep them floating.


 
Can you explain your comment *'Fact is the whole step family are racist', *so that I understand whom you are referring to.  
Your reference that it's only the Police and passing trade from The Academy that keeps the pub afloat is ridiculous. The Police have not used the pub in numbers as in years gone by (and yes I will agree that for those reasons, some would feel uncomforable using the same establishment), the traditional Academy crowd (seasoned live music goers)have always used the pub because geographically it's the nearest, it has a forecourt, a large function room for more space etc. Speaking about the function room, christenings, Holy Communions, birthdays, anniversarys, funerals, club nights etc have had that facility over the years FREE of charge if you are known.
It is a community pub that has seen generations of families drink and party there, it is a proper boozer in every sense of the word and those families referred to as Canterbury Crescent alcoholics (well those that are still alive) will miss the pub enormously.


----------



## gabi (Jun 26, 2013)

gabi said:


> ah ill post it later.. basically a pint per half anyway


 





recommended halfly intake


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jun 27, 2013)

boy about town said:


> Can you explain your comment *'Fact is the whole step family are racist', *so that I understand whom you are referring to.
> Your reference that it's only the Police and passing trade from The Academy that keeps the pub afloat is ridiculous. The Police have not used the pub in numbers as in years gone by (and yes I will agree that for those reasons, some would feel uncomforable using the same establishment), the traditional Academy crowd (seasoned live music goers)have always used the pub because geographically it's the nearest, it has a forecourt, a large function room for more space etc. Speaking about the function room, christenings, Holy Communions, birthdays, anniversarys, funerals, club nights etc have had that facility over the years FREE of charge if you are known.
> It is a community pub that has seen generations of families drink and party there, it is a proper boozer in every sense of the word and those families referred to as Canterbury Crescent alcoholics (well those that are still alive) will miss the pub enormously.


 
Perhaps i could have worded that post better. I withdraw the comments and apologise for the offence caused. I will leave the post unedited as a reminder of my own stupidity.


----------



## gabi (Jun 27, 2013)

ok, well i stand by my comments. been going there for years. theres different treatment for different races there, undoubtedly.


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2013)

Anyone going along later?

There's talk of some local folks asking for a first floor bar to be incorporated in the new development (yeah, I know...)


----------



## Crispy (Jun 27, 2013)

_FIrst_ floor?


----------



## Rushy (Jun 27, 2013)

editor said:


> Anyone going along later?
> 
> There's talk of some local folks asking for a first floor bar to be incorporated in the new development (yeah, I know...)


 
What about a roof top bar? Brixton doesn't have one of those. Not properly high up anyway.


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2013)

Rushy said:


> What about a roof top bar? Brixton doesn't have one of those. Not properly high up anyway.


 
I could request banging tunes by semaphore from the Barrier Block.


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2013)

Crispy said:


> _FIrst_ floor?


 
Sorry, I went all American there. I meant ground floor.


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2013)

Crispy said:


> I predict a residential conversion for International House btw.


That was just about confirmed today although it may be some years before it happens.

Here's how the proposed development for the pub site looks:






http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/06/...ans-unveiled-a-nine-storey-residential-block/


----------



## Crispy (Jun 27, 2013)

Reasonably inoffensive and not too overbearing, IMO.
The "influence from surrounding buildings" is typically casual and fleeting. No developer today would splash on carved stone details when they didn't have to.

It's the nature of the "affordable" units that most concerns me.

Did you get photos of the floor plans?


----------



## Rushy (Jun 27, 2013)

Wasn't there talk of this being taller? I seem to remember a number of floors in the teens?

It does not bother me but it does not excite me either. Generally, the slick symmetry of the uppers is fine but in general (not just here) I'd like to see more intricate, human scale, detailing on buildings at ground level.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 27, 2013)

Since official figures released yesterday show London's population has risen by 100,000 in the past 12 months, I suggest they build as high as they can.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 27, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Since official figures released yesterday show London's population has risen by 100,000 in the past 12 months, I suggest they build as high as they can.


 
I think I'd rather see lots of tall skyscrapers spread out across London a fair distance apart from eachother rather than crowding them all into the centre.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 27, 2013)

You are probably right but I am not sure we have the time for such niceties.


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Did you get photos of the floor plans?


They're on their website. 



Fllor 1-7/Top floor

http://www.maydevelopmentsbrixton.blogspot.co.uk/


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2013)

The green bit in front of the building (where the current beer garden is) will be residents only.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 27, 2013)

Just come back from the exhibition. Lots of swivel-action suits on show.

Before I list some points, it's worth saying that - barring some miracle - this development will definitely go ahead and there's nothing we can do to stop it. The pub is going. The developers already own the site and have access to millions of £pounds. All we can do is influence the planning process.

I talked to a guy who seemed to be the architect or scheme director or whatever.

- I was most interested in the 2000 square foot 'community use' space on the ground floor - how could they guarantee it would be used as community space and not retail or whatever? I was told a covenant could be put on it, but the guy didn't sound convincing. Would market rent be charged? He said it wouldn't be sensible to charge market rent as community groups couldnt afford it. I pressed him on how this would be achieved. It seems this is entirely up to the developer and wouldn't form part of the planning application. So it is what it is - a sop to the community for the loss of the pub, but with no guarantee on future community usage. I think we need to press on this point through the planning application.

- I asked about affordable housing. There will be some, but it's shared ownership only - so that's no use for the majority of us. The % of "affordable" housing will be set via the planning application. So we can influence this.

- I asked about section 106 money (cash the developer has to give to the council for local improvements for the right to build their huge development on our doorstep). This will be set via the planning application. Again, we need to influence this.

- They were interested in what we thought of the building itself. I said it seemed too tall and imposing and I suspected lots of others would think the same. The houses opposite will suffer loss of light and privacy. I think the brickwork and finish is unimaginative. But what can you do? There's a old red brick building opposite with gothic arches - it would be nice to reflect that to some extent. We won't get it though.

- The 'public realm' will benefit from a slightly wider bit of pavement where Popes Road meets Canterbury Crescent (see pic above). We could potentially ask for stuff like bike stands and benches to be put here (my suggestion.)

Stuart the Watch Man was there too, asking about the effect on the car park redevelopment and space for traders (no guarantees on any of that, other than the fact the there would be no windows on the back of the redeveloped Canterbury to enable Lambeth to put whatever scheme they want there.) We both ranted at them a bit about loss of local pubs. I asked whether soundproofing would be installed between the residential bit and the community use bit. He said yes (we need to make sure this is in the planning application) but said there was no way live music or any kind of bar/pub type venue could go in the ground floor. I said the development should be done in a way that doesn't preclude any type of community use.

The planning application will go in later this summer. The council will prob take 3-6 months to process the application (my estimate, not theirs), depending on the details. The pub will therefore probably survive until the end of the year. The build will take 18 months. Building completed some time towards the end of 2015.

Their blog with the designs etc on is here: http://www.maydevelopmentsbrixton.blogspot.co.uk

They asked for comments to be sent in. One of the questions is 'what would you like the proposed community space to be used for?' A pub perhaps?! Bit of a wierd question though, cos the developer can't know what community groups might want the space, and the planning application itself can't set the type of community use as far as I'm aware.

To be honest, I'm not sure I'll bother sending comments. I'm gonna save my comments for the planning application itself. I might be wrong, but if we send comments in now, the developers are likely to find some sort of dodgy answer to all of them, and persuade officers to wave the application through first time. The least we can hope for is to delay them for a bit and keep the pub open in the meantime.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 27, 2013)

Try to get what you want without slowing it down.


----------



## High Definition (Jun 27, 2013)

Was also at the exhibition.  Agree with what most of Brixton Hatter says - the building is too tall and will affect light and privacy of tenants in the council flats nearby, a development of this size should be providing affordable housing for rent and not just shared ownership.  And agree that it's likely to go through anyway - as the Lambeth Local Plan and the Brixton SPD both state that this is a site suitable for tall buildings with resi above and retail or community space on the groundfloor.  

I also spoke to them about the "community space".  The person I spoke to was David McCormack, who was the only person there from the property company (May Developments Ltd) which will submit the application - all the other white shirts in the room were architects or development consultants.  

I said I knew of developments in other boroughs where developers had agreed to provide community space but local groups hadn't been able to take this up because rents weren't affordable and the space had been left in shell condition (no floor or ceiling, no electrical wiring, no plumbing) and they couldn't afford fit out costs.

David McCormack told me that May would be prepared to offer to space to a local community group at an affordable rent - he suggested 20% of local rent levels for A1 units - and that they would agree to offer the space fully fitted out.  

If, as seems likely, this scheme is approved by Lambeth's Planning Applications Committee, then I think is potential to secure a useful community benefit as part of the s106 agreement - 2,000 sq foot of community space at an affordable rent (or even a peppercorn rent).

Between now and early September when it seems the application is likely to be submitted, would be good to find out if there are local community groups who might be interested in this space.  There's space for a shop front, back office and a meeting room.  Could be suitable for a group needing to relocate from premises away from the town centre and interested in affordable space with a shop front just off the high street.


----------



## Winot (Jun 27, 2013)

Thanks both for the reports.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 27, 2013)

editor said:


> That was just about confirmed today although it may be some years before it happens.
> 
> Here's how the proposed development for the pub site looks:
> 
> ...


My gut reaction is it looks like Brixton Square with anorexia


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 27, 2013)

High Definition said:


> David McCormack told me that May would be prepared to offer to space to a local community group at an affordable rent - he suggested 20% of local rent levels for A1 units - and that they would agree to offer the space fully fitted out.


Good work. We need to find some way of holding them to this 'commitment' - Crispy lang rabbie do you know if stuff like this can be written in to the planning application?


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2013)

Great reports guys. That's pretty much what I got out of  meeting with them but didn't have time to post up.


----------



## High Definition (Jun 28, 2013)

High Definition said: ↑
David McCormack told me that May would be prepared to offer to space to a local community group at an affordable rent - he suggested 20% of local rent levels for A1 units - and that they would agree to offer the space fully fitted out.​Brixton Hatter said:  Good work. We need to find some way of holding them to this 'commitment' - Crispy lang rabbie do you know if stuff like this can be written in to the planning application?​If the application is approved, then the way to hold the developer to the "commitment" is to make sure it's included in the section 106 agreement with the Council.  This is the legally binding agreement which sets out the conditions which the developer has to meet before he can build the scheme and sell the housing units.   The main elements in the s106 (sometimes referred to as the Heads of Terms) are normally included in the report which the planning officer prepares for Lambeth's Planning Applications Committee - where the application is being recommended for approval there is a section at the end in legal language which sets out the planning conditions which will be included in the s106.
Therefore, the way to go, If we want the development to include affordable community space, which will be fitted out by the developer and offered to a local community organisation, is to make sure it's listed in the committee report as one of the s106 conditions.  If it's not in the committee report, then we need to attend the Planning Applications Committee and ask members to specify that they want this to be a s106 condition.  
Of course, all this assumes the development will go ahead.  Personally I don't like what May Developments are proposing - it's too big, too ugly and doesn't include any affordable housing - and I'd prefer it if the Canterbury Arms wasn't demolished.  However, like Brixton Hatter, I think it's going to be difficult to stop this development as Lambeth are clearly supporting it.  If the development is going to happen anyway, I'd want to focus my efforts on securing a useful community benefit.
Incidentally, the estimate of 20% of market rent for a community user came from David McCormack after I asked him to define "affordable".  If we're going to be pushing for community space on the ground floor then I'd ask for a peppercorn rent (legal jargon for rent free) rather than 20%.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2013)

The point I raised is that without any kind of soundproofing or built in amenities, they may find it hard to provide a space that's genuinely attractive to community groups. It's taken a fair bit of effort to get the tenant's hall in the Barrier Block up and running, and I'd wager we offer it a lot cheaper than what's being proposed here.

The kind of thing that locals are often looking for is space for rehearsals (music/drama), birthday parties, retirement parties, meeting spaces etc etc, some of which create a fair bit of noise.

I'm pretty sure people would rather be somewhere comfortable where they can relax/hang out with a drink/tea before/after rather than troop into an empty space.

That's not to say that I want to put them off the idea of the community use space - I'm all for it - but if they don't think it through properly they may end up with yet another Junction/Viaduct empty space underneath.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2013)

I took a few pics inside the pub yesterday. Underneath all that clutter is something of a Victorian gem. If it was restored it would be wonderful.
















More: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/06/...emolition-a-victorian-gem-to-be-lost-forever/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2013)

editor said:


> I took a few pics inside the pub yesterday. Underneath all that clutter is something of a Victorian gem. If it was restored it would be wonderful.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Most of the woodwork and fitments will end up in an architectural salvage yard.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 30, 2013)

Nice photos by editor. I had forgotten that the interior has never been modernised. Be a pity to lose the interior of this pub.

I also went to the exhibition. Like Brixton Hatter and High Definition I was concerned that promises from the developer of community space on ground floor need to be written into the planning conditions. I do not think it needs to be written into a Section106. It can be written into conditions for the planning application to be accepted.

If the developer is keen to offer this then it can be written into planning conditions. The Section 106 can be evaluated separately. If there is one.

I was wondering why the developer was so eager to offer a commercial space as cheaper community space.

I was surprised at this. Why would a developer offer this? Normally they want to squeeze as money out of a site as they can.

Perhaps the bad publicity that Tescos have got recently means the developer is concerned that knocking down this pub will not be liked locally.

It has to be remembered that developers are good at applying for alterations to planning applications once they have started building. (Barratts and Tescos).

I was not keen on this design. It just a bland box. It did not grab me as anything special. To much recent building in Brixton is boring and bland. (Brixton Square and the flats next to it).

The colours in the drawings are misleading. The architect said that they were looking at using stocks ( old bricks) of similar colour to the old school building and Rec. In order to make the building fit in with adjacent older buildings.

The detail on proposed building is supposed to be influenced by architecture in the area. Like Bradys, Town Hall and old Prince of Wales pub. Its minimal influence imo. As those buildings all have a "presence" imo. Bradys with its clock tower, Prince of Wales curved front and the Town Hall - a solid municipal piece of architecture.

This design has no features that draw one to look at it or take notice of it. I would not mind something totally different from the nearby buildings if it looked at all interesting.

Also this building is liable to influence what happens at the "Ice Rink" site. The Council owned site next door to it. The south end of the building is going to be a blank wall in case the Council want to build right up to the edge of its site.

It would have been better to do the whole site in one go to make it a coherent design. But that’s not the developers fault.

I did wonder if there is a case to halt building works on this site until the Ice Rink site comes up for development. Or even CPO site to make a large site. That can be developed in one go.


----------



## editor (Jun 30, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> The colours in the drawings are misleading. The architect said that they were looking at using stocks ( old bricks) of similar colour to the old school building and Rec. In order to make the building fit in with adjacent older buildings.


They told me they weren't decided on the brick colour. I understand the budget restrictions that any kind of modern development comes under, but by bringing up all this stuff about the design supposedly reflecting local architecture they're really going to have to try a lot harder.

It looks like a bland office block in anytown, UK. It looks no better (or worse) than the Barratt Homes development. Brixton needs good architecture. This is not.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 1, 2013)

editor said:


> They told me they weren't decided on the brick colour. I understand the budget restrictions that any kind of modern development comes under, but by bringing up all this stuff about the design supposedly reflecting local architecture they're really going to have to try a lot harder.
> 
> It looks like a bland office block in anytown, UK. It looks no better (or worse) than the Barratt Homes development. Brixton needs good architecture. This is not.


 
I agree. Just added to my post about this.


----------



## lang rabbie (Jul 2, 2013)

High Definition said:


> High Definition said: ↑​​David McCormack told me that May would be prepared to offer to space to a local community group at an affordable rent - he suggested 20% of local rent levels for A1 units - and that they would agree to offer the space fully fitted out.​Brixton Hatter said: Good work. We need to find some way of holding them to this 'commitment' - Crispy lang rabbie do you know if stuff like this can be written in to the planning application?
> If the application is approved, then the way to hold the developer to the "commitment" is to make sure it's included in the section 106 agreement with the Council. This is the legally binding agreement which sets out the conditions which the developer has to meet before he can build the scheme and sell the housing units. The main elements in the s106 (sometimes referred to as the Heads of Terms) are normally included in the report which the planning officer prepares for Lambeth's Planning Applications Committee - where the application is being recommended for approval there is a section at the end in legal language which sets out the planning conditions which will be included in the s106.
> Therefore, the way to go, If we want the development to include affordable community space, which will be fitted out by the developer and offered to a local community organisation, is to make sure it's listed in the committee report as one of the s106 conditions. If it's not in the committee report, then we need to attend the Planning Applications Committee and ask members to specify that they want this to be a s106 condition.
> Of course, all this assumes the development will go ahead. Personally I don't like what May Developments are proposing - it's too big, too ugly and doesn't include any affordable housing - and I'd prefer it if the Canterbury Arms wasn't demolished. However, like Brixton Hatter, I think it's going to be difficult to stop this development as Lambeth are clearly supporting it. If the development is going to happen anyway, I'd want to focus my efforts on securing a useful community benefit.
> Incidentally, the estimate of 20% of market rent for a community user came from David McCormack after I asked him to define "affordable". If we're going to be pushing for community space on the ground floor then I'd ask for a peppercorn rent (legal jargon for rent free) rather than 20%.


 
I concur with the opinion of my learned friend High Definition (though I have no idea who she is!)


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 3, 2013)

we put some comments in



> - Overall, I'm not supportive of the development. I would prefer to see the pub retained and the existing building redeveloped and extended. If this development does go ahead, I would like to see the following conditions in place.
> - The community will decide what it wants to use any community space for; something which has the ability to appeal to a wide range of different groups would be preferable, with the space able to be used in different ways for a variety of activities (e.g. performance, community groups, children's activities, exhibitions, retail, meetings, business space etc).
> 
> - The community space should be bigger than currently suggested on the plans, with the plant room/cycle store/bin store shifted eastwards to create more space.
> ...


----------



## clandestino (Jul 7, 2013)

A fantastic night at the Canterbury on Friday, as usual. I shall miss it dearly if it goes...
http://www.howdoesitfeel.co.uk/july52013a.html


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2013)

Apparently it hasn't actually been sold there is _some_ hope if anyone else expresses an interest.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jul 8, 2013)

editor said:


> Apparently it hasn't actually been sold there is _some_ hope if anyone else expresses an interest.


 
Now that's an interesting piece of news. The last thing out of the box is hope.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jul 8, 2013)

Much as i dislike the pub, i would prefer it stayed. I think that is unlikely. It's not my cup of tea but most of that is personal and historical. What has been proposed is an ugly nightmare. I guess they build tall next to tall. I would prefer a low level construction, five, six storeys maximum. Issues of light for Wincheap and Westgate Court. Whatever happens it's going to be chaos for local residents.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 8, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Now that's an interesting piece of news. The last thing out of the box is hope.



Since the box was a box of bad things, hope is bad too.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 8, 2013)

editor said:


> Apparently it hasn't actually been sold there is _some_ hope if anyone else expresses an interest.


When I went to the exhibition I asked who owned the site - the developers said they did. Although I remember the exact wording was something like "we are in control of the site". I guess it's possible they have some sort of pre-sale agreement with the current owners, dependent on getting the planning permission?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 8, 2013)

If the ownership is uncertain, then it certainly is worth an unconstituted group considering Right to Bid. Twenty one signatures is all that is required. Here's the Lambeth Council documentation.

Once again - speaking in a work capacity with Locality, I wouldn't recommend Right to Bid to simply block development. But if there is the stomach to attempt a community pub, now would seem like the last chance to exercise community rights as part of the Localism Act. Get in there before any formal sale goes through. You will then have a six month heads up to prepare a formal bid, should the owner formally place the pub on the market.

Don't be daunted by market values and funding - put in the application, and then speak with My Community Rights about possible grants and funding streams.


----------



## clandestino (Jul 8, 2013)

I asked at the consultation and the people there said that the developers have an option on the site which presumably they'll take up if planning permission is granted.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 9, 2013)

Tricky Skills said:


> If the ownership is uncertain, then it certainly is worth an unconstituted group considering Right to Bid. Twenty one signatures is all that is required. Here's the Lambeth Council documentation.
> 
> Once again - speaking in a work capacity with Locality, I wouldn't recommend Right to Bid to simply block development. But if there is the stomach to attempt a community pub, now would seem like the last chance to exercise community rights as part of the Localism Act. Get in there before any formal sale goes through. You will then have a six month heads up to prepare a formal bid, should the owner formally place the pub on the market.
> 
> Don't be daunted by market values and funding - put in the application, and then speak with My Community Rights about possible grants and funding streams.


Thanks. This is a good idea. But I wonder whether the Canterbury has enough loyal locals to get behind something like this?

Personally, I'd like to see the pub stay, but as only an occasional punter, I'm not sure I'd have the time and motivation to get on this. There are other pubs in the area which I think are more worth my time in sorting out a right to bid/buy. But.....is anyone interested?

Does anyone know what the family tenants think about the sale?

Tricky Skills - how long is the application process? Is it difficult?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 9, 2013)

The application process is very simple - three sheets of A4, mainly asking you to explain why the asset is important to the community. A decision has to come from Lambeth Council within six weeks of receiving the application.

That's pretty much it.

If successful, the pub is then placed on the list of Assets of Community Value [PDF.] The owner (still to be defined?) then legally has to inform the unconstituted group if a sale is planned.

The group then has six months ahead of the private sector to put together a market value bid.


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2013)

Anyone fancy putting together a quick article about how people can do this so I can post it on Brixton Buzz?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 9, 2013)

There's a thread in the SW forum about a pub in Bath where they've done this that might be worth a look. They've done really well but I have to say the numbers are a bit eye-watering - in that case they needed a million quid and it's hard to see how this would be a lot less. You need quite a lot of people to come up with £500+.

ETA: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-bell-in-bath-community-trying-to-buy-it.305934/ - the Ivy House in Nunhead is a more local example.


----------



## colacubes (Jul 9, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> There's a thread in the SW forum about a pub in Bath where they've done this that might be worth a look. They've done really well but I have to say the numbers are a bit eye-watering - in that case they needed a million quid and it's hard to see how this would be a lot less. You need quite a lot of people to come up with £500+.


 

I think both marty21 and fractionMan may have been involved with this so they may know a bit more


----------



## marty21 (Jul 9, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> There's a thread in the SW forum about a pub in Bath where they've done this that might be worth a look. They've done really well but I have to say the numbers are a bit eye-watering - in that case they needed a million quid and it's hard to see how this would be a lot less. You need quite a lot of people to come up with £500+.
> 
> ETA: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-bell-in-bath-community-trying-to-buy-it.305934/ - the Ivy House in Nunhead is a more local example.


The sale went through last week  I think the Bell was lucky that it got a lot of publicity for the community buy out - thanks to some celeb support - Robert Plant, Peter Gabriel and a few others - they probably stumped up the max £20,000 - the rest of us srambled together the £500. There is supposed to be profit sharing - about £20 a year I think if it does well - but it was never about making money it was about saving an iconic Bath pub


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 9, 2013)

Tricky Skills said:


> The application process is very simple - three sheets of A4, mainly asking you to explain why the asset is important to the community. A decision has to come from Lambeth Council within six weeks of receiving the application.
> 
> That's pretty much it.
> 
> ...


So could an "unincorporated voluntary organisation" (one of the things you have to be in order to put in a bid) simply be 21+ individuals who've - for example - got together for the purposes of saving a pub?


----------



## marty21 (Jul 9, 2013)

A recently closed pub in Hackney - The Chesham Arms , has recently been listed as a community asset - there's a group of locals trying to save it - the new owner paid over the odds and wants to turn it into offices  it was a lovely pub - had drinks there before we got married at nearby Sutton House. I was speaking to the new owner of my local, The Crooked Billet in Clapton, who is in a group trying to save the Chesham -


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 9, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> So could an "unincorporated voluntary organisation" (one of the things you have to be in order to put in a bid) simply be 21+ individuals who've - for example - got together for the purposes of saving a pub?


 

Spot on. 21 names is all that is needed. One of the names needs to be the main contact.

Once again, disclaimer, blah blah blah - Right to Bid is not intended as a blocking mechanism for development per se, but as a genuine attempt to save community assets


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 9, 2013)

Tricky Skills said:


> Spot on. 21 names is all that is needed. One of the names needs to be the main contact.


Thanks. Is anyone interested in putting their name to this? 

21 people are needed. If 21 people say "yes" I'll volunteer to do the paperwork.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jul 11, 2013)

I've emailed them with my intentions, not sure I got all the facts straight, in a hurry:



> I have read your blog about the Canterbury Arms redevelopment and understand you would like feedback.
> 
> What do you expect the Brixton community to say? This plan would mean the loss of another beautiful London pub. The proposed community space will never allow similar events as currently hosted by the Canterbury. Another live music venue will disappear. You mention 'Shared-equity' but are not explicit about numbers of units. This term in no way implies 'affordable.'
> 
> In conclusion I strongly object to this proposal and will object to the council if it is put before the planning committee.


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2013)

<thinking aloud>

I've been mulling over this. Practically, I think it might be difficult to get people to raise the money to save the pub just for it to stay in its current format.

Its main audience appears to be a rather small demographic of Brixton and one that generally isn't particularly well off or influential (this isn't a criticism by the way, just an observation), and most of the pubs that get saved seem to have a broader appeal.

The pub has oodles of potential though so maybe that's something to consider?


----------



## leanderman (Jul 11, 2013)

There might be greater social utility in creating badly-needed homes for 100+ people than in preserving a pub some say is used by only a few.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 11, 2013)

High-end sushi place?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 11, 2013)

Comments on the pre application need to go in by tomorrow.

I would say it has a lot of potential as a venue. Look at how sucessful of the old Conservative Club "Effra Social" is. The editor photos show that it is attractive inside.

Will not be the same people that use it. But would preserve it as a pub.


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2013)

leanderman said:


> There might be greater social utility in creating badly-needed homes for 100+ people than in preserving a pub some say is used by only a few.


That would make sense if it were social housing. But it's not. Pubs can serve an important social function which will be lost forever if the place is closed down and replaced by stylish apartments for the upwardly mobile.

It is quite a popular pub still, although it has perhaps a more limited demographic than some, and it's probably the 'wrong kind of demographic' when it comes to having the clout, influence and council-persuasive powers to campaign for its survival. 

I see a beautiful Victorian pub that could be lovingly restored and made into a real community asset for locals to use, compared with a bland office block.


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2013)

I've asked them to extend the deadline because their feedback form is a mess;


> Hi
> I have to say that the mechanism you've chosen for the feedback form is supremely user-unfriendly. I've known several people who have given up trying to understand how to download and then append the file. It also breaks web accessibility requirements.
> To get a real picture of what users think, I recommend that you put up a standard text form that people can access on all devices, and extend the deadline.
> Regards


----------



## clandestino (Jul 12, 2013)

I agree. I've had terrible trouble with the feedback form. A text form would be much better.


----------



## clandestino (Jul 12, 2013)

The email address for the forms is brixtonconsultation@camarguepr.com

I'm just going to send my feedback to that directly I think...


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2013)

That's what I did, but I think it's worth telling them how user unfriendly their feedback form is too.


----------



## clandestino (Jul 12, 2013)

I've just emailed. Here's part of what I had to say:

The Canterbury Arms plays an important role as a place for music fans to drink before and after concerts at the Brixton Academy. The Brixton Academy regularly attracts thousands of music fans to its concerts and those people need somewhere to go before and after the gigs, and the Canterbury Arms, by being a backstreet pub that’s very close to the Brixton Academy, has served an important role in keeping those people off the streets in Brixton. While there are other pubs in the area that also serve as pre and post gig pubs for the music crowd, there are not enough to cope with the sheer volume of people who come to the concerts, and the Canterbury Arms plays an important role in keeping Brixton tolerable on concert nights. The demolition of the Canterbury Arms would lead to more congestion on the streets on the concert nights, and would have a negative impact for everyone.

I do think its function as a place to go before and after the Academy gigs shouldn't be underestimated. The Academy is Brixton's elephant in the room, in a way - it's huge, it brings thousands and thousands of people into the area on gig nights, and we need a structure in place to deal with those people. There are other pubs but there aren't enough, and on really busy nights the Canterbury opens up the back room as well, and takes 300 people off the streets of Brixton. That has an affect on everyone who lives here. That's just one of many good reasons why it should be saved.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 12, 2013)

The Bell community buy out involved a mixture of shares and a bank loan - they raised about £800,000 from the share issue, and it cost them £920,000 , the rest being funded from a bank loan - . The Bell is a muso pub - gigs 4 or 5 times a week, I think Robert Plant got involved as his son plays in a band I think - and a lot of musicians in the Bristol scene had heard of, or played in the pub, and got involved too.

No idea if the Canterbury is worth the same - but it can be done


----------



## leanderman (Jul 12, 2013)

editor said:


> That would make sense if it were social housing. But it's not. Pubs can serve an important social function which will be lost forever if the place is closed down and replaced by stylish apartments for the upwardly mobile.
> 
> It is quite a popular pub still, although it has perhaps a more limited demographic than some, and it's probably the 'wrong kind of demographic' when it comes to having the clout, influence and council-persuasive powers to campaign for its survival.
> 
> I see a beautiful Victorian pub that could be lovingly restored and made into a real community asset for locals to use, compared with a bland office block.


 

There will be a proportion of social or affordable housing.

As long as it is occupied, a home is a home, whether social or private.

And we need more homes.


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2013)

leanderman said:


> There will be a proportion of social or affordable housing.
> 
> As long as it is occupied, a home is a home, whether social or private.
> 
> And we need more homes.


We need places for people to go and socialise too.


----------



## Winot (Jul 12, 2013)

editor said:


> We need places for people to go and socialise too.


 
We need a national charity to be launched for the pub-less generation - perhaps off the back of a 'Cathy Come Home'-style film to tug at the heart strings first.


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2013)

Winot said:


> We need a national charity to be launched for the pub-less generation - perhaps off the back of a 'Cathy Come Home'-style film to tug at the heart strings first.


I just think that pubs should be afforded some kind of protection from short-term profiteers - particularly the pubs out in the country and n smaller communities where they're often the only place people can socialise at night.

Sorry if that's not jokey enough.


----------



## Winot (Jul 12, 2013)

editor said:


> I just think that pubs should be afforded some kind of protection from short-term profiteers - particularly the pubs out in the country and n smaller communities where they're often the only place people can socialise at night.
> 
> Sorry if that's not jokey enough.


 
Yes I have sympathy with the only pub in the village closing.  Not the case here though, and, as others have pointed out, some pubs are being created/revamped in the area.


----------



## clandestino (Jul 12, 2013)

Why can't this one be revamped too?


----------



## Winot (Jul 12, 2013)

ianw said:


> Why can't this one be revamped too?


 
I've no idea.  Presumably there's more money to be made converting to flats.  Perhaps you should ask the owner of the Crown & Anchor - they made a decision to revamp rather than convert.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 12, 2013)

Winot said:


> I've no idea. Presumably there's more money to be made converting to flats. Perhaps you should ask the owner of the Crown & Anchor - they made a decision to revamp rather than convert.


 
Effra Social too.


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2013)

Winot said:


> Yes I have sympathy with the only pub in the village closing.  Not the case here though, and, as others have pointed out, some pubs are being created/revamped in the area.


Brixton has already lost many pubs, and given how rammed they're getting already - before the big new developments have fully opened - I'd say losing another would have a detrimental impact on the area as a whole.


----------



## clandestino (Jul 12, 2013)

Winot said:


> I've no idea. Presumably there's more money to be made converting to flats. Perhaps you should ask the owner of the Crown & Anchor - they made a decision to revamp rather than convert.


 
Well, I think it can, and should, be. The location - between the Academy and westernmost exit of Brixton Village - couldn't be more perfect. Whoever did it up would make a mint.


----------



## clandestino (Jul 12, 2013)

Don't forget there's an exit of Brixton Village that opens out directly onto Pope's Road. It's often closed, but I bet it would be easy to get it open once the Canterbury had been revamped. Then suddenly the pub's in a prime location.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 12, 2013)

Isn't there going to be a new pub or something in the back of Bon Marche?


----------



## leanderman (Jul 12, 2013)

ianw said:


> Well, I think it can, and should, be. The location - between the Academy and westernmost exit of Brixton Village - couldn't be more perfect. Whoever did it up would make a mint.


 
That area is not on my radar and I have always written it off - perhaps because I'm SW2


----------



## clandestino (Jul 12, 2013)




----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Isn't there going to be a new pub or something in the back of Bon Marche?


 
No. You're thinking of the trendy Drink, Shop & Do, which is a "design shop and café bar selling products from emerging designers alongside vintage furniture and home wares". So nothing like a pub.

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/05/...-to-open-new-branch-in-ferndale-road-brixton/


----------



## leanderman (Jul 12, 2013)

editor said:


> No. You're thinking of the trendy Drink, Shop & Do, which is a "design shop and café bar selling products from emerging designers alongside vintage furniture and home wares". So nothing like a pub.


 
But we are getting two new champagne bars this summer - those will be right up your street!


----------



## Onket (Jul 15, 2013)

Has the pub actually closed yet?


----------



## colacubes (Jul 15, 2013)

Onket said:


> Has the pub actually closed yet?


 

Still open at the moment.  For how long seems to be a mystery at this stage and I think depends on whether the planning permission goes through.


----------



## Onket (Jul 15, 2013)

I see. Thanks. Only heard about this the other day.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 16, 2013)

Rushy said:


> It is owned by Conway Taverns but May Developments, or whatever they are called has registered an option. I.e. They have probably paid an amount to CT for the right to purchase the property for an agreed sum in a defined period. They can then apply for planning permission and go through with the purchase if the application is successful or not it if rejected. I'd imagine CT had no idea that an 11 storey building might be possible on the site.


 
Talking to an old licensed trade hand in the Beehive tonight. He reckoned that the Canterbury was leased by Burroughs Gin to Conway Taverns many years ago. Rushy is this obsolete/erroneous information? Burroughs is apparently part of Pernod Ricard these days. If true it makes the situation even more complicated.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 17, 2013)

CH1 said:


> Talking to an old licensed trade hand in the Beehive tonight. He reckoned that the Canterbury was leased by Burroughs Gin to Conway Taverns many years ago. Rushy is this obsolete/erroneous information? Burroughs is apparently part of Pernod Ricard these days. If true it makes the situation even more complicated.


 
I took the info from the current ( a few weeks ago) Land Registry records.


----------



## editor (Aug 12, 2013)

Update here: 


> May Developments has submitted its planning application to redevelop the Canterbury Arms, on the corner of Pope’s Road and Canterbury Crescent in Brixton, with a new nine-storey residential, commercial and community building.
> 
> The proposed building will include 31 units, in a mix of one, two and three-bedroom homes, of which 11 will be affordable.  Also included in the planning application is a 1,745 sq ft space proposed for commercial community uses which will be fitted out and available at a substantial discount to market rent, along with a landscaped garden square at the front of the building and secure parking space for up to 42 bicycles.


http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/08/...replace-it-with-a-nine-storey-block-of-flats/


----------



## clandestino (Aug 12, 2013)

The reference number May Developments has posted doesn't return any results on the Lambeth site, but if you search for Canterbury Crescent, you get this which has a slightly different ref number:

13/03273/FUL
Application Received​ Mon 22 Jul 2013
Address​ Canterbury Hotel 8 Canterbury Crescent London SW9 7QD
Proposal​ Demolition of the existing building (Public House) and redevelopment to provide a 9 storey residential property compromising of 31 residential dwellings, 162sqm of flexible A3 (Restaurant and cafe and/or A4 Drinking Establishment and/or B1 (Office) and/or D1 (Non-residential Institutions) and/or Community Enterprise, Communal Garden Space and 42 cycle parking spaces.


----------



## editor (Aug 12, 2013)

I suspect that's the earlier application.


----------



## clandestino (Aug 12, 2013)

It was made after the public consultation which was in June. It contains the same info as quoted, just in slightly different wording. What difference would a later application have to this one?


----------



## Crispy (Aug 12, 2013)

Should be able to go to Related APplications, or the Property page to see if there's a newer spplication for the site


----------



## editor (Aug 12, 2013)

ianw said:


> It was made after the public consultation which was in June. It contains the same info as quoted, just in slightly different wording. What difference would a later application have to this one?


 
The later application would presumably be designed to reflect some of the feedback from the public (that they didn't seem particular interested in hearing, given the hopelessly unwieldy web form).


----------



## clandestino (Aug 12, 2013)

editor said:


> The later application would presumably be designed to reflect some of the feedback from the public (that they didn't seem particular interested in hearing, given the hopelessly unwieldy web form).


 
Or they've quoted the ref number slightly wrongly, so people can't put comments/feedback on the council website...

I think I'm going to paste the email I sent as my feedback to the consultation as a comment on the Lambeth application.


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2013)

I've asked May Developments to email me the PDF.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Aug 13, 2013)

If it helps, this is what i received in the post yesterday.


Sorry having trouble resizing it


----------



## clandestino (Aug 13, 2013)

Thanks DD!


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2013)

I've posted up details of the updated application and there's two huge files to download showing off more.

This is the final design which apparently "“relates closely to Brixton’s vernacular period architecture."







It still looks like an office block to me. 

More info and links: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/08/...l-replace-the-canterbury-arms-pub-in-brixton/


----------



## Crispy (Aug 14, 2013)

That's actually much more refined than the previous images. Looks quite Chicago-ish above street level. Not sure about the arches :-/


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2013)

Crispy said:


> That's actually much more refined than the previous images. Looks quite New York-ish above street level. Not sure about the arches :-/


It's an improvement on the previous renders, but then we are seeing it in a particularly dramatic - and no doubt flattering - illustration.


There is still not a single thing on the façade that I would associate with Brixton's heritage - those arches make it it look more like the old wharves around London Bridge to me - and it continues to look like a rather bland office block to me.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 14, 2013)

I agree, there's nothing particularly Brixton about it. But as these things go, it's not bad.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 14, 2013)

Crispy said:


> I agree, there's nothing particularly Brixton about it. But as these things go, it's not bad.


 
I guess the arches are supposed to relate to the railways arches which seems inappropriate / tenuous. The small garden ones look tricksy.  But I like the building on the whole.


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I guess the arches are supposed to relate to the railways arches which seems inappropriate / tenuous. The small garden ones look tricksy. But I like the building on the whole.


 
It's leagues above the bland slab that is Brixton Square, but is it better than the current building and does it add anything architecturally of note to the area? I think not.

I would have liked to have seen something that incorporated the pub, which is a well preserved example of good Victorian architecture.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 14, 2013)

editor said:


> It's leagues above the bland slab that is Brixton Square, but is it better than the current building and does it add anything architecturally of note to the area? I think not.
> 
> I would have liked to have seen something that incorporated the pub, which is a well preserved example of good Victorian architecture.


 
Incorporating the pub would be great but rather limiting - new flats are good for the city. As I said before on this thread - I think the uppers are fine but the ground floor should be more human scale, whether this reflects the Victorian heritage of the site or a more modern crafted character e.g. FAT architects. I guess they are trying to do that with the garden arches but it is bland.

I wonder if there has been much architectural exploration generally of how to incorporate smaller Victorian buildings and streetscapes into the taller structures that we need? On a large scale this was done beautifully with Foster's Hearst Tower in NY. Not sure if it would work so successfully on a smaller scale though.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 14, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I wonder if there has been much architectural exploration generally of how to incorporate smaller Victorian buildings and streetscapes into the taller structures that we need? On a large scale this was done beautifully with Foster's Hearst Tower in NY. Not sure if it would work so successfully on a smaller scale though.


That sort of thing has the nickname of "Death Masking". The facade is maintained, but the interior is demolished and replaced. You see it in The City all the time - C19th grand stone facade, but they've squeezed an extra floor inside and the windows don't line up.

It's tricky to build over existing buildings because the existing structure isn't designed to take the extra load. In many cases, it's not even properly designed to take the existing load! In The Canterbury's case, there's no space on the Pope's Road side for a structural column, so any development that preserved the pub would have to go around it, and not over.

Otherwise, it would have just death masked it and then you're not really left with much worth keeping.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Aug 15, 2013)

I actually think it's a bit timid, why not go up and splat some paint around.






I think whole thing is misguided. There's no answer to the question "Why are you destroying an grand victorian pub ?"


----------



## Crispy (Aug 15, 2013)

DJWrongspeed said:


> I think whole thing is misguided. There's no answer to the question "Why are you destroying an grand victorian pub ?"


There _is_ an answer, it's just not very palatable: £££


----------



## Rushy (Aug 15, 2013)

DJWrongspeed said:


> I actually think it's a bit timid, why not go up and splat some paint around.


 

I was admiring this colourful effort by Renzo Piano (Shard) from Centrepoint yesterday evening.


----------



## editor (Aug 15, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I was admiring this colourful effort by Renzo Piano (Shard) from Centrepoint yesterday evening.


 
Yeah, I like those although the 'retail experience' in the middle of that complex is a hideous windswept thing.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 15, 2013)

editor said:


> Yeah, I like those although the 'retail experience' in the middle of that complex is a hideous windswept thing.


 
That's a shame. I've not seen inside.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 15, 2013)

Looks OK to me. Like all those blocks in East London. 

In terms of social utility, and at a time of housing crisis, it would be hard to argue that a pub should take precedence over homes. 

Reports here have varied as to how busy the pub currently is.


----------



## editor (Aug 15, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Looks OK to me. Like all those blocks in East London.
> 
> In terms of social utility, and at a time of housing crisis, it would be hard to argue that a pub should take precedence over homes.


If you're arguing from the perspective of the housing crisis, then you should be arguing for social/affordable housing, not upmarket, private housing that obliterates a building serving a social function in the community.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 16, 2013)

editor said:


> If you're arguing from the perspective of the housing crisis, then you should be arguing for social/affordable housing, not upmarket, private housing that obliterates a building serving a social function in the community.



Some of the provision in the block will have to be social or affordable.

All new homes ease supply pressures, whether social or private. 

As the pub closes other drinking places have opened: Effra Social, Craft, Seven.


----------



## editor (Aug 16, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Some of the provision in the block will have to be social or affordable.


There is zero social rent units in the new build.

_"The company proposes to include 11 shared ownership units within the scheme and 20 private sale units, with all top three floors being exclusively private. There will be no social rent units._
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/08/...l-replace-the-canterbury-arms-pub-in-brixton/"


leanderman said:


> As the pub closes other drinking places have opened: Effra Social, Craft, Seven.


Seven is not a pub. Not even close. The other two places are far more expensive than the Canterbury and hardly like to appeal to many people outside a fairly niche demographic.

While I welcome new drinking establishments opening up, far, far more pubs have closed around Brixton than new ones opened up.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 16, 2013)

editor said:


> There is zero social rent units in the new build.
> 
> _"The company proposes to include 11 shared ownership units within the scheme and 20 private sale units, with all top three floors being exclusively private. There will be no social rent units._
> http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/08/...l-replace-the-canterbury-arms-pub-in-brixton/"
> ...



Ok, no social housing and I am not convinced by shared ownership. But housing is housing. And, by definition, extra supply will help keep rents and prices lower. 

Are you implying that every housing development in central Brixton should be social housing? If might be desirable, but it's unrealistic.

It sounds like the pub in question here also has a fairly niche demographic. 

The old boozers, in both senses, are dying off. And new things are cropping up.


----------



## editor (Aug 16, 2013)

How does building expensive new properties with zero social housing help keep rents down?


----------



## Winot (Aug 16, 2013)

editor said:


> How does building expensive new properties with zero social housing help keep rents down?



Because people renting have a (limited) flexibility in how much rent they're prepared to pay.  Increasing the supply of housing at one level decreases the market rent at that level but also has an effect at the level below.


----------



## editor (Aug 16, 2013)

I don't believe the new private housing developments in Brixton are helping keep the rent down.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 16, 2013)

editor said:


> I don't believe the new private housing developments in Brixton are helping keep the rent down.


 
Of course they are. They help address a supply and demand imbalance in the private sector. Unfortunately, demand is still way outstripping supply at the moment so the effect is that rents go up less than they might otherwise have, rather than down.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 16, 2013)

It's a bit oversimplistic to say that new build will definitely keep rents down in Brixton itself tbh. It's assuming 'demand' is static (or at least the demand curve is), but they can also support the gentrification processes that increase demand and push prices up.


----------



## Winot (Aug 16, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> It's a bit oversimplistic to say that new build will definitely keep rents down in Brixton itself tbh. It's assuming 'demand' is static (or at least the demand curve is), but they can also support the gentrification processes that increase demand and push prices up.



Yes, that's a good point and may well be happening.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 16, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> It's a bit oversimplistic to say that new build will definitely keep rents down in Brixton itself tbh. It's assuming 'demand' is static (or at least the demand curve is), but they can also support the gentrification processes that increase demand and push prices up.


 
Of course it was simple. It was a two sentence post in response to a single sentence expressing doubt that new developments are helping keep rent down.

Referring to a supply and demand imbalance does not assume either is static. Whether supply and demand are increasing or decreasing is not wholly important. It's the imbalance that of the two which affects prices. As you say, there are other factors but at any one point in time, and all else remaining constant, having more properties is most likely to result in lower prices than if there were less properties. i.e. even if there is still an imbalance, more supply is making sure that the imbalance is less than it would have been. So the supply might not be sufficient to stop inflation but it will almost certainly contribute to reducing it.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 16, 2013)

Supply-demand-price relationship: the only thing I remember from economics A-level. And it's fundamental.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 17, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Of course it was simple. It was a two sentence post in response to a single sentence expressing doubt that new developments are helping keep rent down.
> 
> Referring to a supply and demand imbalance does not assume either is static. Whether supply and demand are increasing or decreasing is not wholly important. It's the imbalance that of the two which affects prices. As you say, there are other factors but at any one point in time, and all else remaining constant, having more properties is most likely to result in lower prices than if there were less properties. i.e. even if there is still an imbalance, more supply is making sure that the imbalance is less than it would have been. So the supply might not be sufficient to stop inflation but it will almost certainly contribute to reducing it.


 

Maybe static wasn't quite the right word. I was talking about the application of the supply/demand curve model (as featured in A-level economics as a fundamental) to real life situations. The usual approach is to assume that within whatever you define as your market moves, the rest of the market stays the same and the price changes. So in this case you'd expect a reduction in prices due to a shift in the supply curve. Usually economics admits there are other factors but insists reality will approximate this, other things being equal. Except in a case like this it's possible that a demand curve change is directly driven by the supply change - I imagine there is a model for this somewhere but the basic supply and demand curve model doesn't cover it.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 17, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Maybe static wasn't quite the right word. I was talking about the application of the supply/demand curve model (as featured in A-level economics as a fundamental) to real life situations. The usual approach is to assume that within whatever you define as your market moves, the rest of the market stays the same and the price changes. So in this case you'd expect a reduction in prices due to a shift in the supply curve. Usually economics admits there are other factors but insists reality will approximate this, other things being equal. Except in a case like this it's possible that a demand curve change is directly driven by the supply change - I imagine there is a model for this somewhere but the basic supply and demand curve model doesn't cover it.


​I'm afraid that I haven't entirely understood all the sentences in your response which may be largely due to my not having studied economics at school. Even so, I doubt it would be all that useful if I had studied economics as the only things I really remember from school are the French for "Look! The monkey is in the tree" and that clints and grykes are a common feature of limestone pavement which run remarkably perpendicular to one another. Both of which have proven extremely useful over the years in the most unlikely of circumstances. ​​I digress. The original comment was that new private housing doesn't help keep prices down. I made two comments in response and I'm not sure which you disagree with:​
increasing the number of properties in the area reduces the supply demand imbalance, relative to what it would be if all else were the same except that those additional properties did not exist.
prices are likely to be lower in the scenario in which there are more properties because the difference between supply and demand would smaller (and consequently the market less competitive, subject of course to complete saturation).
This seems to correlate with the description of supply, demand, equilibrium and imbalance on Investopedia. I appreciate that it's a fairly brief summary but I suffer from either attention deficit disorder or extreme impatience, so it'll have to do.​​But given what you learnt at A level, are you saying that if all market conditions - including demand - were exactly the same as now except that there were less properties available to buy or rent (i.e. the supply demand imbalance was greater) rent values should _on a balance of probabilities_:​a) rise,​ 
b) fall or​ 
c) stay the same, or​ 
d) none of the above.​


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 17, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I'm afraid that I haven't entirely understood all the sentences in your response which may be largely due to my not having studied economics at school. Even so, I doubt it would be all that useful if I had studied economics as the only things I really remember from school are the French for "Look! The monkey is in the tree" and that clints and grykes are a common feature of limestone pavement which run remarkably perpendicular to one another. Both of which have proven extremely useful over the years in the most unlikely of circumstances.
> 
> I digress. The original comment was that new private housing doesn't help keep prices down. I made two comments in response and I'm not sure which you disagree with:
> 
> ...


 


A-Level? I'll have you know I have a 15 year old Desmond in 'Economics and getting too drunk to bother with lectures.'

The balance of probabilities isn't really the point - what I'm taking issue with is the idea that new build properties will necessarily bring prices down, I'm not arguing they definitely won't. THe problem as I see it with applying your basic supply/demand logic to housing is that of defining what's being traded and what 'the market' you're looking at is. As far as the product goes, all houses/flats are different. A flat near a station or a good school can be far more expensive than an identical one a few hundred metres away. In terms of the market - you could look at the market for Brixton housing, London housing, housing in the south East, or even housing on a particular road, and see different effects. It's that geographic element that the basic market model doesn't account for (and is beyond my knowledge tbh.)

Personally I think the effect you and others have been talking about is probably right London wide. The massive rise in house prices across the city has been driven by lack of supply and more houses will push the price down. So to an extent Brixton prices will be pushed down. Against that though building a load of new build, and the resulting facilities that are set up to supply the new residents, could easily create an increase in more localised demand that might outweigh that reduction altogether.

BTW I'm not saying they shouldn't be built - I absolutely agree more housing is needed and that that includes private housing as well as social housing. And if you build enough London wide that would reduce prices for everyone, or at least stabilise the rises. I just don't agree that a new build will automatically reduce prices in the immediate area.


----------



## Winot (Aug 17, 2013)

I understood him to mean that a slight increase in supply (of high quality housing) could actually result in a greater increase in demand (suppressed demand from people who previously wouldn't have considered living in Brixton) so that overall prices went up.

Edit - sorry, that was meant to quote Rushy.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 17, 2013)

Winot said:


> I understood him to mean that a slight increase in supply (of high quality housing) could actually result in a greater increase in demand (suppressed demand from people who previously wouldn't have considered living in Brixton) so that overall prices went up.
> 
> Edit - sorry, that was meant to quote Rushy.


 

That's the short version yeah, without the layers of economics shite.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 17, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> A-Level? I'll have you know I have a 15 year old Desmond in 'Economics and getting too drunk to bother with lectures.'
> 
> The balance of probabilities isn't really the point - what I'm taking issue with is the idea that new build properties will necessarily bring prices down, I'm not arguing they definitely won't. THe problem as I see it with applying your basic supply/demand logic to housing is that of defining what's being traded and what 'the market' you're looking at is. As far as the product goes, all houses/flats are different. A flat near a station or a good school can be far more expensive than an identical one a few hundred metres away. In terms of the market - you could look at the market for Brixton housing, London housing, housing in the south East, or even housing on a particular road, and see different effects. It's that geographic element that the basic market model doesn't account for (and is beyond my knowledge tbh.)
> 
> ...


 

Sorry - you referred to A levels and I was feeling a bit sarky. 


I think you are perhaps misreprestanding my comments and we're not far apart on this, if at all. I haven't said that more availability will automatically reduce prices in a given area. I am saying it is likely to result in prices in a given area being lower than they would have been had less properties been built. Of course there are loads of factors and I accept your point that new developments are part of localised regeneration cycles which stimulates demand, but the less we match that demand the larger that imbalance will be. This will carry on until a point at which some sort of equilibrium is reached because the pace of change slows and the demand ceases to increase or drops. If, mid cycle, we suddenly stopped providing more homes, prices (or the rate of price rises) would almost certainly increase.

Of course, there is a bit of a chicken and egg argument here. Are the new development generating the demand or a response to it? I don't think Brixton's popularity was kickstarted by the new resi developments - they have jumped on the back of demand created by town centre initiatives (in particular the market, but also things like Windrush Square) as well as London wide increases in demand. In turn, as people move into these places, more are introduced to the joys of Brixton, increasing demand, increasing prices thus incentivising more building. Mid cycle, the best we can hope for is that increased availability reduces price rises, rather than prices.

I got a similar desmond tu tu too (in "Law and not bothering to turn up to tutorials"). We presumably learnt a lot of the same stuff. Not the economics (obviously).


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 17, 2013)

Actually I've done the internet thing of addressing a few posters making similar points and conflating their arguments. It was Leanderman who said it would reduce prices by definition and that's definitely not true. Beyond that we probably don't have much to disagree on- I certainly don't have the ability to extract the numbers (that could be a PhD on it's own probably) so the exact effects of a particular development are going to be a circular argument. The bigger picture is certainly a need for far more houses.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Aug 18, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Supply-demand-price relationship: the only thing I remember from economics A-level. And it's fundamental.


 

Excellent article by Faisal Islam in The Observer today;
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/aug/18/default-line-extract-faisal-islam-housing

Rising house prices, to some degree, reflected underlying supply and demand in a competitive market. Greater increases in demand than in supply, and the prices went up, as in Britain. Large increases in supply over demand, as in the US, Spain and Ireland after the crisis, and prices go down. Simple enough.

Except, of course, this simple model is entirely misleading. The housing market is not really a market for houses. The housing market is driven principally by the availability of finance, mainly mortgage debt, but sometimes bonuses, inheritances, or hot money from abroad – London in particular has become the preferred residence of the world's wealthiest people, from Russian oligarchs to Arab oil sheikhs.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 26, 2013)

The newly reopened Ivy House pub in Nunhead/Peckham shows what people can do when they get together to save a pub: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-ivy-house-reopens-as-a-community-pub.292102/#post-12505771


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 26, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> The newly reopened Ivy House pub in Nunhead/Peckham shows what people can do when they get together to save a pub: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-ivy-house-reopens-as-a-community-pub.292102/#post-12505771


 

Hasn't the sale gone through? As I understand it the legislation the Ivy House was bought under allows community groups first refusal when a community asset goes on sale, but if the developers already own the pub it's not much use.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 26, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Excellent article by Faisal Islam in The Observer today;
> http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/aug/18/default-line-extract-faisal-islam-housing
> 
> Rising house prices, to some degree, reflected underlying supply and demand in a competitive market. Greater increases in demand than in supply, and the prices went up, as in Britain. Large increases in supply over demand, as in the US, Spain and Ireland after the crisis, and prices go down. Simple enough.
> ...


 

I am sure these things are factors too. But, to repeat myself again, if you increase London's population by a 100,000 a year - and build only a few houses - you have a big problem.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 26, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Hasn't the sale gone through? As I understand it the legislation the Ivy House was bought under allows community groups first refusal when a community asset goes on sale, but if the developers already own the pub it's not much use.


I'm not convinced the sale has gone through yet. When I asked the developers if they owned the pub, they said "we are in control of the pub". When I pressed them, they wouldn't say they owned the pub. They could be waiting to get planning permission before they buy - you don't need to be the owner to apply for planning permission. I don't know, to be fair.

I need to pop down there for a beer and ask them...


----------



## leanderman (Aug 26, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Excellent article by Faisal Islam in The Observer today;
> http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/aug/18/default-line-extract-faisal-islam-housing
> .


 

This is a good piece


----------



## editor (Aug 26, 2013)

> Housing is the only basic human need for which rapid price rises are met with celebration rather than protest.


Spot on.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 26, 2013)

editor said:


> Spot on.


 

I can't even understand the 'winners' celebrating the rising prices.

In most cases, if they have families and need more space they will have to move out of their local area.


----------



## editor (Aug 28, 2013)

Some interesting discussion about these proposals on http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1635846&page=14



> http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/E...Masterplan.htm
> 
> This is the (masterplan, so no detail assumed) section along Pope's Road. The Canterbury Arms site is just off to the left. Atlantic Road is just off to the right. The left hand building replaces the ice rink (and has car parking in it). The right hand building replaces the single story retail units between the railway viaducts.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 28, 2013)

That was me 
The Future Brixton documents are full of such drawings. They're aspirational. They're what they'd like developers to propose, in terms of massing and use. But they shouldn't be interpreted as "proposals".


----------



## Crispy (Aug 28, 2013)

It's off topic for this thread, but IMO the masterplan for Pope's Road is quite good from an urban design POV. The existing office and toilet blocks would be demolished (new toilets built elsewhere) and a proper frontage for the station created, forming a public square between the viaducts. My guess is that it would be tied in with a new station on the Overground line, which would make a complete station re-build desirable.

 This is apart from any discussion about the socio-economic harm/benefit such large-scale redevelopment would bring.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 29, 2013)

Yet again, I was wrong: London's population rise by 146,000 last year, not  100,000, according to today's Standard

Interestingly, most of the incomers are provincial Britons, like me.


----------



## Rob S (Sep 5, 2013)

So, regardless of theoretical arguments about the rise and fall of house prices based on the proposed flats, it seems like a crying shame that this victorian pub and piece of Brixton history could be forever eradicated, IMHO. 

Is there anything we can do at this late stage, cos I'd like to?...


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 5, 2013)

Rob S said:


> So, regardless of theoretical arguments about the rise and fall of house prices based on the proposed flats, it seems like a crying shame that this victorian pub and piece of Brixton history could be forever eradicated, IMHO.
> 
> Is there anything we can do at this late stage, cos I'd like to?...


 

The community buyout mentioned above could be an option, if the sale hasn't happened yet (which I'm not sure of from the thread). You'd need to get a group together and apply for it to be listed as a community asset, then raise a whole load of money though.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Sep 6, 2013)

If you want to apply to Lambeth Council to have the pub listed as an Asset of Community Value, you'll find the relevant form over here. It's very simple to fill in. You will need 21 signatures from a constituted - or unconstituted - group.

If the building is listed (and there is no reason why it shouldn't) then you will have six months to raise the market value if the Canterbury is formally put up for sale. It is worth speaking with My Community Rights first for some informal advice.

Once again - I can't stress enough the importance of approaching this with a view to seeing it through, rather than to simply block the development. If you get the opportunity to buy the pub then you'll need as much community help and involvement on board.

Here's The Place Station listing - disclaimer: I work for Locality.

Good luck.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Oct 10, 2013)

It's a bit unclear whether objections are still valid at this stage but I strongly recommend posters to show there feelings

*here*	(planning database)


----------



## editor (Oct 10, 2013)

I've objected again.


----------



## editor (Oct 11, 2013)

Well done to the South London Press for making this a front page story.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 11, 2013)

editor said:


> Well done to the South London Press for making this a front page story.
> View attachment 41757


Good dramatic story - but according to Rushy earlier in the thread they've taken option money on the development - an each way bet it seems, rather than being "forced out".


----------



## editor (Oct 11, 2013)

CH1 said:


> Good dramatic story - but according to Rushy earlier in the thread they've taken option money on the development - an each way bet it seems, rather than being "forced out".


I'm not sure what you mean. They don't own the property.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Oct 11, 2013)

Well done SLP


----------



## clandestino (Oct 11, 2013)

editor said:


> Well done to the South London Press for making this a front page story.
> 
> View attachment 41757


Wow, well done SLP. Can you post up a pic of the story too?


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Oct 11, 2013)

Never been a big fan of the SLP but fair play to them and a nice picture of Brian as well.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 11, 2013)

editor said:


> I'm not sure what you mean. They  don't own the property.


I explained this somewhere back up thread.

The developer does not want to buy the place outright because they don't know if they will get planning permission. Instead, they buy an option-to-buy for an agreed price in a set period - e.g. they pay £30,000 for an 18 month option to buy for £1,000,000. If the buyer wants to proceed at any point in the 18 months the owner is obliged to sell to them for £1,000,000 - it cannot be sold to anyone else in that period. If they don't buy it, the option expires and the owner keeps the £30,000 and can do what they like.

This gives the buyer time to apply for planning and is less risky than an outright purchase.

The option is registered as a charge at the land registry.

Someone has done this on the modern house on Josephine Avenue next to the new Sainsbury's too.


----------



## Mr Retro (Oct 13, 2013)

But the family featured in the SLP don't own the property so they have taken no option money. They are being forced out.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 13, 2013)

It is owned by Conway Taverns, as posted earlier in the thread. Any sale of the freehold will be subject to the existing lease. Only way leaseholder can benefit financially is if the lease is longer than the buyer is prepared to wait so they are offered a sum to leave early.


----------



## clandestino (Nov 1, 2013)

Interesting blog from Transpontine who think the Canterbury Arms decision has been delayed. Let's hope that's true! 

http://transpont.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/how-does-it-feel-to-be-loved-10-years.html


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Nov 2, 2013)

I have a personal interest in this thread and i have perhaps spoken too freely in my occasional interjections and it makes me hesitant to express what i think is the truth.
Trying to save the pub in its current format is a folly, the front bar is almost always empty. I don't know enough about the economical viability of the pub other than walking past it several times each day. The last time i had a drink in there was in late Summer and only because a friend was sat in the front garden with a pint, more as a necessity than a free leisure choice. Other than that it was over ten years ago.

This is a pub that heard the last orders bell a long time ago. The arguments about this pub should not be conflated with those about gentrification.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Nov 2, 2013)

So what do you gain personally from seeing it flattened?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 2, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Trying to save the pub in its current format is a folly, the front bar is almost always empty. I don't know enough about the economical viability of the pub other than walking past it several times each day…..


It might seem 'empty' but they clearly make enough money to pay the lease and support the family. Always busy when football is on, often busy with pre-Academy drinkers and lots of regular and one-off nights like HDIF and the hat parties etc. I don't think you can claim it's 'last orders' on  basis of customer numbers...


----------



## innit (Nov 2, 2013)

It's got a lot busier over the last few months imo.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 2, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> It might seem 'empty' but they clearly make enough money to pay the lease and support the family. Always busy when football is on, often busy with pre-Academy drinkers and lots of regular and one-off nights like HDIF and the hat parties etc. I don't think you can claim it's 'last orders' on  basis of customer numbers...



One of the problems with the whole 'community interest' thing (which is obviously hard enough as it is) is that it's going to be very hard to pull off for that sort of place. People who are in for one off parties or pre-gig drinks are going to be very difficult to involve to the degree that you'd need.

TBH I suspect Dexter Deadwood is right that it won't be saved. I don't think it's right to say that's removed from the argument about gentrification though. The same forces that are pushing up rents for housing are the ones that are putting pressure on any business that isn't turning over huge amounts of money. I think it's very much the same thing.


----------



## clandestino (Nov 2, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> I have a personal interest in this thread and i have perhaps spoken too freely in my occasional interjections and it makes me hesitant to express what i think is the truth.
> Trying to save the pub in its current format is a folly, the front bar is almost always empty. I don't know enough about the economical viability of the pub other than walking past it several times each day. The last time i had a drink in there was in late Summer and only because a friend was sat in the front garden with a pint, more as a necessity than a free leisure choice. other than that it was over ten years ago.
> 
> This is a pub that heard the last orders bell a long time ago. The arguments about this pub should not be conflated with those about gentrification.



What's your personal interest?

We had a capacity crowd in there last night. And the front bar is often busy on gig nights. Of which there are plenty.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> This is a pub that heard the last orders bell a long time ago. The arguments about this pub should not be conflated with those about gentrification.


That pub could easily be turned around into a very successful venue (although it seems to do pretty well as it is). And of course gentrification is playing a part because it won't be social housing replacing it. It'll be lifestyle flats, filled with people who wouldn't have dreamt of living here ten years ago.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Nov 2, 2013)

Nanker Phelge said:


> So what do you gain personally from seeing it flattened?



Nothing and i don't want to see the pub flattened.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Nov 2, 2013)

clandestino said:


> We had a capacity crowd in there last night. And the front bar is often busy on gig nights. Of which there are plenty.



If that is enough to keep it viable then fair enough. Whatever the economics there is not going to be a groundswell of sentiment sufficient to save the pub.


----------



## clandestino (Nov 2, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> If that is enough to keep it viable then fair enough. Whatever the economics there is not going to be a groundswell of sentiment sufficient to save the pub.



What is your personal interest?


----------



## Rushy (Nov 2, 2013)

clandestino said:


> What is your personal interest?


I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong but I think Dexter Deadwood means he has taken a personal interest, rather than that he has an invested interest of some sort.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 2, 2013)

editor said:


> That pub could easily be turned around into a very successful venue (although it seems to do pretty well as it is). And of course gentrification is playing a part because it won't be social housing replacing it. It'll be lifestyle flats, filled with people who wouldn't have dreamt of living here ten years ago.



If the site is in Coldharbour ward, where 60 per cent of the housing is social (an unusually high percentage) a private development might not go amiss in terms of having mixed communities.  Unless we want to create zones of rich and poor. 

Lambeth would probably prefer it too. Young people not using council services but paying full council tax


----------



## SarfLondoner (Nov 2, 2013)

leanderman said:


> If the site is in Coldharbour ward, where 60 per cent of the housing is social (an unusually high percentage) a private development might not go amiss in terms of having mixed communities.  Unless we want to create zones of rich and poor.
> 
> Lambeth would probably prefer it too. Young people not using council services but paying full council tax


The rich and poor thing already exists and is becoming more noticeable all the time.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 3, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> The rich and poor thing already exists and is becoming more noticeable all the time.



Yep inequality is worsening. And, oddly enough, it's a global phenomenon. Different systems all seem to be producing more inequality. This week, The Economist tackles the issue and, I think, but I've had a few, it suggests taxing capital more and labour less. Which sounds sensible.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Nov 3, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Yep inequality is worsening. And, oddly enough, it's a global phenomenon. Different systems all seem to be producing more inequality. This week, The Economist tackles the issue and, I think, but I've had a few, it suggests taxing capital more and labour less. Which sounds sensible.


Sounds interesting i will look that article up, Enjoy your "few"


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Nov 3, 2013)

clandestino said:


> What is your personal interest?



A better question would be, who has a financial interest?


----------



## Winot (Nov 3, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> The rich and poor thing already exists and is becoming more noticeable all the time.



Sure, but what do you think about leanderman's specific point about the social mix?


----------



## SarfLondoner (Nov 3, 2013)

I agree that we need mixed community's but the government dont do they? Otherwise we wouldn't be witnessing all the social and to some degree ethnic cleansing that is in motion. Do you think the rich want to live next door to poor people. I recently saw a flyer in a shop window in Beaulah hill objecting to a Lidl opening up one of the objections was that the said shop and the customers it attracts would somehow "lower the tone of the area" I would expect that in leafy surrey but not in south London. So my answer is poor or less well off people are happy to live and share there community but more affluent people are not. There seems to be a belief that if you pay a heap of money for your overpriced home you should be able to choose your neighbours and to some degree your surroundings too.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 3, 2013)

60% social housing in an area isn't a 'poor ghetto' lacking in social mix is it? Not everyone in that social housing will be poor, and there's still 40% of non-social housing there which is a pretty big percentage. 

ETA: Actually I've added the 'ghetto' - the actual term used was 'zones of rich and poor'. I think the intent is the same tbh but just adding this for accuracy.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 3, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> 60% social housing in an area isn't a 'poor ghetto' lacking in social mix is it? Not everyone in that social housing will be poor, and there's still 40% of non-social housing there which is a pretty big percentage.
> 
> ETA: Actually I've added the 'ghetto' - the actual term used was 'zones of rich and poor'. I think the intent is the same tbh but just adding this for accuracy.



It's 61 per cent in social housing in Coldharbour.

The borough average is 38 per cent.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 3, 2013)

leanderman said:


> It's 61 per cent in social housing in Coldharbour.
> 
> The borough average is 38 per cent.



OK so it has a higher percentage of social housing than average. That's not the same at all as being an area only populated by poor people.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> I agree that we need mixed community's but the government dont do they? Otherwise we wouldn't be witnessing all the social and to some degree ethnic cleansing that is in motion.



The government, comprised as it is of people whose cultural breadth is relatively narrow (I'd also make the same point about new Labour and the Lib-Dems - public school, Oxbridge or Russell Group, bugger all contact with non-political employment), don't even *think* of mixed communities, in my opinion.  The idea of different people co-existing isn't something they want or need to contemplate.
As you say, this facilitates social cleansing (which, as a consequence, also acts as ethnic cleansing in some instances) of the poor and the different in the inner cities (and most especially in London, so far) that is directly beneficial to theose able to afford amped-up property prices (property prices which support the economy by balancing everything on Osborne's property bubble, flattering to decieve that the economy isn't still as listless as a dosser after a 7-day binge).



> Do you think the rich want to live next door to poor people. I recently saw a flyer in a shop window in Beaulah hill objecting to a Lidl opening up one of the objections was that the said shop and the customers it attracts would somehow "lower the tone of the area" I would expect that in leafy surrey but not in south London.



That'd be the south London that was home to the original wall down the centre of a road, dividing the posh part of a street from the riff-raff part? 
The whole "lowering the tone" _schtick_ is still used far and wide in the UK.  A dozen or so miles up the road from my folks in north Norfolk is a town called Sheringham, which is somewhat legendary in activist circles for stiff resistance to Tesco putting a supermarket in the town - the original objection was that Tesco would "lower the tone"! 



> So my answer is poor or less well off people are happy to live and share there community but more affluent people are not. There seems to be a belief that if you pay a heap of money for your overpriced home you should be able to choose your neighbours and to some degree your surroundings too.



I'm kind of sanguine about the Nobs segregating themselves. If nothing else, it means that the burglars know whom to target.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> 60% social housing in an area isn't a 'poor ghetto' lacking in social mix is it? Not everyone in that social housing will be poor, and there's still 40% of non-social housing there which is a pretty big percentage.
> 
> ETA: Actually I've added the 'ghetto' - the actual term used was 'zones of rich and poor'. I think the intent is the same tbh but just adding this for accuracy.



To hear some of the Coldharbour and adjacent ward councillors bleat, you'd think that 60% was 100%, and that rather than assuring their safe return at every election, that it was a personal affront to them, to have so many social housing tenants in their wards.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 3, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> Sounds interesting i will look that article up, Enjoy your "few"



Thanks for tip of the articles leanderman 

Here with radical solution- use increased productivity to free people from work. 

And here more detail on reduction on share of GDP for workforces across the world.

Though weakening of power of labour vs capital since Thatcher / Reagan is thought by some to have played a bigger role than Economist say here. That there has been a redistribution of wealth upwards. So decreasing the % that workers ( that is most of us) get.


----------



## boohoo (Nov 3, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> . Do you think the rich want to live next door to poor people. I recently saw a flyer in a shop window in Beaulah hill objecting to a Lidl opening up one of the objections was that the said shop and the customers it attracts would somehow "lower the tone of the area"


The lady in the bakery was telling me a bit more about it. Over the years the small diversity of shops and community have disappeared - there are about 4 or 5 shops to rent up there in the little estate agents. Lidl would mark the end of any new business moving into the area. It's unlikely to become the home of trendy boutique shops and cafes because it's too off the beaten track. Lidl would also cause potential traffic problems. As for the issue of lowering the tone, I think that's an attempt to try and get a few more people on board - those who might worry about the value of their home decreasing ( not that I could really see that happening).


----------



## SarfLondoner (Nov 4, 2013)

boohoo said:


> The lady in the bakery was telling me a bit more about it. Over the years the small diversity of shops and community have disappeared - there are about 4 or 5 shops to rent up there in the little estate agents. Lidl would mark the end of any new business moving into the area. It's unlikely to become the home of trendy boutique shops and cafes because it's too off the beaten track. Lidl would also cause potential traffic problems. As for the issue of lowering the tone, I think that's an attempt to try and get a few more people on board - those who might worry about the value of their home decreasing ( not that I could really see that happening).


The flyer i saw was saying lidl would attract street drinkers and alcoholics who come to buy cheap booze, It also says a lidl is not in keeping with the local area. It never mentioned the effect it may have on local buisness nor did it mention traffic problems. I was in crystal palace today and noticed 4 estate agents ( 1 being a foxtons). It is quite obvious that gentrification is in motion and the nimby attitude has already reared it's ugly head.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 4, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> The flyer i saw was saying lidl would attract street drinkers and alcoholics who come to buy cheap booze


They might buy cheap booze in Lidl - but not up to the requisite strength. Lidl only have own-brand "super" for special occasions like 2 weeks before Christmas - and then it's only a measly 8.4% abv!


----------



## SarfLondoner (Nov 4, 2013)

CH1 said:


> They might buy cheap booze in Lidl - but not up to the requisite strength. Lidl only have own-brand "super" for special occasions like 2 weeks before Christmas - and then it's only a measly 8.4% abv!


If sainburys or waitrose moved in the local snobs wouldnt give a fuck. Its not about booze its about the brand. Tarquin couldnt possibly tell his friends he lives opposite or above a lidl it would cause outrage.


----------



## editor (Nov 4, 2013)

Nowt wrong with Lidl, or Iceland for that matter.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 4, 2013)

editor said:


> Nowt wrong with Lidl, or Iceland for that matter.


We've got those. We want an Aldi - on the former icerink!


----------



## TruXta (Nov 4, 2013)

CH1 said:


> We've got those. We want an Aldi - on the former icerink!


Lidl is better IME. Altho the difference is small.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Nov 4, 2013)

Netto was good too, but seems to have vanished. Doe's anyone remember kwik save? It took over the tesco when they moved to Acre lane.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 4, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Lidl is better IME. Altho the difference is small.



Wrong! Better wine in Aldi!!


----------



## TruXta (Nov 4, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Wrong! Better wine in Aldi!!


I don't buy wine in either so I wouldn't know really.


----------



## boohoo (Nov 4, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> If sainburys or waitrose moved in the local snobs wouldnt give a fuck. Its not about booze its about the brand. Tarquin couldnt possibly tell his friends he lives opposite or above a lidl it would cause outrage.



Do you live around crown point? Or do you have lots of friends this way?

I'm not quite sure why we are cheering on the plans for Lidl - I suppose it's slightly better than Tesco because their revenue is only 6 billion less than Tesco. And they are not cheaper than Tesco's value range - I've done the price comparison.

And I am aware that sometimes the cheap item is better quality (whole threads about this on moneysavingexpert).

If people want to shop at Lidl, there is one at Norbury and Streatham.


----------



## boohoo (Nov 4, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> I was in crystal palace today and noticed 4 estate agents ( 1 being a foxtons). It is quite obvious that gentrification is in motion and the nimby attitude has already reared it's ugly head.



The Foxtons is new. They are putting their fingers in every possible pie. Gentrification of Crystal Palace has been happening for a long time.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 4, 2013)

boohoo said:


> The Foxtons is new. They are putting their fingers in every possible pie. Gentrification of Crystal Palace has been happening for a long time.



They are planning dozens of new branches. Nowhere will be immune.


----------



## boohoo (Nov 4, 2013)

leanderman said:


> They are planning dozens of new branches. Nowhere will be immune.



Norbury? Thornton Heath?


----------



## boy about town (Nov 4, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> A better question would be, who has a financial interest?


 
But the original question of your own personal interest (your words), remains unanswered .


----------



## SarfLondoner (Nov 4, 2013)

boohoo said:


> Do you live around crown point? Or do you have lots of friends this way?
> 
> I'm not quite sure why we are cheering on the plans for Lidl - I suppose it's slightly better than Tesco because their revenue is only 6 billion less than Tesco. And they are not cheaper than Tesco's value range - I've done the price comparison.
> 
> ...


No i dont live around crown point and im not " cheering on the plans for Lidl". I pointed out that there was a campaign to oppose one opening, the reasons for that was it would attract alcoholics and undesirables and it would lower the tone of the neighbourhood. My original post is #272 it was a reponse to a question i was asked.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Nov 4, 2013)

boy about town said:


> But the original question of your own personal interest (your words), remains unanswered .



I endorsed Post #265 with a "like", I'm sorry if that was too subtle for you.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 4, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> Netto was good too, but seems to have vanished. Doe's anyone remember kwik save? It took over the tesco when they moved to Acre lane.


Netto nationally was bought by Asda - and closed (at least in Peckham and Mitcham).
Kwik Save (as a national enterprise) merged with Somerfield which then merged with the Co-op. Say no more.
Kwik Save in Brixton market was shut down because the lease ran out and Network Rail, or whatever it was at the time were unreasonably greedy in their requirement for an "inflation increase".


----------



## Ms T (Nov 4, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Wrong! Better wine in Aldi!!



And Halfords/Currys is obviously the perfect site.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 5, 2013)

Ms T said:


> And Halfords/Currys is obviously the perfect site.


What makes you think that Halfords/Currys are giving up the ghost?


----------



## boohoo (Nov 5, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> No i dont live around crown point and im not " cheering on the plans for Lidl". I pointed out that there was a campaign to oppose one opening, the reasons for that was it would attract alcoholics and undesirables and it would lower the tone of the neighbourhood. My original post is #272 it was a reponse to a question i was asked.



It seems to be a bit of a nutty local story with two warring factions of a residents association, one supporting and one opposing the lidl:

http://uppernorwoodra.wordpress.com/
http://uppernorwoodresidentsassociation.wordpress.com/

There are street drinkers up here already. The neighbourhood is not posh though there are pockets of very expensive houses. You pass quite a lot of judgment on the area so I presumed you must know it very well. 

Anti-Lidl campaign happened in Stockwell too.


----------



## Ms T (Nov 5, 2013)

CH1 said:


> What makes you think that Halfords/Currys are giving up the ghost?



Nothing!  I live in hope....


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 5, 2013)

CH1 said:


> What makes you think that Halfords/Currys are giving up the ghost?


 
In my experience of that branch of Currys you could turn up, dismantle the building brick by brick and build an Aldi in its place before any of the staff would say anything to you.


----------



## clandestino (Nov 5, 2013)

Ms T said:


> Nothing!  I live in hope....



We've got plenty of supermarkets. As annoying as Currys is, it's still useful.


----------



## clandestino (Nov 5, 2013)

So does anyone have any idea what's happening with the planning decision for the Canterbury Arms? Is there any way we can find out how it's all progressing/what the delay is?


----------



## SarfLondoner (Nov 5, 2013)

boohoo said:


> It seems to be a bit of a nutty local story with two warring factions of a residents association, one supporting and one opposing the lidl:
> 
> http://uppernorwoodra.wordpress.com/
> http://uppernorwoodresidentsassociation.wordpress.com/
> ...


The flyer in the shops at crown point only mention street drinkers and lidl not being suitable for such an area. It didn't mention any other objections. I can only comment on what i read at the time,thanks for the further detail you have posted.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 5, 2013)

clandestino said:


> So does anyone have any idea what's happening with the planning decision for the Canterbury Arms? Is there any way we can find out how it's all progressing/what the delay is?


Try ringing planning.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 5, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> In my experience of that branch of Currys you could turn up, dismantle the building brick by brick and build an Aldi in its place before any of the staff would say anything to you.


It was dire but seems to have been lots better very recently - although I base that on two visits, so take it with a pinch of salt.


----------



## boy about town (Nov 5, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> I endorsed Post #265 with a "like", I'm sorry if that was too subtle for you.


 
Oh I see, Rushy has answered on your behalf, suppose that's the best we'll get, very subtle indeed


----------



## han (Nov 5, 2013)

clandestino said:
			
		

> We've got plenty of supermarkets. As annoying as Currys is, it's still useful.



Useful? It's the worst shop in the universe. Far better going to Maplin in Streatham, where the staff a) acknowledge you and b) have a clue what they're talking about. 

I'd love it if Currys turned into a massive Waitrose. 

;-)


----------



## colacubes (Nov 5, 2013)

Yeah wouldn't it be fantastic if we had another supermarket in Brixton.  Cos we're definitely not short of them at the moment.


----------



## han (Nov 5, 2013)

I was joking, hence the winky!

And trying to express just how crap that Curry's is.


----------



## clandestino (Nov 5, 2013)

han said:


> Useful? It's the worst shop in the universe. Far better going to Maplin in Streatham, where the staff a) acknowledge you and b) have a clue what they're talking about.
> ;-)



I know Currys are rubbish, generally, but I haven't had too bad a time in the Brixton one. And the staff were helpful enough on the visits I made this year. It feels like they've improved a bit over the last few years...


----------



## han (Nov 6, 2013)

Really? That's good, then. 

I stopped going about 10 years ago, when I reserved something online that they had in stock, for a Xmas present, and they couldn't find it . And just for their consistent, regular general crapness. 

Good to hear they've improved! 

Personally, I prefer buying electronic goods online these days, or from Maplin.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2013)

han said:


> Useful? It's the worst shop in the universe. Far better going to Maplin in Streatham, where the staff a) acknowledge you and b) have a clue what they're talking about.
> 
> I'd love it if Currys turned into a massive Waitrose.
> 
> ;-)



Also, IME if you phone a branch of Maplin to check whether they've got something in stock, then they'll hold it for you in your name if you ask.  Currys won't, and if they do, they'll sell it if someone asks for that item before you can get there to pick it up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2013)

han said:


> Really? That's good, then.
> 
> I stopped going about 10 years ago, when I reserved something online that they had in stock, for a Xmas present, and they couldn't find it .



Pretty much standard for Sir Stanley's retail outlets.



> And just for their consistent, regular general crapness.
> 
> Good to hear they've improved!
> 
> Personally, I prefer buying electronic goods online these days, or from Maplin.



At least the staff in Maplin don't ambush you, trying to sell you an unnecessary extended warranty, either!


----------



## Rushy (Nov 6, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Also, IME if you phone a branch of Maplin to check whether they've got something in stock, then they'll hold it for you in your name if you ask.  Currys won't, and if they do, they'll sell it if someone asks for that item before you can get there to pick it up.


 Currys allow you to order or reserve online for delivery or collection in store in one hour


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Currys allow you to order or reserve online for delivery or collection in store in one hour



As I said, "IME", and "phone". 
They may offer this service *now*, but the times I've tried to do so pre-them being online (i.e. from the late '70s until the turn of the century) they were shit, whereas Maplin, whom I've used since the late '70s, have *never* let me down when I've reserved by phone.


----------



## clandestino (Nov 6, 2013)

My last visit to Currys about a month ago was to pick up something I'd reserved online that morning. It was all fine...

As I say, I don't think Currys are in any way the best, but it's good to have a choice of places, and of course Currys do washing machines, cookers, household stuff as well, that Maplin don't do. I'd rather have a Currys in that spot than another supermarket.

If we're talking pie in the sky, though, maybe we could replace Currys with a branch of Amoeba. That would be OK.


http://www.amoeba.com/


----------



## Rushy (Nov 6, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> As I said, "IME", and "phone".
> They may offer this service *now*, but the times I've tried to do so pre-them being online (i.e. from the late '70s until the turn of the century) they were shit, whereas Maplin, whom I've used since the late '70s, have *never* let me down when I've reserved by phone.



My mistake. When you said that Currys wont let you order goods for collection in store I foolishly assumed that you were referring to orders placed in the current Millennium.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 6, 2013)

boohoo said:


> Do you live around crown point? Or do you have lots of friends this way?
> 
> I'm not quite sure why we are cheering on the plans for Lidl - I suppose it's slightly better than Tesco because their revenue is only 6 billion less than Tesco. And they are not cheaper than Tesco's value range - I've done the price comparison..



SarfLondoner was not cheering on Lidl. The was pointing of the post was, correctly imo, that if it was a Waitrose there would not be complaints from home owners worried about how it might affect there house prices.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2013)

Rushy said:


> My mistake. When you said that Currys wont let you order goods for collection in store I foolishly assumed that you were referring to orders placed in the current Millennium.



As you say, foolish!


----------



## Rushy (Nov 7, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> As you say, foolish!


Absolutely. And I am delighted that because of these boards your detailed reminiscences of Currys inconsistent phone based in-store collection policy _c._1976 - 1999 will not be forgotten. Respect and peace, VP.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Absolutely. And I am delighted that because of these boards your detailed reminiscences of Currys inconsistent phone based in-store collection policy _c._1976 - 1999 will not be forgotten. Respect and peace, VP.



Oh, I wouldn't say they were inconsistent!
"Uniformly awful" is more like it!


----------



## Rushy (Nov 7, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Oh, I wouldn't say they were inconsistent!
> "Uniformly awful" is more like it!


Do you recall who you spoke to? If you have a name, maybe we could speak to someone and help you achieve some closure.


----------



## clandestino (Nov 18, 2013)

Still no news about the Canterbury Arms. Please sign the petition to save the pub, if you haven't already. You never know, this might be what's slowing everything down...
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/support-the-canterbury-arms-in-brixton.html


----------



## Brixton Brief (Feb 10, 2014)

clandestino said:


> Still no news about the Canterbury Arms. Please sign the petition to save the pub, if you haven't already. You never know, this might be what's slowing everything down...
> http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/support-the-canterbury-arms-in-brixton.html



Do you know if there have been any developments since the petition? Has anyone started the process of getting it listed, or listed as an asset of community value?

Boris has come out and said councils should protect pubs from developers:

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/10983127.Boris_backs_call_to_protect_pubs_from_developers/

How does giving planning to demolish one of very few remaining Victorian pubs in Brixton fit in with that?


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Feb 27, 2014)

****   Update  ****

This is coming up for a decision->
Council’s Planning Applications Committee on 11 March 2014 at 7pm in Room 8, Ground Floor, Lambeth Town Hall,  
Ref:13/03273/FUL


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Feb 27, 2014)

I just got a letter from council which includes the following:

"I can now inform you that the application is due to be considered by the Council’s Planning Applications Committee on 11 March 2014 at 7pm in Room 8, Ground Floor, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW (Acre Lane entrance).

The recommendation for this application is to* Grant Permission*."


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Feb 28, 2014)

Nanker Phelge said:


> The recommendation for this application is to* Grant Permission*."



Missed that bit,  what has the world come to.......


----------



## editor (Feb 28, 2014)

Nanker Phelge said:


> The recommendation for this application is to* Grant Permission*."


----------



## clandestino (Feb 28, 2014)

Full papers at item 6: http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx...
*London Borough of Lambeth | Agenda for Planning Applications Committee on Tuesday 11 March 2014,...*
moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk
Agenda for Planning Applications Committee on Tuesday 11 March 2014, 7.00 pm.


----------



## clandestino (Feb 28, 2014)

Canterbury Hotel, 8 Canterbury Crescent, London, SW9 7QD (Coldharbour Ward) (13/03273/FUL) 
	

 PDF 736 KB

Recommendations:



A. Grant conditional planning permission subject to the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement andr



B. In the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not signed by the determination deadline of 31st March 2014, delegated authority is given to the Assistant Director of Planning and Development to refuse the application on the grounds of lack of mitigation against the direct impact of the development and failure to make a financial contribution to the delivery of infrastructure made necessary by the development or


C. In the event that the committee resolves to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, delegated authority is given to the Assistant Director of Planning and Development, having regard to the Heads of Terms set out in the report, to negotiate and complete a Section 106 agreement with the appellants in order to meet the requirements of the Planning Inspector.


----------



## clandestino (Feb 28, 2014)

That S106 agreement sounds interesting. I wonder what it'll stipulate? I can't remember who on here usually knows about these things. Is it teuchter?


----------



## Crispy (Feb 28, 2014)

Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act allows the council to make the developer take action to mitigate any adverse effects of a development. The agreements can require the developer to provide certain uses on their land, or to prevent others, but usually they're a monetary contribution to council funds, in order to provide the infrastructure/services demanded by the new development. They're very common and pretty much ubiquitous in developments of this scale.


----------



## clandestino (Feb 28, 2014)

Crispy said:


> Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act allows the council to make the developer take action to mitigate any adverse effects of a development. The agreements can require the developer to provide certain uses on their land, or to prevent others, but usually they're a monetary contribution to council funds, in order to provide the infrastructure/services demanded by the new development. They're very common and pretty much ubiquitous in developments of this scale.



I see, thanks Crispy. So it's more likely to be about money rather than stipulating any particular action they have to take in the development. It would be interesting to know for sure though...


----------



## Crispy (Feb 28, 2014)

clandestino said:


> I see, thanks Crispy. So it's more likely to be about money rather than stipulating any particular action they have to take in the development. It would be interesting to know for sure though...


I suspect in this case, there will also be a Condition that applies to the community use of the ground floor. Things like restrictions on street parking can also be covered.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 28, 2014)

Crispy said:


> I suspect in this case, there will also be a Condition that applies to the community use of the ground floor. Things like restrictions on street parking can also be covered.


can't it also be public realm stuff too - eg installing benches, cycle parking, gardens, improving the footways etc?


----------



## Crispy (Feb 28, 2014)

Brixton Hatter said:


> can't it also be public realm stuff too - eg installing benches, cycle parking, gardens, improving the footways etc?


Yep. I'm willing to bet that Lambeth lean towards the money option given their empty wallet.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 28, 2014)

Is there any move to stop it still, or is it basically done now?


----------



## boohoo (Feb 28, 2014)

editor said:


>




This is the same track I put on my facebook when the developers at mauleverer road got the green light for their new build thus removing half of the mural.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 28, 2014)

Crispy said:


> Yep. I'm willing to bet that Lambeth lean towards the money option given their empty wallet.


Yeah…they've done some really poor s106 agreements in the past. When Dick Sheppard was knocked down to build hundreds of flats, all the developer had to do was install a new gate to Brockwell Park from Tulse Hill. Even that took the developer about 6 years to sort out!


----------



## boohoo (Feb 28, 2014)

I'm sure a lot of all this is about providing more housing. One of the key points at the Mauleverer Road planning appeal was that 8 new houses will go towards providing more housing in London. Seem to out weight anything else.


----------



## leanderman (Feb 28, 2014)

boohoo said:


> I'm sure a lot of all this is about providing more housing. One of the key points at the Mauleverer Road planning appeal was that 8 new houses will go towards providing more housing in London. Seem to out weight anything else.



Absolutely. This is the new reality: every non-residential building is up for grabs now.

Even thriving pubs are vulnerable.


----------



## boohoo (Feb 28, 2014)

Interestingly I was reading that 120 years ago they were changing residential to shops as it would make more money!


----------



## leanderman (Mar 1, 2014)

Or, not that long ago, large amounts of Brixton property was deemed just about worthless


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Mar 1, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Or, not that long ago, large amounts of Brixton property was deemed just about worthless



Yep, in the '80s even the Black horse of Lloyds Bank galloped out of Brixton. Much was made of it.
I'm not sure when it really changed, had my mind on other things, maybe late '90s and then it all ramped up several times; each boost more devastating than the last. A treadmill turned escalator that will trip up all.


----------



## boohoo (Mar 1, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Yep, in the '80s even the Black horse of Lloyds Bank galloped out of Brixton. Much was made of it.
> I'm not sure when it really changed, had my mind on other things, maybe late '90s and then it all ramped up several times; each boost more devastating than the last. A treadmill turned escalator that will trip up all.



Sometime in the early to mid-90s. The  moving in of McDonalds, Body Shop and Our price symbolised a return of the high street brands after  they all deserted  after the riots. I also remember Brixton becoming cool, what with it's diversity and places like cooltan - many of my sister's art student friends wanted to move into the area.


----------



## clandestino (Mar 3, 2014)

Just been reading the pdf of the planning proposal. It seems the idea of the ground floor being used as a community space has been shelved, and it will now be a pub or restaurant. That's how they're getting around the objections about the loss of the pub.

http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s64061/06 Canterbury Arms.pdf


----------



## editor (Mar 3, 2014)

The community space idea seemed thoroughly half baked from the start.


----------



## clandestino (Mar 3, 2014)

They were paying lip-service to the idea really to aid the application. The notion of a pub/restaurant on the ground floor is much the same - a way of helping the application go through. I don't see how a pub could operate with nine plus storeys of flats above it. Odds on the ground floor will be flats too eventually...


----------



## editor (Mar 3, 2014)

clandestino said:


> They were paying lip-service to the idea really to aid the application. The notion of a pub/restaurant on the ground floor is much the same - a way of helping the application go through. I don't see how a pub could operate with nine plus storeys of flats above it. Odds on the ground floor will be flats too eventually...


It's called. "Doing a Lexadon."


----------



## boohoo (Mar 3, 2014)

Look how long the space which was the Plough pub in Stockwell has remained out of use and the cinema front in Streatham.


----------



## Winot (Mar 3, 2014)

clandestino said:


> They were paying lip-service to the idea really to aid the application. The notion of a pub/restaurant on the ground floor is much the same - a way of helping the application go through. I don't see how a pub could operate with nine plus storeys of flats above it. Odds on the ground floor will be flats too eventually...


 
Presumably it's more that the flat owners above would complain so they make sure the pub doesn't happen?  Or do the owners make sure it doesn't happen so that they can eventually turn it into flats?


----------



## Scutta (Mar 3, 2014)

Sad met first lot of urban people here at a prod about 7 years a go.....


----------



## editor (Mar 3, 2014)

I've written  a piece on B Buzz. Maybe it'll stir things up a bit.
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/03/...ends-demolishing-the-canterbury-arms-brixton/


----------



## Tufty (Mar 4, 2014)

Hi all, apologies for the post out of the blue. I was just wondering whether anyone was planning to attend Tuesday's meeting to voice against demolition? I am thinking of attending


----------



## Tufty (Mar 5, 2014)

Hi all. Another post on this. I have taken some informal legal advice! Obvious, but as many people as possible need to object to the application via the link: http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli....do?caseType=Application&keyVal=MQHEWTBO02E00

Also the advice is to get as many people as possible to turn up on Tuesday to show their objection. Just having a load of people there, apparently, might make a difference.

I also found out that three objectors are allowed to speak for a MASSIVE TWO WHOLE minutes on Tuesday. So generous of them. No-one has registered yet to speak (you have to register by Tuesday) so I have decided to put my name forward. Would anyone on here also like to speak?

Finally, while talking to the planning department, I mentioned the petition: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/support-the-canterbury-arms-in-brixton/signatures.html They weren’t aware of it. Anyone on here know who runs it and what they are planning to do with it?


----------



## Tufty (Mar 5, 2014)

And I meant to write you have to register by Monday, not Tuesday!  Written objections have to submitted by Noon tomorrow.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Mar 5, 2014)

There's some forthright objections coming in now. I'm happy to go along that night.  Are you able to summarise the objections Tufty? there's some good material in the objections. Let me know if you need a hand. I'll try and contact the petition people.


----------



## Tufty (Mar 5, 2014)

Hmm, well I was going to object on historical grounds but I just spoke to the planning officer who made the recommendation for demolition and she more or less said I was wasting my time as the pub isn't listed. I'm now thinking about saying something else and going to have a really good read of the planning committee papers tonight to work out what would be the best argument... Perhaps argue that the loss of the function room is significant?


----------



## editor (Mar 5, 2014)

I'm not sure if I can make it, but I will give this meeting another push on BrixtonBuzz on Monday (please remind me if it hasn't appeared) and see if I can persuade more folks along. 

I've just added this objection: 



> I object strongly to the loss of the Canterbury Arms which is both a valuable asset to the community as a pub and resource, and also contains striking period detail architecture and internal fittings.
> 
> The building proposed to replace it adds nothing of architectural note to the area, and seeing as it has no provision for parking, will cause further problems for traders who area already struggling after the loss of adjacent car park.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tufty (Mar 5, 2014)

I should probably add, that I'm basically happy to object in any way, as long as the pub isn't pulled down!


----------



## editor (Mar 5, 2014)

There's some excellent comments on the Lambeth planning site. I'll try and write something tonight and include some.


----------



## Tufty (Mar 5, 2014)

A quick glance through the Committe Meeting paperwork (available here http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=600&MId=8694&Ver=4 Item 6) it does appear that they were a bit unhappy about the lack of social housing, if someone lives in the immediate area (I don't) could they object on these lines? The developer have said that the project will be uneconomical if they have to include anymore social housing, so if we could force them to then just maybe...


----------



## editor (Mar 5, 2014)

Tufty said:


> A quick glance through the Committe Meeting paperwork (available here http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=600&MId=8694&Ver=4 Item 6) it does appear that they were a bit unhappy about the lack of social housing, if someone lives in the immediate area (I don't) could they object on these lines? The developer have said that the project will be uneconomical if they have to include anymore social housing, so if we could force them to then just maybe...


"Any more" social housing? As far as I know, there is zero social housing, just this 'affordable' bollocks.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 5, 2014)

editor said:


> "Any more" social housing? As far as I know, there is zero social housing, just this 'affordable' bollocks.


As far as I can see there are 5 affordable units out of 32 total. 3 will be for affordable rent and 2 for shared ownership. Similar story to Brixton Square really - except that in Brixton Square some of the "affordable" units were large ones. In this development there are only 1,2 and 3 bedroom flats - and the 3 bedroom ones are all private. More social cleansing I'm afraid - and no more social rent - ever by the look of it.


----------



## Tufty (Mar 5, 2014)

Anyone know the current floor space of the pub? The proposal is to include "The ground floor would consist of 162m2 A3/A4 floor space", i.e. a pub or cafe. Could argue that's too small for the community, considering the size of the current function area in the Canterbury Arms?


----------



## Tufty (Mar 5, 2014)

And yes, you are right: I mistook "affordable" for actually meaning "affordable". God, this is nonsense.


----------



## Tufty (Mar 5, 2014)

Editor: can you email me the pictures you used on Brixton Buzz or any other useful pics / stats you might have? I might use it to put together a report tomorrow night on the pubs historical value and email it to the planning office... I'm no specialist, but any report is better than no report!


----------



## editor (Mar 5, 2014)

Tufty said:


> Editor: can you email me the pictures you used on Brixton Buzz or any other useful pics / stats you might have? I might use it to put together a report tomorrow night on the pubs historical value and email it to the planning office... I'm no specialist, but any report is better than no report!


You can just grab them off the Buzz site - http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/tag/canterbury-arms-2/


----------



## Tufty (Mar 5, 2014)

Thanks. If you don't mind, I will do and pinch some of what you've said


----------



## editor (Mar 5, 2014)

Tufty said:


> Thanks. If you don't mind, I will do and pinch some of what you've said


If you think it might help, go for it!


----------



## Tufty (Mar 5, 2014)

Thanks. I am willing to try anything... you never know...


----------



## editor (Mar 7, 2014)

I've given it one last push: 
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/03/your-last-chance-to-save-the-canterbury-arms-in-brixton/


----------



## Tufty (Mar 7, 2014)

Super. Fingers crossed... I don't hold out much hope for Tues, but trying is better than doing nothing...


----------



## boy about town (Mar 7, 2014)

Tufty said:


> Hi all. Another post on this. I have taken some informal legal advice! Obvious, but as many people as possible need to object to the application via the link: http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli....do?caseType=Application&keyVal=MQHEWTBO02E00
> 
> Also the advice is to get as many people as possible to turn up on Tuesday to show their objection. Just having a load of people there, apparently, might make a difference.
> 
> ...


 I stated the petition up, been out of the loop lately, happy to forward any details on, I have emailed you.


----------



## clandestino (Mar 11, 2014)

*Lambeth Democracy* ‏@*LBLDemocracy*  7m
#*Lambeth* PAC has agreed to demolition of Canterbury Hotel & redevelopment of site. #*Coldharbour*. Details http://ow.ly/usDyC


----------



## Tufty (Mar 11, 2014)

I'm sorry, I tried so hard. I'm sorry.


----------



## clandestino (Mar 11, 2014)

Tufty said:


> I'm sorry, I tried so hard. I'm sorry.



Thanks for trying. What did they say at the hearing?


----------



## Tufty (Mar 12, 2014)

I was given a timed 2 mins to argue the case. So I did some internet research and quoted Lambeth Council's own policies about safeguarding historic buildings in the area / pubs / the cultural environment of Brixton etc. etc. blah. blah., but there were other things in place which rendered those arguments pointless in the eyes of the law (the CA could, apparently, be legally converted into a Tesco's anyway regardless of the outcome tonight or be legally demolished, regardless of how likely these arguments are). Thus the planning department told the councilors they had to vote against, even though all six expressed various regrets, as if they didn't, they could face an expensive appeal, plus they didn't really have a legal leg to stand on. Thus four councilors voted for the demolition, all said it was regrettable. One voted against and one abstained. The "best" thing to come out of the meeting was that three councilors argued what the policies regarding pub / building protection are actually for if they don't work in practice, and it was agreed that they would look into this - but then, what's the point? That seems a little too late for me. They also said that they would "try" to keep the fixtures and fittings from the Canterbury Arms and offer them for use elsewhere (the ridiculousness of this counter-argument got some laughs, at least). Regarding the lack of proper affordable housing, they again said that this had been considered and was OK in the eyes of the law.


----------



## Tufty (Mar 12, 2014)

Sorry, I was going to come down to the pub tonight but I was too upset so went home and ate chocolate instead. See you soon before D-day and sorry again for failing.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 12, 2014)

Mango Landin' next up


----------



## editor (Mar 12, 2014)

Disgraceful.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Mar 12, 2014)

Shameful,  Thanks Tufty for your report. It would've been hard for the planning officers to come up with a different recommendation which begs the question.....


----------



## editor (Mar 12, 2014)

I've posted up an article here, complete with the text of Tufty's submission. I'm so fucking pissed off with this. 
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/03/...yes-to-the-demolition-of-the-canterbury-arms/


----------



## Rushy (Mar 12, 2014)

Blimey Tufty . I read your submission on the buzz page. Really good. Well done.


----------



## editor (Mar 12, 2014)

*aside
There's also petition to save Cressingham Gardens from nu-Lambeth. Please sign it.
More info here: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/03/...ockwell-park-south-london-video-and-petition/


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 12, 2014)

Bad news about the pub, I think that part of town will be a bit of a hotspot for change in the coming years but then where isnt....
..on a related note I was talking to someone from the local labour party and he said they were a bit worried that the demographic changes
might have an adverse effect on the labour vote especially in marginal wards, on the other hand there was a fella on radio london
the other day who had been to a property fair in hong kong and his pov was that a lot of this demand for new build is coming from chinese
people and corporates, they specifically want new build as they dont want to be arsed with maintenance etc because these are basically investments to be
offloaded at some point and they buy off plan as they arent actually going to live in them, in fact in a lot of cases noone is going to live in them.
the london estate agents are not exactly discouraging this cos it's all money in the bank so even if councillors are uncertain its hard to imagine they
have much clout when so much potential earnings are there to be had..........


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 12, 2014)

[QUOTE="
..on a related note I was talking to someone from the local labour party and he said they were a bit worried that the demographic changes
might have an adverse effect on the labour vote especially in marginal wards[/QUOTE]

I'd be very surprised if that was the case for the Brixton wards. Yes, a more affluent electorate is moving in, but then the Comrades of Lambeth Labour aren't exactly reds under the bed. That's the whole part of the Lambeth Nu Labour project - to appeal to the middle ground. If anything then a possible concern might be the loss of the 'traditional' Labour vote due to alienation.

But what's the alternative?

The reality is that *any* form of opposition in Lambeth is piss poor. The numbers simply don't stack up to stand up to Labour.

...it is amusing / WORRYING to watch the demographic changes over in Clapham etc actually have an impact. Labour's Ruth Ling lost her Clapham Common seat back in 2010 to the Tories. Really can't see this effect drifting down Acre Lane. Clapham is a BONKERS level of gentrification altogether.


----------



## Tufty (Mar 12, 2014)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Shameful,  Thanks Tufty for your report. It would've been hard for the planning officers to come up with a different recommendation which begs the question.....



Yes, it does indeed beg the question. The councillors basically said what's the point in their policies if they had to vote them down. It was so frustrating because none of them appeared to want to demolish the pub, but they had no choice. The whole thing was a sham, but I'm still glad I spoke out so I could show them that. 



Rushy said:


> Blimey Tufty . I read your submission on the buzz page. Really good. Well done.



Thanks. I was really upset last night so it's nice to know other people think I did a good job in the circumstances. 



editor said:


> I've posted up an article here, complete with the text of Tufty's submission. I'm so fucking pissed off with this.
> http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/03/...yes-to-the-demolition-of-the-canterbury-arms/



God, me too.



cuppa tee said:


> Bad news about the pub, I think that part of town will be a bit of a hotspot for change in the coming years but then where isnt....



I agree. If you look at the drawings, they have a wall with no windows, which implies they will soon be building right up next to it...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2014)

editor said:


> *aside
> There's also petition to save Cressingham Gardens from nu-Lambeth. Please sign it.
> More info here: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/03/...ockwell-park-south-london-video-and-petition/



You know how Lambeth have spouted the _schtick_ about Cressingham being uneconomic to repair?
We had a surveyor call yesterday (he's doing the whole estate, property by property), wanting to know about water penetration, damp etc. He's so far been shocked that few of the properties are in as bad a state as Lambeth have made out (most of the bad'uns are ground floor and were either given faulty damp-proof membranes when built, or have been fucked by tree roots and/or poor drainage). The thing he's apparently had most complaints about are the 40-yr old front doors, and the fact that 40-year old wood that wasn't prepped well when made into doors tends to get a bit soft and shite over time. 

I'm going to be very interested in the results of the surveys.  *If* Lambeth publish them, that is.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 12, 2014)

Tufty said:


> I agree. If you look at the drawings, they have a wall with no windows, which implies they will soon be building right up next to it...


That's just "overlooking" - you can't have windows right on the boundary of your neighbour's property.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 12, 2014)

Crispy said:


> That's just "overlooking" - you can't have windows right on the boundary of your neighbour's property.


I thought that on the boundary you could install windows as long as they were obscure and fixed below 1.7m (but you have no right to light so your neighbour can still build a fence or another building over it so presumably cannot count as main windows for planning).
BC limits the opening to 1sqm every 4m of wall on or within 1m of boundary (unless the two windows are fire isolated from eachother internally).
I've been looking into this a bit recently for an old workshop with no ground floor windows but it is a little confusing*.

*ETA Or more accurately, _I_ am finding it a little confusing.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 12, 2014)

tl;dr 


(sounds about right)


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 12, 2014)

Tricky Skills said:


> I'd be very surprised if that was the case for the Brixton wards. Yes, a more affluent electorate is moving in, but then the Comrades of Lambeth Labour aren't exactly reds under the bed. That's the whole part of the Lambeth Nu Labour project - to appeal to the middle ground. If anything then a possible concern might be the loss of the 'traditional' Labour vote due to alienation.
> 
> But what's the alternative?
> 
> ...



By strange coincidence the conversation I was talking about took place in Clapham, the gentleman in question was out canvassing for the May council elections, he said he was out early because they were worried about whch way Clapham Old Town was going.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 12, 2014)

Crispy said:


> tl;dr


That wasn't really very long. Your lamentable attention span puts you a good few years younger than me!


----------



## Rushy (Mar 12, 2014)

I was a bit surprised to read this article last year. I assumed that the youth vote was quite left wing on the whole:

_Young people are supposed to be left-leaning idealists, but polls tell us that today's under-34s don't believe in handouts and high taxes – and they're voting for David Cameron
_​Incidentally, where has the quotes button gone?


----------



## Crispy (Mar 12, 2014)

Rushy said:


> That wasn't really very long. Your lamentable attention span puts you a good few years younger than me!


I play the newborn baby sleep deprivation card 


Rushy said:


> Incidentally, where has the quotes button gone?


"Reply" quotes just the one post.
"+Quote" adds the post to a list of quotes that pops up when you go to "Insert Quotes" under the reply box.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 12, 2014)

Crispy said:


> I play the newborn baby sleep deprivation card
> 
> "Reply" quotes just the one post.
> "+Quote" adds the post to a list of quotes that pops up when you go to "Insert Quotes" under the reply box.



I mean the one in the top bar so you can wrap quotes around things. It looked like a speech bubble.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 12, 2014)

We can at least have a big party.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 12, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I mean the one in the top bar so you can wrap quotes around things. It looked like a speech bubble.


The button to the right of Smiley, Image, Media, is now a drop-down that lets you add a Quote, Spoiler, Code or a Strikethrough format


----------



## Rushy (Mar 12, 2014)

Crispy said:


> The button to the right of Smiley, Image, Media, is now a drop-down that lets you add a Quote, Spoiler, Code or a Strikethrough format


Cheers. Boffin.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 12, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I was a bit surprised to read this article last year. I assumed that the youth vote was quite left wing on the whole:
> 
> _Young people are supposed to be left-leaning idealists, but polls tell us that today's under-34s don't believe in handouts and high taxes – and they're voting for David Cameron
> _​Incidentally, where has the quotes button gone?



Also surprised by the number of right-wing young people I meet. 

Maybe their cynicism comes in part from university fees, the prospect of a life of high rent, zero-hours contracts etc


----------



## happyshopper (Mar 12, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Also surprised by the number of right-wing young people I meet.



This might say more about the people you meet than it does about the political opinions of young people. Opinion polls show consistently that younger age groups are more inclined to vote Labour - see for example the results of yesterday's YouGov poll here


----------



## Winot (Mar 12, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Also surprised by the number of right-wing young people I meet.
> 
> Maybe their cynicism comes in part from university fees, the prospect of a life of high rent, zero-hours contracts etc



It's possible the young people you meet are right wing because they have the resources to live in Brixton.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 12, 2014)

happyshopper said:


> This might say more about the people you meet than it does about the political opinions of young people. Opinion polls show consistently that younger age groups are more inclined to vote Labour - see for example the results of yesterday's YouGov poll here



I'm not saying it's a lot - I am surprised it is any.

If you are not left-ish when young, there is something wrong with you


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Mar 12, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I'm not saying it's a lot - I am surprised it is any.
> 
> If you are not left-ish when young, there is something wrong with you



If you're not left wing when you are older there is something wrong with you. 

There is nothing left wing about Labour, they never were a socialist party. Tony Benn will tell you that.


----------



## technical (Mar 13, 2014)

Part of the problem is that the current huge demand for housing is skewing land values so that many other uses offer small returns in comparison - seems like the Canterbury is a viable business but turning it into residential units wins hands down, particularly when current planning policy is biased towards housing. 

I admire Tufty's efforts - but as the Canterbury isn't actually a listed building in planning policy terms it can't be regarded as a heritage asset unfortunately. 

Another one bites the dust.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 13, 2014)

technical said:


> Part of the problem is that the current huge demand for housing is skewing land values so that many other uses offer small returns in comparison.



Exactly. 

Even commercial buildings on the Strand are being converted into flats.


----------



## technical (Mar 13, 2014)

I feel for the staff at Lambeth council (and to an extent the councillors). They may feel genuinely that the Canterbury shouldn't go, but in many ways their hands are tied. 

Similarly, with the plans for Cressingham Gardens (which I'm very much against) the Council is in a cleft stick - their funding from Government has gone south, they desperately need money to invest in their housing - and at the same time the value of the land presents them with a potential opportunity to be able to do it. I don't know what they should do - just hope they can find a solution that keeps the residents in their homes while protecting what is an outstanding piece of social housing architecture.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 13, 2014)

technical said:


> <snip>Similarly, with the plans for Cressingham Gardens (which I'm very much against) the Council is in a cleft stick - their funding from Government has gone south, they desperately need money to invest in their housing - and at the same time the value of the land presents them with a potential opportunity to be able to do it. I don't know what they should do - just hope they can find a solution that keeps the residents in their homes while protecting what is an outstanding piece of social housing architecture.


FYI A lot of the estate is in nowhere near as bad a state of repair as the council has made out.  Only this fortnight, I've been informed on two separate occasions by an official that the leaseholder of this flat (which can only mean my husband or me, and that's inaccurate in itself, because we're tenants, not leaseholders) had written that the pointing has gone and is causing damp problems.

Lies - we've had no such form and said no such thing - because of where this flat is, neither of us can see the pointing all the way around the flat, still less in the bit where damp was a problem (caused by a unsealed wall joined onto a sloping roof - now sealed from the inside by us).

A lot of the repairs and maintenance issues are minor and could be sorted out far more readily than temporarily decanting (FFS where on earth to?) people off the estate or forcing us to live on the edge of a building site.


----------



## editor (Mar 13, 2014)

So the nu-Labour members of the committee - Jennifer Braithwaite, Jane Edbrooke, Mark Harrison and Diana Morris - were all for smashing the pub to smithereens, with Liberal Dem Cllr Brian Palmer the lone voice voting against. Cllr Jeremy Clyne abstaining.

That said they've so little power these days, it probably doesn't matter what they vote for but they could at least have been seen to put up a fight.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 13, 2014)

editor said:


> So the nu-Labour members of the committee - Jennifer Braithwaite, Jane Edbrooke, Mark Harrison and Diana Morris - were all for smashing the pub to smithereens, with Liberal Dem Cllr Brian Palmer the lone voice voting against. Cllr Jeremy Clyne abstaining.
> 
> That said they've so little power these days, it probably doesn't matter what they vote for but they could at least have been seen to put up a fight.



Globalism - as in the free movement of people and money - is eating this city up.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Mar 13, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Globalism - as in the free movement of people and money - is eating this city up.



It's really just the free movement of capital, people are being contained, chained in economic ghettos. When they do move it's because they are pushed, shunted into a siding, unseen.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 13, 2014)

editor said:


> So the nu-Labour members of the committee - Jennifer Braithwaite, Jane Edbrooke, Mark Harrison and Diana Morris - were all for smashing the pub to smithereens, with Liberal Dem Cllr Brian Palmer the lone voice voting against. Cllr Jeremy Clyne abstaining.
> 
> That said they've so little power these days, it probably doesn't matter what they vote for but they could at least have been seen to put up a fight.


To be fair - they have a responsibility to not waste money. They will have seen countless applications turned down at committee and overturned at appeal. A planner friend of mine told me it costs around £15K every time a basic appeal is lost. So if the advice from planning is "we'd love to keep it but we have absolutely no argument in law to protect it" it is nothing but political posturing at the tax payers expense to object. I'm not a labour fan - but the Lib Dems  have nothing to lose by objecting and plenty to gain by being seen to do so.


----------



## editor (Mar 13, 2014)

Rushy said:


> To be fair - they have a responsibility to not waste money. They will have seen countless applications turned down at committee and overturned at appeal. A planner friend of mine told me it costs around £15K every time a basic appeal is lost. So if the advice from planning is "we'd love to keep it but we have absolutely no argument in law to protect it" it is nothing but political posturing at the tax payers expense to object. I'm not a labour fan - but the Lib Dems  have nothing to lose by objecting and plenty to gain by being seen to do so.


I think they could have got a point across without _all four of them_ saying yes to demolition. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't recall any of them expressing any interest in saving the pub at any point.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 13, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> It's really just the free movement of capital, people are being contained, chained in economic ghettos. When they do move it's because they are pushed, shunted into a siding, unseen.



Not sure that is the the case with, for example, the half million Poles who have settled here since 2001.


----------



## editor (Mar 13, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Not sure that is the the case with, for example, the half million Poles who have settled here since 2001.


Why do you think they moved here in the first place?


----------



## Rushy (Mar 13, 2014)

editor said:


> I think they could have got a point across without _all four of them_ saying yes to demolition. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't recall any of them expressing any interest in saving the pub at any point.


I thought Tufty mentioned them all saying it was regrettable? If all four had objected it would have gone to appeal and cost a load of cash, despite having been strongly advised by experts that in planning terms it is a no hoper. Taking a stance would be fun for an expensive moment or two.
There has been pretty limited "outrage" from the public, IMO.

Tufty were many members of the public there for that particular item?


----------



## Rushy (Mar 13, 2014)

editor said:


> Why do you think they moved here in the first place?


Because some of their chains were removed?


----------



## leanderman (Mar 13, 2014)

editor said:


> Why do you think they moved here in the first place?



Better life I guess. And good luck to them.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Mar 13, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Because some of their chains were removed?



Because they were shunted. Just as hundreds of thousands were shunted across America in the 1930's along Route 66 to the promised land of California. One day the capitalist class will be forced to drink the juice from the grapes of working class wrath. I'd like to serve it to them in their own poisoned chalice.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 13, 2014)

editor said:


> Why do you think they moved here in the first place?


A far better chance of employment, combined with the very weak zloty meaning that even a fiver sent home would buy far more than if it was spent on relatives here.  The unemployment situation's bad in the UK, but it was a lot worse in Poland about 8 years ago, even for highly qualified and educated people.


Dexter Deadwood said:


> Because they were shunted.


Effectively, yes.  the maths of it goes something like this:  If you can endure 8-10 years in the UK, you'll be able to salt away enough money to buy your own house in Poland when you go back.  Of course, that overlooks what often happens.  In 8-10 years, you make new friends, get to like the place you've moved to, and end up deciding that much as your old place will always feel like home, there's no way that you can move back.


----------



## editor (Mar 13, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Because some of their chains were removed?


Do you think they would have moved out of their country and left their friends and family by choice, or do you think perhaps it may have been an economic imperative that was forced upon them?


----------



## Rushy (Mar 13, 2014)

editor said:


> Do you think they would have moved out of their country and left their friends and family by choice, or do you think perhaps it may have been an economic imperative that was forced upon them?


I think many would have moved earlier if they had not been effectively chained there. The removal of those chains allowed people to move to find work. As Greebo  says - many sent money back home, quite rapidly improving the economic situation there - even though it still has a long way to go. I work a lot with a hard nosed Pole who almost weeps when he talks about the overwhelming oppressiveness there before joining the EU, how pleased he was to be able to come here to earn money and how happy he is that his son can now choose to live in Poland and have a decent career - something that would not have been possible even 10 years ago.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Mar 13, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I think many would have moved earlier if they had not been effectively chained there. The removal of those chains allowed people to move to find work. As Greebo  says - many sent money back home, quite rapidly improving the economic situation there - even though it still has a long way to go. I work a lot with a hard nosed Pole who almost weeps when he talks about the overwhelming oppressiveness there before joining the EU, how pleased he was to be able to come here to earn money and how happy he is that his son can now choose to live in Poland and have a decent career - something that would not have been possible even 10 years ago.



Thatcher is often given credit for that while she set about waging war against the working class in this country. It didn't take long for the Poles to realise they weren't free, the misery they suffered was a direct result of economic restructuring, the shock doctrine of neo liberalism, the IMF, the World Bank and the cheerleaders of the Chicago School of Economics and Thatcher.


----------



## Belushi (Mar 13, 2014)

While the shock therapy following the collapse of the Communist regime was sever and unecessary the Polish economy was fucked long before then - in fact Solidarnosc and the events of 1989 were at least in part a reaction to the dire state of the economy.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 13, 2014)

Belushi said:


> While the shock therapy following the collapse of the Communist regime was sever and unecessary the Polish economy was fucked long before then - in fact Solidarnosc and the events of 1989 were at least in part a reaction to the dire state of the economy.


One of my best mates at school was a Solidarinosc supporting Pole who insisted on wearing his badge every day despite regularly having it confiscated (no religious or political kit - etc..). He was livid about authoritarianism in the The People's Republic of Poland and the government's violent and economic oppression  of people, his friends, his family.  I'm not going to pretend that I know much about it - but his fierce and sincere support has left a permanent impression.


----------



## Tufty (Mar 13, 2014)

Rushy said:


> To be fair - they have a responsibility to not waste money. They will have seen countless applications turned down at committee and overturned at appeal. A planner friend of mine told me it costs around £15K every time a basic appeal is lost. So if the advice from planning is "we'd love to keep it but we have absolutely no argument in law to protect it" it is nothing but political posturing at the tax payers expense to object. I'm not a labour fan - but the Lib Dems  have nothing to lose by objecting and plenty to gain by being seen to do so.





Rushy said:


> I thought Tufty mentioned them all saying it was regrettable? If all four had objected it would have gone to appeal and cost a load of cash, despite having been strongly advised by experts that in planning terms it is a no hoper. Taking a stance would be fun for an expensive moment or two.
> There has been pretty limited "outrage" from the public, IMO.
> 
> Tufty were many members of the public there for that particular item?



Rushy, you’re absolutely right. They all made various noises asking whether it was possible to vote against demolition, particularly the male councillor, whose names I forgot. The two women both criticised the proposed building; both wanted to keep the Canterbury Arms, but the planners said, by law, it wasn’t possible as the pub could be demolished / changed into a Tesco’s perfectly legally without planning permission, and this negated my counter-arguments about their other policies. There were about 20 or so members of the public there for the Canterbury Arms (they had a show of hands at the start, that’s how I know).


----------



## Belushi (Mar 13, 2014)

Rushy said:


> One of my best mates at school was a Solidarinosc supporting Pole who insisted on wearing his badge every day despite regularly having it confiscated (no religious or political kit - etc..). He was livid about authoritarianism in the The People's Republic of Poland and the government's violent and economic oppression  of people, his friends, his family.  I'm not going to pretend that I know much about it - but his fierce and sincere support has left a permanent impression.


 
One of my mates was an officer in the military coup


----------



## leanderman (Mar 13, 2014)

My only glimpse behind the Iron Curtain was in 'showcase' East Berlin in 1988. Very grey.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2014)

technical said:


> I feel for the staff at Lambeth council (and to an extent the councillors). They may feel genuinely that the Canterbury shouldn't go, but in many ways their hands are tied.
> 
> Similarly, with the plans for Cressingham Gardens (which I'm very much against) the Council is in a cleft stick - their funding from Government has gone south, they desperately need money to invest in their housing - and at the same time the value of the land presents them with a potential opportunity to be able to do it. I don't know what they should do - just hope they can find a solution that keeps the residents in their homes while protecting what is an outstanding piece of social housing architecture.



The "solution" is a solution to an invented problem, though.  I've lived here 17 years, and apart from 2 rows of flats at the bottom of the estate that have been pretty much devastated by a decade of inattention from the council, plus root impingement, subsidence and flooding (those three things being tied together), most of the rest of the supposedly desperately-needed repairs are superficial.
Lambeth have basically decided that what worked at Myatt's Fields will work here - the sell off of the 4 or so acres of open greenery on the estate, plus the demolition of the flats mentioned above, and a winnowing of the other properties on the estate (I can almost guarantee that the properties found most in need of repair by the current independent survey will miraculously cluster nearest to the estate's green spaces), and that from the sell-off money, the council will bank money, rather than reinvest it in the estate.

It's *not* the way to do things, unless you want to start a mini-class war on the estates that are victimised.  me, I don't mind class war, but I don't expect that either the council or the (inevitably-private) new residents will be happy about it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Not sure that is the the case with, for example, the half million Poles who have settled here since 2001.



To some degree it is.
There's a domino effect still going on in eastern and central Europe, so that Poland for example, had a wave of Ukrainian migration concomitant with Poland's own wave of emigration to the UK, and this has also been the case for other states.  Emigration to a richer country causes a "pull" factor on immigration from poorer countries.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> To some degree it is.
> There's a domino effect still going on in eastern and central Europe, so that Poland for example, had a wave of Ukrainian migration concomitant with Poland's own wave of emigration to the UK, and this has also been the case for other states.  Emigration to a richer country causes a "pull" factor on immigration from poorer countries.



It doesn't really worry me why or how they get here. Again, good luck to them. The problem is that we didn't plan the housing and schools etc to deal with it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2014)

leanderman said:


> It doesn't really worry me why or how they get here. Again, good luck to them. The problem is that we didn't plan the housing and schools etc to deal with it.



Politics got in the way, as far as school places are concerned.  It used to be that LEAs were obligated to keep an over-supply of places, and to keep schools "mothballed" so that they could be conveniently put back into use if/when necessary.  The trend of "selling off the family silver" started by the Tories put an end to that, hence the farrago with the Dick Shepard site being demolished, and G-d knows how many secondary and primary school sites in London being converted into swish "apartments".
The same was the original intent with social housing - keep a certain amount of slack in the stock to soak up demographic change - but again that was broken, this time by changes to borrowing imposed on local authorities (followed quickly by the legislation barring local authorities from developing medium to large-scale social housing), and to the original "Right to Buy" legislation.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 15, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Politics got in the way, as far as school places are concerned.  It used to be that LEAs were obligated to keep an over-supply of places, and to keep schools "mothballed" so that they could be conveniently put back into use if/when necessary.  The trend of "selling off the family silver" started by the Tories put an end to that, hence the farrago with the Dick Shepard site being demolished, and G-d knows how many secondary and primary school sites in London being converted into swish "apartments".
> The same was the original intent with social housing - keep a certain amount of slack in the stock to soak up demographic change - but again that was broken, this time by changes to borrowing imposed on local authorities (followed quickly by the legislation barring local authorities from developing medium to large-scale social housing), and to the original "Right to Buy" legislation.



Bad decisions informed by the fact the school-age population in inner London was, if anything, falling. Now it is soaring.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Bad decisions informed by the fact the school-age population in inner London was, if anything, falling. Now it is soaring.



Inaccurate. Sure it was waning then, but central and local government were both warned about the likelihood of demographic change - it was part of the reason for mothballing provision - and yet local authorities continued (and continue) to sell off sites even in the face of that change.  Dick Shepard and other schools were sold *after* it became statistically obvious that "internal migration" within an expanded EU would have an effect (notwithstanding the new Labour stupidity about "3,000 Poles").  In the part of S.E. Kent that my sister lives in, a primary school site was sold off for housing despite there being a negative balance of school places, and "portakabins" being a regular feature in most playgrounds.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 15, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Inaccurate. Sure it was waning then, but central and local government were both warned about the likelihood of demographic change - it was part of the reason for mothballing provision - and yet local authorities continued (and continue) to sell off sites even in the face of that change.  Dick Shepard and other schools were sold *after* it became statistically obvious that "internal migration" within an expanded EU would have an effect (notwithstanding the new Labour stupidity about "3,000 Poles").  In the part of S.E. Kent that my sister lives in, a primary school site was sold off for housing despite there being a negative balance of school places, and "portakabins" being a regular feature in most playgrounds.



I don't think anyone expected the 7million to 9million surge from 2001-18


----------



## CH1 (Mar 15, 2014)

cuppa tee said:


> By strange coincidence the conversation I was talking about took place in Clapham, the gentleman in question was out canvassing for the May council elections, he said he was out early because they were worried about whch way Clapham Old Town was going.


Clapham Town has been marginal Labour/Tory for 30 years. I guess recent demographics might well favour the Tories. Labour should have been more diligent enforcing their social housing policies!


----------



## CH1 (Mar 15, 2014)

Tufty said:


> I was given a timed 2 mins to argue the case. So I did some internet research and quoted Lambeth Council's own policies about safeguarding historic buildings in the area / pubs / the cultural environment of Brixton etc. etc. blah. blah., but there were other things in place which rendered those arguments pointless in the eyes of the law (the CA could, apparently, be legally converted into a Tesco's anyway regardless of the outcome tonight or be legally demolished, regardless of how likely these arguments are). Thus the planning department told the councilors they had to vote against, even though all six expressed various regrets, as if they didn't, they could face an expensive appeal, plus they didn't really have a legal leg to stand on. Thus four councilors voted for the demolition, all said it was regrettable. One voted against and one abstained. The "best" thing to come out of the meeting was that three councilors argued what the policies regarding pub / building protection are actually for if they don't work in practice, and it was agreed that they would look into this - but then, what's the point? That seems a little too late for me. They also said that they would "try" to keep the fixtures and fittings from the Canterbury Arms and offer them for use elsewhere (the ridiculousness of this counter-argument got some laughs, at least). Regarding the lack of proper affordable housing, they again said that this had been considered and was OK in the eyes of the law.


You did well. Haven't commented before - I've been a bit cheesed off.
The only point I would add is that Bill Linskey of Brixton Society specifically went on about UDP policy 27 (Preserving local pubs) which Cllr Brian Palmer - the only councillor to vote against greatly amplified. That policy is now exposed as toothless.

The fact of the matter is Conway Taverns (owners) were willing sellers and the developers had clearly ingratiated themselves with the planners. In fact I can't remember a planning meeting where the planning officers were so forthright in supporting a planning application and rubbishing the objections.

I noticed something on the government Planning Portal. Lambeth actually gets "New Homes Bonus" payments (£2 million this year). This is unencumbered funding awarded on the number of new homes delivered (by planning).
Then you have to consider the amount of future income to be derived from Council Tax - in this case on 31 flats.

Maybe we need an audit of Brixton pubs to see if any others might be vulnerable to demolition.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 16, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I think many would have moved earlier if they had not been effectively chained there. The removal of those chains allowed people to move to find work. As Greebo  says - many sent money back home, quite rapidly improving the economic situation there - even though it still has a long way to go. I work a lot with a hard nosed Pole who almost weeps when he talks about the overwhelming oppressiveness there before joining the EU, how pleased he was to be able to come here to earn money and how happy he is that his son can now choose to live in Poland and have a decent career - something that would not have been possible even 10 years ago.



Not sure what "Chains" you mean.

Communism fell in 1989/1990

Poland joined EU in 2004.

UK gave free movement of Polish workers to come here when Poland joined EU.

I do know Poles who came here around 2004 partly because of the "Twins" being in power. A right wing Catholic Nationalist government. They loathed it.They liked the fact the UK is secular and tolerant society (compared to Poland in 2004).

A Polish friend of mine had no time for Solidarity. As far as he was concerned they were dominated by right wing Catholic nationalists and Lech Walesa was just a figurehead.

Certainly the fall of Communism is now seen by the younger generation as qualified improvement. Several East Europeans have told me that people were nicer to each other under Communism. (That is ordinary people). That at least people had free health care, free education and low cost housing. Even if it was basic. Society was not competitive in the way it is now. So there were gains and losses.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 16, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Not sure what "Chains" you mean.
> 
> Communism fell in 1989/1990
> 
> ...


If you go back and read it again you'll see that DF referred to people being chained into economic ghettos. I said that they moved when the chains were removed. As you have correctly surmised - this related to free movement. Hope that helps?

ETA: I mean DD - not DF. DF was in Press Gang.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 16, 2014)

Rushy said:


> If you go back and read it again you'll see that DF referred to people being chained into economic ghettos. I said that they moved when the chains were removed. As you have correctly surmised - this related to free movement. Hope that helps?
> 
> ETA: I mean DD - not DF. DF was in Press Gang.



This? 



> I work a lot with a hard nosed Pole who almost weeps when he talks about the overwhelming oppressiveness there before joining the EU,



The "Twins" and so called "Law and Justice Party" were in power up to 2007.  So some of the Poles I knew found it oppressive after Poland joined EU. Fortunately EU enlargement meant they could come here. Another Pole I knew was a traditional Catholic and did not like it here so went back.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 16, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> This?
> 
> The "Twins" and so called "Law and Justice Party" were in power up to 2007.  So some of the Poles I knew found it oppressive after Poland joined EU. Fortunately EU enlargement meant they could come here. Another Pole I knew was a traditional Catholic and did not like it here so went back.



I really don't understand your point. Sorry.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 17, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I don't think anyone expected the 7million to 9million surge from 2001-18



The "surge" that doesn't actually take into account returnees?


----------



## leanderman (Mar 17, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The "surge" that doesn't actually take into account returnees?



Total figures. So it does include returnees.

Of course, there may be a outsurge of returnees at some point.

But, so far, there is no evidence of this in the ONS or Mayor of London population reports.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 17, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Total figures. So it does include returnees.
> 
> Of course, there may be a outsurge of returnees at some point.
> 
> But, so far, there is no evidence of this in the ONS or Mayor of London population reports.



I'm fairly sure that you'll find that returnees weren't actually counted until about 2009/2010, as there was supposedly "no reason" to do so.  The numbers prior to that were (IIRC) derived from estimates and extrapolations made by local authorities.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 17, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm fairly sure that you'll find that returnees weren't actually counted until about 2009/2010, as there was supposedly "no reason" to do so.  The numbers prior to that were (IIRC) derived from estimates and extrapolations made by local authorities.



Maybe. But I don't think it matters - London's population is definitively higher. Much higher. And getting higher every year.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Maybe. But I don't think it matters - London's population is definitively higher. Much higher. And getting higher every year.



Oh, absolutely, but at least part of that is measurably internal migration - i.e. British people buying into the old myths about there being more, better-paid work in the capital.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 18, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Oh, absolutely, but at least part of that is measurably internal migration - i.e. British people buying into the old myths about there being more, better-paid work in the capital.



Yes! I am one of the gullible.


----------



## technical (Mar 20, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The "solution" is a solution to an invented problem, though.  I've lived here 17 years, and apart from 2 rows of flats at the bottom of the estate that have been pretty much devastated by a decade of inattention from the council, plus root impingement, subsidence and flooding (those three things being tied together), most of the rest of the supposedly desperately-needed repairs are superficial.
> Lambeth have basically decided that what worked at Myatt's Fields will work here - the sell off of the 4 or so acres of open greenery on the estate, plus the demolition of the flats mentioned above, and a winnowing of the other properties on the estate (I can almost guarantee that the properties found most in need of repair by the current independent survey will miraculously cluster nearest to the estate's green spaces), and that from the sell-off money, the council will bank money, rather than reinvest it in the estate.
> 
> It's *not* the way to do things, unless you want to start a mini-class war on the estates that are victimised.  me, I don't mind class war, but I don't expect that either the council or the (inevitably-private) new residents will be happy about it.


 
Sounds like Lambeth are being disingenuous about their motives then. But the fact remains that the council has had its funding cut by around a third, and getting new homes built (as national planning policy is supposed to dictate) actually provides them with possibly the only mechanism to accessing extra Government funding. Something's got to give


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 21, 2014)

technical said:


> Sounds like Lambeth are being disingenuous about their motives then. But the fact remains that the council has had its funding cut by around a third, and getting new homes built (as national planning policy is supposed to dictate) actually provides them with possibly the only mechanism to accessing extra Government funding. Something's got to give



Which sounds a bit like "bend over and take one for the borough, Cressingham Gardens".


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 21, 2014)

If you assume that income and affluence has a correlation with voting behaviour (_and that's a big IF_...) then this FoI might be worth following.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (May 27, 2014)

Received attached letter from Lambeth Planning


----------



## Maggot (May 27, 2014)

I got that too.  So there is gonna be a pub in the new development. It will be shite.


----------



## clandestino (May 27, 2014)

Maggot said:


> I got that too.  So there is gonna be a pub in the new development. It will be shite.



There is? I missed that. What section of the letter mentions that?


----------



## editor (May 27, 2014)

It's gone for good. 
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/05/...n-to-demolish-the-canterbury-arms-in-brixton/


----------



## editor (May 27, 2014)

clandestino said:


> There is? I missed that. What section of the letter mentions that?


This bit 


> Demolition of the existing Public House and redevelopment to provide a mixed use development compromising 31 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), *162sqm of Public House/Restaurant (use class A4/A3)* in a 9 storey building including the provision of a communal garden and 42 cycle parking spaces


I won't be holding my breath on that pub ever arriving.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (May 27, 2014)

I suspect it'll get lost in the developing design concept....somewhere after planning is agreed and work has begun...


----------



## Tufty (Jun 5, 2014)

It's one of the clever reasons they pushed the application through - you can't object to the loss of a pub if they build another. Of course, they'll probably apply to turn it into something else once its built anyway. And if they don't, yes, it will be shite.


----------



## editor (Jun 5, 2014)

There's no chance of anything that would be identifiable as a normal pub appearing on that site. If there was, I reckon the the nu-residents would be pre-emptively lodging their noise complaints now.


----------



## shygirl (Jun 5, 2014)

I was speaking to Brian last week, he said that the glass, fittings etc will be sold by the developer, not trashed.  I certainly hope so, cos it would be criminal to smash it all up.  The tiling is fab too, wonder if they will remove it rather than break it up.


----------



## Tufty (Jun 6, 2014)

The developer said at the planning meeting that the fittings would be offered free to interested parties. However, it would be very costly for said interested party to remove them. I don't know whether there has been a deal. Did Bill say something firm? 

I'd like to add that, from my point of view, rescuing the fixtures and fittings would only be making the mess of a bad sitution. I personally think they, and the pub, should stay in Brixton.


----------



## Manter (Jun 6, 2014)

shygirl said:


> I was speaking to Brian last week, he said that the glass, fittings etc will be sold by the developer, not trashed.  I certainly hope so, cos it would be criminal to smash it all up.  The tiling is fab too, wonder if they will remove it rather than break it up.


Reclaim places can make a lot of money out of old pub fixtures. For example those etched glass panels and mirrors with 'beer' on them go for hundreds of pounds. The developers would be daft not to sell it.


----------



## twistedAM (Jun 6, 2014)

Manter said:


> Reclaim places can make a lot of money out of old pub fixtures. For example those etched glass panels and mirrors with 'beer' on them go for hundreds of pounds. The developers would be daft not to sell it.



Not beer-related but there's an old Brooke Bond Tea sign in the junk shop (sic) on Brixton Hill pop NISA with a £220 price tag.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Aug 13, 2014)

.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Aug 13, 2014)

.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Aug 14, 2014)

poetry is finally dead


----------



## CH1 (Aug 14, 2014)

Nanker Phelge said:


> poetry is finally dead


Try this then. It's amazing what difference a name makes.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 20, 2014)

twistedAM said:


> Not beer-related but there's an old Brooke Bond Tea sign in the junk shop (sic) on Brixton Hill pop NISA with a £220 price tag.



costly place that


----------



## editor (Sep 4, 2014)

I've written a review of the pub. Hopefully it'll be around for a while longer. 

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/09/the-canterbury-arms-8-canterbury-crescent-brixton-pub-review/


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 4, 2014)

"historic pub interior of regional importance"? Really? 

Anyway, is that second photo your own?


----------



## editor (Sep 4, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> "historic pub interior of regional importance"? Really?
> 
> Anyway, is that second photo your own?


Yes, really. It is a remarkably unspoilt late Victorian interior with high quality cut and etched glass, wonderful wood carvings, and a stunning glazed-in office.

And, yes it is my photo. Why do you ask?


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 4, 2014)

That's a cracking review in my opinion and hits the nail on the head about how much it will be missed in the community.

One of my very favorite things to do is to have a few pints in there on a Saturday as the results came in on the tv and most if the locals would be there too chatting and taking the piss. At the risk of continually repeating myself I'm totally gutted that as we move back to Brixton it will be closing.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Sep 4, 2014)

Still there for now....and looks like it will be til xmas at least...


----------



## peterkro (Sep 4, 2014)

My experience of the Canterbury goes back to the late seventies and eighties when there were two bars at the front (part of the original fittings,don't know when the divide went).For a number of years its clientele was the few older drinkers,squatters and the filth.It was the scene of some great benefit gigs for amongst others the miners and the firefighters.I've walked in there more than once smoking a joint before being told "put that fucking thing out" by the head of Brixton drug squad (he was called the "Killer" or the "Gorilla" at this distance I don't remember),before playing a game of pool with him).Sean was the publican there for some time before he went to the White horse.
There is a great story about one of the Villa road squatters lifting a police briefcase from there and its return,it had a fucking pistol in it,cue everyone freaking out,squatters "they already think we are fucking revolutionaries" police "what sort of cunt leaves a gun in a briefcase we'll all be sacked if this gets out".It eventually made its way back to its owner (RIP John you mad cunt).
The New Queens was my local around then but I spent a lot of time in the Canterbury as well as Bradys.
Sad to see another part of Brixton about to go.


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 4, 2014)

editor said:


> Yes, really. It is a remarkably unspoilt late Victorian interior with high quality cut and etched glass, wonderful wood carvings, and a stunning glazed-in office.
> 
> And, yes it is my photo. Why do you ask?



I thought it looked like the inside of a British Legion but in its defence the last time I went in I was fairly plastered and the time before that was 10 years ago (and I was also fairly plastered).

And the photo had turned up in Google image search for what seemed like ages so I assumed it was fairly old. Just didn't think you'd taken it for some reason


----------



## editor (Sep 4, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> I thought it looked like the inside of a British Legion but in its defence the last time I went in I was fairly plastered and the time before that was 10 years ago (and I was also fairly plastered).
> 
> And the photo had turned up in Google image search for what seemed like ages so I assumed it was fairly old. Just didn't think you'd taken it for some reason


Can you really not see that its interior is of architectural merit?


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 5, 2014)

Yes, that bit looks nice. The bit to the right by the toilets looked like a British Legion after a few pints.


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 9, 2014)

Talking of pub partitions, I had a few pints in here the other night






Princess Louise in Holborn. Well worth a visit if you're in the area


----------



## Winot (Sep 10, 2014)

Also in that area is the Lamb on Lamb's Conduit St. which has snob screens.


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 10, 2014)

I'll have to give that a go. Probably my favourite part of London round that area


----------



## footballerslegs (Sep 10, 2014)

I think the corridor to the ladies deserves a photo (no really) as the tiling is tremendous.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2014)

footballerslegs said:


> I think the corridor to the ladies deserves a photo (no really) as the tiling is tremendous.


I'm going to pop down soon and do a whole load more photos.


----------



## BPR (Jan 27, 2015)

Does anyone know if it's still open? I was planning on watching the rugby in there next week to pay my last respects...


----------



## colacubes (Jan 27, 2015)

BPR said:


> Does anyone know if it's still open? I was planning on watching the rugby in there next week to pay my last respects...



Yep.  Probably be open for another couple of months yet.


----------



## CH1 (Jan 27, 2015)

Unless Lambeth get their finger out with "Brixton Central" the inhabitants of the 20 luxury and 11 shared ownership flats due on the site of the pub will have the exotic container-city business park for their neighbours.


----------



## editor (Mar 18, 2015)

The last ever St Patrick’s Day dance at the Canterbury Arms, Brixton


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 18, 2015)

Great pics of the Canterbury. I took some but only 1 was good. Can't upload it properly - sorry


----------



## Mr Retro (Aug 2, 2015)

This was just posted on Facebook. 


An open letter to The Canterbury Arms community.

Dear friends,

It is with extreme sadness that I announce the demise of ‘The Canterbury Arms’ Brixton.

The bar will cease trading on the 5th September 2015, this closure reflects the insatiable appetite of property developers for backstreet corner sites that will be developed into flats for tenants who live in far off lands, and these developers call it progress which maybe so…
But where do local people who want to be part of a community and their friends and relatives go to socialise. Over the years the Canterbury has celebrated weddings, christenings, birthdays, funerals and anniversaries from all cultures. There have been many club and music nights over the years, too many to mention, which have reflected the diverse communities which makes up the melting pot that Brixton personifies. 

In my tenure as manager of this venerable establishment, my wife Mary, daughters Michelle and Mary-Lisa and of course Eamon have come to know and respect the locals and felt part of the community. We have made many friends and a few enemies, but that is life. So it is with extreme sorrow that we say goodbye to the pub that became home for me and my family over a very long period.

As I have said to the many friends and acquaintances who we have met over the years, through concerts at the academy, parties and celebrations – it has been a pleasure to know and serve you, even bar some of you on occasion. 

There will be a final night of celebration with the legendary Gerry who has DJ’d for the last 20 years here and who is a great friend on Saturday, 29th August – you are all welcome!

Slán & Beannacht

Brian, Mary, Michelle, Mary-Lisa & Eamon


----------



## BigMoaner (Aug 2, 2015)

that's shit.


----------



## brixtonblade (Aug 2, 2015)

A real shame


----------



## clandestino (Aug 2, 2015)

so terrible and so unfair that it's happening so suddenly. i thought we'd get more notice....so so sad.


----------



## technical (Aug 3, 2015)

This really does suck.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 3, 2015)

It just doesn't seem right.


----------



## Belushi (Aug 3, 2015)

I've only been there once or twice but a real shame to see another Brixton boozer go.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 3, 2015)

Belushi said:


> I've only been there once or twice but a real shame to see another Brixton boozer go.



And it'll only get worse as more and more PubCos go for the quick money.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2015)

Just added a short piece:

Going: The Canterbury Arms. Gone: The Grosvenor. Brixton is losing its boozers


----------



## BigMoaner (Aug 4, 2015)

i fear for our high streets in general. supermarkets. out of town shopping "mals". internet. what will england look like in twenty years. pound lands. hairdressers. supermarkets. fast food outlets.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 4, 2015)

Er... I think you'll find Brixton will have boutique beard barbers and pop up pasty parlours thank you very much


----------



## Belushi (Aug 4, 2015)

BigMoaner said:


> what will england look like in twenty years. pound lands. hairdressers. supermarkets. fast food outlets.



Already looks like that round my way


----------



## Hollis (Aug 4, 2015)

Too  bad, have fond memories of the Canterbury, and the bar staff.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Er... I think you'll find Brixton will have boutique beard barbers and pop up pasty parlours thank you very much


no, the tide will have turned against beards and people sporting them will be shunned as centres of pestilence


----------



## BigMoaner (Aug 4, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Already looks like that round my way


well that's better than what it looks like round my way 

(only joking croydonites!)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2015)

BigMoaner said:


> i fear for our high streets in general. supermarkets. out of town shopping "mals". internet. what will england look like in twenty years. pound lands. hairdressers. supermarkets. fast food outlets.



And estate agencies. Don't forget estate agencies.


----------



## clandestino (Aug 7, 2015)

It's our last night at the Canterbury tonight. Pop your head around the door if you're passing...

http://www.howdoesitfeel.co.uk/lastbrixtonhdif.html


----------



## editor (Aug 7, 2015)

clandestino said:


> It's our last night at the Canterbury tonight. Pop your head around the door if you're passing...
> 
> http://www.howdoesitfeel.co.uk/lastbrixtonhdif.html


I'll come in and say hello!


----------



## editor (Aug 8, 2015)

A lovely but poignant evening. Well done clandestino  - you should feel proud of what you've done here!





















The last ever How Does It Feel To Be Loved club night at the Canterbury Arms, Brixton – photos


----------



## clandestino (Aug 8, 2015)

It's the people that make it. I just play the songs. We're lucky to have the best loveliest folk for regulars.


----------



## editor (Aug 30, 2015)

The last ever party 































http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/08/...on-claims-another-much-loved-community-asset/


----------



## clandestino (Aug 30, 2015)

Fantastic photos, wish I could have been there.


----------



## peterkro (Aug 30, 2015)

Being a miserable old fucker I remember the Canterbury when we put on benefits for the fire service and the miners when Sean was the publican before he went to the White Horse.It was part of my life and while I haven't been in in recent decades it feels like part of me has been ripped out.


----------



## technical (Sep 1, 2015)

What winds me up is that what is happening to many pubs in London is different to elsewhere in the country - where the smoking ban, drink driving becoming morally unacceptable, competition from supermarkets etc have driven many pubs out of business. 

Here we have a viable and much loved pub simply being forced to close by property market forces. While gastro-fied pubs like the Tulse Hill Tavern are all very well - the likes of the Canterbury are becoming very few and far between.


----------



## editor (Sep 4, 2015)

So fucking sad. 












This pub has 24 hours to live – the end of Brixton’s Canterbury Arms


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 5, 2015)

That's my table under David Beckham. Reading the well thumbed Irish independent that was available every day. Can't believe it's going to be gone. 

Here's the kind of people that run that pub: In the Spring 2 Irish friends from Amsterdam came over to visit. We went in on the Friday on the piss. One of the lads is a Dub and there was a league Gaelic football final between Cork and Dublin he wanted to watch on that Sunday. Brian said he'd have it on. 

Come Sunday it was much busier than expected for a Chelsea game so they had to show the soccer on both TVs. Fair enough we thought, majority rules and there's a business to run. Did we have to miss the Gaelic football? Did we fuck. Brian put it on for us in their kitchen. So 2 people he met for the first time the previous Friday were welcome into his home to watch a game rather than miss it. 

Slán agus beannacht libh go léir. Go mbeirimid beo ag an am seo arís.


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2015)

I'm sad and I'm fucking angry.


----------



## Angellic (Sep 5, 2015)

They're having a clearance sale this weekend.


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2015)

Angellic said:


> They're having a clearance sale this weekend.


I've posted up the details of brixtonbuzz.com.


----------



## Brixton Brief (Sep 5, 2015)

Is there really nothing that can be done? Have the Brixton Society or CAMRA submitted an application for listing?

How imminent is the demolition?

Its architecture may be common for a mid-Victorian pub, but the interior really is extraordinary, and a rare link to Brixton’s music hall history.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 6, 2015)

Brixton Brief said:


> Is there really nothing that can be done? Have the Brixton Society or CAMRA submitted an application for listing?
> How imminent is the demolition?
> Its architecture may be common for a mid-Victorian pub, but the interior really is extraordinary, and a rare link to Brixton’s music hall history.


The sticking point was that Lambeth did not put the pub in the Town Centre conservation area (deliberately?).
Camra and Brixton Society looked at the case - and spoke at Planning Committee when it was considered. Check boohoo if she's around. Probably has better recall of this than me.


----------



## clandestino (Sep 7, 2015)

Mr Retro said:


> That's my table under David Beckham. Reading the well thumbed Irish independent that was available every day. Can't believe it's going to be gone.
> 
> Here's the kind of people that run that pub: In the Spring 2 Irish friends from Amsterdam came over to visit. We went in on the Friday on the piss. One of the lads is a Dub and there was a league Gaelic football final between Cork and Dublin he wanted to watch on that Sunday. Brian said he'd have it on.
> 
> ...



Fantastic story! Says it all.


----------



## boohoo (Sep 7, 2015)

Brixton Brief said:


> Is there really nothing that can be done? Have the Brixton Society or CAMRA submitted an application for listing?
> 
> How imminent is the demolition?
> 
> Its architecture may be common for a mid-Victorian pub, but the interior really is extraordinary, and a rare link to Brixton’s music hall history.



What's its link to music hall history? I've not seen much interest in Brixton's music hall history - I'm sure it will happen at some point.


----------



## darryl (Nov 15, 2015)

I was in the Blythe Hill Tavern in Catford last night (lovely place, proper no-nonsense boozer - the barmen wear shirts and ties - and does ace ales) and one of the barmen said hello to me. I couldn't place him - he looked familiar, but where was he from? Maybe the shirt and tie threw me.

Had a quick chat with him - it was the guy from the Canterbury (Brian?). So if you want to say hello to him, head over to Catford.


----------



## editor (Dec 10, 2015)

Boarded up and ready to be flattened 
















Brixton’s Canterbury Arms: boarded up and soon to be demolished to make way for yet more luxury flats


----------



## editor (Jan 11, 2016)

Demolition begins. 






Demolition begins on Brixton’s Canterbury Arms pub to make way for yet more private flats


----------



## darryl (Jan 11, 2016)

Aw, fuck :-(


----------



## Angellic (Jan 11, 2016)

I feel sad about it and rarely visit pubs these days.


----------



## clandestino (Jan 11, 2016)

No.


----------



## editor (Jan 25, 2016)

It's the last days. I'm so fucking angry.











Walls come tumbling down: Brixton’s Canterbury Arms nears the end  – photos


----------



## darryl (Jan 25, 2016)

Never mind a "dislike" button, need a "hate" button.


----------



## darryl (Jan 25, 2016)

Just popped this on my FB and the first person to comment in disgust at this was a guy I used to work with who stood as a Labour candidate at the last general election. Haven't the heart to respond that his party colleagues allowed this.


----------



## editor (Jan 25, 2016)

darryl said:


> Just popped this on my FB and the first person to comment in disgust at this was a guy I used to work with who stood as a Labour candidate at the last general election. Haven't the heart to respond that his party colleagues allowed this.


You should tell him. Definitely.


----------



## darryl (Jan 25, 2016)

editor said:


> You should tell him. Definitely.



Nah, I had a go at him a little while back on one of his posts over Sadiq Khan's inept, hypocritical uselessness in one of those post-pub internet rants I thought I gave up years ago. Anyhow, the wording of my post is "Bastards. Both the developers, and the Lambeth councillors who approved it", so he should get the message


----------



## Domz83 (Jan 25, 2016)

darryl said:


> I was in the Blythe Hill Tavern in Catford last night (lovely place, proper no-nonsense boozer - the barmen wear shirts and ties - and does ace ales) and one of the barmen said hello to me. I couldn't place him - he looked familiar, but where was he from? Maybe the shirt and tie threw me.
> 
> Had a quick chat with him - it was the guy from the Canterbury (Brian?). So if you want to say hello to him, head over to Catford.


It's Eamon in The Blythe. Marys brother.


----------



## darryl (Jan 25, 2016)

Domz83 said:


> It's Eamon in The Blythe. Marys brother.


Ah, that's it - thank you. The Blythe is doing a lovely cider called Sea Cider at the moment, worth a visit even if Eamon's not there.


----------



## editor (Feb 5, 2016)

Oh look: they're sneakily expanding the development and squeezing in 6 more private apartments. What a surprise.



> We have recently submitted a planning application on behalf of May Developments to the London Borough of Lambeth for 37 apartments for a site on Canterbury Crescent, Brixton.
> 
> The application follows our previous consent for 31 apartments and follows the same design principles albeit with an increase in the building’s width and length to fill the site following boundary agreements with the adjacent landowner.
> 
> The opportunity has been taken to develop and refine the material palette and detailing with a datum of architectural stonework to the base and shopfronts with bands of stonework registering the floors above and a subtle double ordering.








News | Unit Architects


----------



## editor (Feb 5, 2016)

Sad, sad, sad...











Rubble on the dancefloor: demolition continues on Brixton’s Canterbury Arms


----------



## SpamMisery (Feb 5, 2016)

Not very sneaky considering they've advertised it on their website and put it in the planning application


----------



## CH1 (Feb 5, 2016)

editor said:


> Oh look: they're sneakily expanding the development and squeezing in 6 more private apartments. What a surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This palatial building has all the charm of a multi-storey car park.


----------



## darryl (Feb 5, 2016)

And probably an implicit threat to Lambeth that they'll leave the site empty and sell it on for profit if they don't get their way.


----------



## editor (Feb 5, 2016)

darryl said:


> And probably an implicit threat to Lambeth that they'll leave the site empty and sell it on for profit if they don't get their way.


I only saw that they'd decided to bolt on six extra flats to the development and increase its size because I was searching on line and came across the architect's site. It really does feel a bit underhand. What's the point of 'consulting' with the public if you're just going to then increase the build without bothering to tell anyone?


----------



## editor (Feb 5, 2016)

CH1 said:


> This palatial building has all the charm of a multi-storey car park.


And a complete change to the original proposal - not that I expect the finished thing will look anything like these sunny, clutter-free "imaginings."


----------



## editor (Feb 5, 2016)

"Unit partner Ross Hutchinson said Lambeth Council's, approval for the development would kick-start the regeneration of the neighbourhood." [--]

What's left to be regenerated there?


----------



## clandestino (Feb 5, 2016)

editor said:


> "Unit partner Ross Hutchinson said Lambeth Council's, approval for the development would kick-start the regeneration of the neighbourhood." [--]
> 
> What's left to be regenerated there?



The arches.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 5, 2016)

The POP site.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 5, 2016)

Popes road between the railways.


----------



## editor (Feb 17, 2016)

So fucking sad:











2 days later...











Brixton’s Canterbury Arms reduced to rubble, luxury private flats to come – in photos


----------



## editor (Feb 22, 2016)

It's completely gone now.


----------



## darryl (Feb 22, 2016)




----------



## elmpp (Feb 23, 2016)

So fucking great


----------



## Maharani (Feb 23, 2016)

That's put me in a bad mood


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 4, 2016)

Really felt like a few pints with the usual Friday evening crowd in The Canterbury this evening. 

And no Patrick's Day piss up on Thursday week in there either.


----------



## editor (Mar 5, 2016)

Completely gone. 






Brixton Canterbury Arms: the end. Community asset to posh flats for the few – Brixton 2016


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 5, 2016)

elmpp said:


> So fucking great



You can't even muster a decent comment, can you? It's all just one liner stuff to provoke/annoy.


----------



## elmpp (Mar 5, 2016)

I don't think it's particularly great really but it's good to take the position when half the posts are illogical and emotive. Pictures of rubble and a lament


----------



## editor (Mar 5, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> You can't even muster a decent comment, can you? It's all just one liner stuff to provoke/annoy.


He's not going to trash this thread, so off he goes.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 5, 2016)

elmpp said:


> I don't think it's particularly great really but it's good to take the position when half the posts are illogical and emotive. Pictures of rubble and a lament



Yes, it's illogical for people to feel strong emotions over the loss of venue that many people cared about, that some of us here had a direct involvement with, and knew the family who were displaced from their home of 20+ years, and the customers that were a genuinely tight knit group of friends and relations who used that pub as a place to come together and share all sorts of occassions.

What an illogical twat I am to feel sad and want to lament.

I should just be a contrary cunt and just pop to the beehive and forget all about the Canterbury....there are other pubs afterall...ffs


----------



## editor (Mar 8, 2016)

Just taking the piss now:

Developer asks for extra units for luxury apartments on the site of the old Canterbury Arms boozer


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 16, 2016)

No Canterbury for Paddys Day tomorrow. I've had some of he best laughs ever in there on that day every year. It used to be so good we made a special trip back twice when we lived in Amsterdam. 

Fucking tore the heart out that little community knocking down that pub.


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2016)

The last ever St Patrick’s Day dance at the Canterbury Arms, Brixton


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 5, 2016)

I have heard that the Council will own the Canterbury Arms site. It's doing a land swap with the developer.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jun 5, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> I have heard that the Council will own the Canterbury Arms site. It's doing a land swap with the developer.



Yep - here we go.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jun 5, 2016)

In idiot terms what exactly has occured here?


----------



## clandestino (Jun 5, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> I have heard that the Council will own the Canterbury Arms site. It's doing a land swap with the developer.



Does that mean the flats aren't being built after all?


----------



## mrchristopher (Jun 5, 2016)

I've just read through this.

My understanding is that Lambeth are proposing to 'swap' some land with the developer. The result would be that Pope's Road would be widened, and the development would move back to take in the traders' car park located behind instead. The car park would be rebuilt under the flats. It looks like it would still be built by the private developer, not Lambeth.

As a result they will probably be able to build significantly more flats, in part because in planning terms it would allow a taller building as it would be set back from the road. So we should expect another planning application.

Lambeth would get a share of the additional value created from the development, plus it would probably benefit their future plans for the POP Brixton and International House sites. It will also lead to more homes, presumably some 'affordable'.

(Trying to present this in as neutral a way as possible, understanding most people would prefer this development not to be taking place at all).


----------



## mrchristopher (Jun 5, 2016)

This map might explain it - https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/do...mbeth and May Developments Ltd Appendix 1.pdf


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 5, 2016)

Nanker Phelge said:


> In idiot terms what exactly has occured here?



I looked at the docs on the link that Tricky Skills posted up.

The developers who owns the old Canterbury Arms site has planning permission to build flats on that site.

The Council own land surrounding that site. (Pop and to the east of developers site).

Its a bit more complicated than a land swap. 

Land swaps can make sense to put together a piece of land to have a single coherent site. Its like me swapping something with someone else - we both end up equal but have something more useful after the swap.

This however is a bit more complicated. 

The Council is also doing a deal with May Developments ( the owners of Canterbury site) to so that May Developments become the lead developer of the combined site. 

The swap would mean that land next to Popes road owned by May Developments would go to Lambeth to become part of the (proposed) widening of Popes Road. May would get land to the east which is owned by the Council. 

I get a bit lost of financial stuff but it looks like the Council will have some kind of profit share with May Developments on sale of private homes that May builds on what was Council land plus part of its original land. As well as selling the land on a lease in a complicated ( to me) deal which the officers are confident will produce a good value for Council. 

So its not just a land swap. Its the Council working up proposals with a developer for this important site in Brixton Central area.

Of course this all depends on a new planning application for the combined site which May Developments will put in being agreed. So to answer clandestino question- if Council and May have there way flats will be built- private ones for sale. No mention of affordable housing in the docs. 

May Developments as lead developer for the site will take the risk and apply for planning permission. 

From the docs looks to me that May Developments and senior officers have been working up plans and discussing this for some time. 

Its a good deal for May Developments. They get there hands on more land and Council support. 

The map showing what land is swapped and officers report here


There are issues here. I attended the consultation on the Brixton Central Masterplan some time ago. It ground to a halt with Network Rail unilaterally deciding to "refurbish" the arches. 

However even the officers report says the consultation is not finished. The officers imo are jumping the gun here. Assuming the next round of consultations with the community will support this land swap. When in fact community will be presented with it as a fait accompli. The officers report (5.3) says as much.

The officers report also says



> A key risk for the council is the loss of development control by granting a long-lease of
> the site to May Developments. However, the planning process will ensure appropriate
> development is brought forward.



Yes well that is big a risk I would say.


----------



## mrchristopher (Jun 5, 2016)

Gramsci and I crossed over with our posts but I think our understanding from the documents is the same...

It's all a bit early to see the implications, but I do imagine it could be a much bigger development.


----------



## editor (Jun 5, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> I looked at the docs on the link that Tricky Skills posted up.
> 
> The developers who owns the old Canterbury Arms site has planning permission to build flats on that site.
> 
> ...


I can barely think for all the alarm bells ringing in my head. I have zero trust in Lambeth's motives or abilities to deliver anything other than the usual luxury apartment-fest.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 5, 2016)

I do wish the Council would take consultation more seriously. This is important site and the Council officers are ploughing ahead with appointing lead developers, deciding on widening road and disposing of Council owned land for private development. 

Its all being decided with little consultation. And this Council is big on doing "Co-production".

One bit of report concerns me as well. 

The resulting more "uniform" parcel of land after the swap (2.4) is considered good by officers as it will lead to,



> A larger and more rationalised commercial unit at ground floor



ie more profitable for developer. 

Is this what is really wanted? No consultation has been done. Larger unit implies a big chain rather than keeping smaller shops in the market area.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 5, 2016)

editor said:


> I can barely think for al the alarm bells ringing in my head. I have zero trust in Lambeth's motives or abilities to deliver anything other than the usual luxury apartment-fest.



I agree. As usual the officers report is over optimistic. 

If I was May Developments I would celebrating.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 5, 2016)

The sad saga of losing a fine looking pub continues.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 5, 2016)

mrchristopher said:


> This map might explain it - https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s81733/Land swap between land owned by the LB Lambeth and May Developments Ltd Appendix 1.pdf


Tried this link and the one TrickySkills posted but get "currently unavailable"

Is this a problem at my end - or the Council's?


----------



## CH1 (Jun 5, 2016)

Apologies - I was recommended to "upgrade" my veteran Opera all-in-one browser form 12.16 to 12.18 and it now can't view/download pdf files.
I don't think this is an upgrade! [Chrome fine]


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 6, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> I get a bit lost of financial stuff but it looks like the Council will have some kind of profit share with May Developments on sale of private homes that May builds on what was Council land plus part of its original land. As well as selling the land on a lease in a complicated ( to me) deal which the officers are confident will produce a good value for Council.



Presumably another 'profit share' based on accounts provided by the developer. 

What are the odds that yet another massive development has the money somehow siphoned off and somehow fails to make a profit?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 6, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> I do wish the Council would take consultation more seriously. This is important site and the Council officers are ploughing ahead with appointing lead developers, deciding on widening road and disposing of Council owned land for private development.
> 
> Its all being decided with little consultation. And this Council is big on doing "Co-production".
> 
> ...



For Lambeth council, consultation does not mean what it means to you and I - for them it's merely an exercise in putting out just enough info to perhaps fulfil their legal obligations to Lambeth residents, it's certainly *NOT* about engaging locals or the wider public.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 6, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Presumably another 'profit share' based on accounts provided by the developer.
> 
> What are the odds that yet another massive development has the money somehow siphoned off and somehow fails to make a profit?



Evens.


----------



## clandestino (Jun 6, 2016)

CH1 said:


> Tried this link and the one TrickySkills posted but get "currently unavailable"
> 
> Is this a problem at my end - or the Council's?



Same here.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 6, 2016)

clandestino said:


> Same here.


In my case it is definitely browser related. Maybe Lambeth's website think we are "insecure".
If I use Chrome or my Chromebook (also Chrome obviously) the plans come up fine.

You would think IT would get easier and more compatible as time goes on.......


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2016)

CH1 said:


> In my case it is definitely browser related. Maybe Lambeth's website think we are "insecure".
> If I use Chrome or my Chromebook (also Chrome obviously) the plans come up fine.
> 
> You would think IT would get easier and more compatible as time goes on.......



I use Linux which is similar to chrome. I do remember there were issues with Lambeth website a while back.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 6, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> I use Linux which is similar to chrome. I do remember there were issues with Lambeth website a while back.


Opera is a bit like Ubuntu - has a following, was particularly popular in China for some reason. The original browser was Norwegian designed and sold as a versatile W3C compatible alternative to Internet Explorer (IE was not standards compatible back in the 1990s, maybe still isn't).

Nokia used Opera browsing software on their phones - but now Nokia has been bought by - guess who - Microsoft. So Microsoft have put a stop to that and Opera was left floundering.

Word now is that a Chinese consortium has come to the rescue of the Norwegian programmers. It would be nice if they sorted it out, because Opera original incorporated an email off-line reader and browser in the same package.

More recent Opera updates have a Chrome - based browser and no email.

Oh - and Opera (both versions) works on Linux.


----------



## clandestino (Jun 7, 2016)

For those who haven't been following the Pop Brixton thread, this is what the Canterbury Arms looks like now...


----------



## editor (Jun 7, 2016)

Just fucking look at it.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 7, 2016)

clandestino said:


> For those who haven't been following the Pop Brixton thread, this is what the Canterbury Arms looks like now... <snip>


FFS!


----------



## CH1 (Jun 7, 2016)

The council and the developers are adopting a Pol Pot year zero approach to life.
We had a gem of a pub interior - fuck it.


----------



## mrchristopher (Jun 7, 2016)

Are Pop Brixton trolling us?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 7, 2016)

clandestino said:


> For those who haven't been following the Pop Brixton thread, this is what the Canterbury Arms looks like now...


This  does piss me off. I have been on the Pop thread again after avoiding it for ages. Sure some on that thread will love it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 7, 2016)

clandestino said:


> For those who haven't been following the Pop Brixton thread, this is what the Canterbury Arms looks like now...


That's not what it looks like now, is it?
That's what they're planning.
Still, some dodgy shenanigans going on at the council, I reckon.


----------



## clandestino (Jun 7, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> That's not what it looks like now, is it?
> That's what they're planning.
> Still, some dodgy shenanigans going on at the council, I reckon.



It opens on Friday, so I reckon that's what's there right now.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 7, 2016)

clandestino said:


> It opens on Friday, so I reckon that's what's there right now.


Wow.


----------



## clandestino (Jun 7, 2016)

Pop Fields Opening Weekend | EURO 2016 on the big screen @ Pop Brixton (Fri 10:00, 2016-06-10) | etrigg.com


----------



## clandestino (Jun 7, 2016)

I hope someone takes a yellow spray can to add some balls to the cock at each end of the pitch.


----------



## Mr Retro (Jun 7, 2016)

clandestino said:


> For those who haven't been following the Pop Brixton thread, this is what the Canterbury Arms looks like now...


Jesus Christ. The council should be ashamed they left this happen.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jun 8, 2016)

They had play spaces like that back in the 70s.....


----------



## editor (Aug 30, 2016)

One year ago 






One year ago: Brixton’s Canterbury Arms throws its last ever party


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 6, 2016)

This night last year was the actually the last night of the Canterbury.

I have a big photo somewhere of all the regulars outside. Great memories, sad anniversary.


----------



## djdando (Oct 23, 2016)

16/05947/EIASCR	 |			  Request for a Screening Opinion in respect of an Environmental Impact Assessment in relation to redevelopment to provide approximately 92 new residential dwellings and approximately 525sqm of commercial floorspace, accommodated in a building of approximately 20 storeys on a site of approximately 0.18 hectares.				  |																	  Land Formerly 8 Canterbury Crescent London

Going in for planning for a 20 storey tower!!!!!!


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 17, 2017)

This used to be the best day at The Canterbury. Still badly missed.


----------



## Angellic (Mar 17, 2017)

djdando said:


> 16/05947/EIASCR	 |			  Request for a Screening Opinion in respect of an Environmental Impact Assessment in relation to redevelopment to provide approximately 92 new residential dwellings and approximately 525sqm of commercial floorspace, accommodated in a building of approximately 20 storeys on a site of approximately 0.18 hectares.				  |																	  Land Formerly 8 Canterbury Crescent London
> 
> Going in for planning for a 20 storey tower!!!!!!



Does that include some of PopBrixton as well?


----------



## CH1 (Mar 17, 2017)

djdando said:


> 16/05947/EIASCR	 |			  Request for a Screening Opinion in respect of an Environmental Impact Assessment in relation to redevelopment to provide approximately 92 new residential dwellings and approximately 525sqm of commercial floorspace, accommodated in a building of approximately 20 storeys on a site of approximately 0.18 hectares.				  |																	  Land Formerly 8 Canterbury Crescent London
> 
> Going in for planning for a 20 storey tower!!!!!!


You are right to point this out. This is another piss-take like the arches.

I am sure there would have been quite a dramatic reaction against a 20 storey tower - the demolition of fine deliberately non-listed pub for a nine story tower didn't go down too well as it was.

Those officials appointed to protect us seem more concerned to sell out to the highest bidders - time after time.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 17, 2017)

Angellic said:


> Does that include some of PopBrixton as well?


That application is for an environmental impact assessment.
Mr Black, in his wisdom has agreed that this is not necessary as this is not a sensitive location.

Meanwhile you won't know exactly what is involved until a further application is made. but Pop Brixton has at least another 3 years to run - and the Pop Brixton site still belongs to the council AFAIK.


----------



## trabuquera (Mar 17, 2017)

WTF?

I don't understand these documents at all. One seems to say that because of the size of the site (too small?) it doesn't even need an Environmental Impact Assessment. Although going from a proposed 9 storeys to "approximately" (got to love that vagueness) 20 seems like a pretty large environmental impact to me.

Also, does "finally disposed of" mean "no, Council says you cannot do this", or "Council folds its hands and says do what the hell you like it's none of our business"?


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2017)

It's seems ironic that this development seems to be following the template of Pop Brixton. Tell people you're doing one thing and then turn it into something completely different. I wasted my time going along to the consultations for the original proposals and now they're trying to build something that has no relation to the original designs.


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2017)

Sad scenes












The last ever St Patrick’s Day dance at the Canterbury Arms, Brixton


----------



## Rexer60 (Jul 5, 2017)

Used to drink there for 6 years or so. I remember one of the barman (Kevin?) being imprisoned for a rape/murder in Streatham. His dad also worked there.


----------



## editor (Aug 30, 2017)

The last party at Brixton’s Canterbury Arms was exactly two years ago. 






The pub now lies under the rarely used trendy Pop Fields with the proposed flats still unbuilt. So there was no need to flatten the fucking place at all.

The last party at Brixton’s Canterbury Arms as gentrification claims another much-loved community asset


----------



## ricbake (Feb 3, 2018)

This looks like it could be part of the consolidation of the site of Pop Brixton, International House and perhaps the Recreation Centre for an undocumented Future Brixton Plan for the whole site.... Can we expect a development akin to the Streatham Tesco's hub?

*Decision - Former Canterbury Arms Public House, Canterbury Crescent, Brixton | Lambeth Council *
*Decision:*
Recommendations

1.	  To approve the allocation for an amount greater than £500,000 as set out in the Part II report to acquire the former Canterbury Arms Public House site and to delegate the terms of acquisition to the Strategic Director of Neighbourhoods & Growth in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning, Regeneration and Jobs.

2.	  To approve the allocation of £50,000 for additional commercial property and legal services required to support the potential acquisition of the former Canterbury Arms Public House.

3.	  To approve the allocation of £50,000 for additional commercial property and legal services required to support the future letting of International House.

4.	  To approve the allocation of £100,000 to prepare a Supplementary Planning Document for the Brixton Central sites.

Publication date: 02/02/2018
Date of decision: 12/02/2018


----------



## editor (Feb 3, 2018)

Makes my blood boil. There was no fucking need to demolish that building but those spineless shits in the council all nodded their heads.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 3, 2018)

ricbake said:


> 3.	  To approve the allocation of £50,000 for additional commercial property and legal services required to support the future letting of International House.


What is that supposed to mean? Are they proposing to rent out International House rather than redevelop it?
Just asking!


----------



## ricbake (Feb 4, 2018)

They just want to be able to spend up to a hundred thousand pounds on estate agents, consultants and surveyors to help them decide how best to circumvent anything that would offer any social benefit to the local population in buying the Canterbury Arms site and deciding International House was so badly built it has to be knocked down...


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 4, 2018)

CH1 said:


> What is that supposed to mean? Are they proposing to rent out International House rather than redevelop it?
> Just asking!



Council are going to keep International house for next five years whilst they decide what to do with the site. It's going to be a "meanwhile" use.


----------



## editor (Feb 4, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Council are going to keep International house for next five years whilst they decide what to do with the site. It's going to be a "meanwhile" use.


Sounds perfect for that loss-making machine Pop Brixton to take over!


----------



## ricbake (Feb 4, 2018)

Can't imagine any use that International House could be put to for the meanwhile - 
The layout is pants; the lifts are always breaking down; the heating isn't good; the plumbing is dire...

If there is a five year plan it will probably be left empty for most of it


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 4, 2018)

editor said:


> Sounds perfect for that loss-making machine Pop Brixton to take over!



I did wonder if they would be in contention for this.


----------



## editor (Feb 4, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I did wonder if they would be in contention for this.


Well, they were gifted the site of the Canterbury for that booze-fuelled 'Sports' Zone that the community has been crying out for and after their triumphant, locals-excluding half million loss at Pop, that prime piece of property at Peckham Levels was all theirs!


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 4, 2018)

ricbake said:


> Can't imagine any use that International House could be put to for the meanwhile -
> The layout is pants; the lifts are always breaking down; the heating isn't good; the plumbing is dire...
> 
> If there is a five year plan it will probably be left empty for most of it



Im for this use. Its step forward from the quick sale to a developer. Originally this was the idea once staff have moved to the Nu Town hall.

I get impression that Cllrs/ Regen officers now see central Brixton as a sensitive issue. From meetings I've attended.

International House is part of the Brixton Rec development. Some I know wanted it listed along with Rec. It's not. The Grade two listing cover the Rec only.

Heating and plumbing is also problem in the Rec. It's never been regularly maintained ( imo) and the plumbing and other services have reached the end of there life. So both International house and Rec need large scale replacement of ageing plumbing etc. With Rec Council have promised around Ten million to do this. Technically , according to officers, it is difficult to do whilst keeping Rec open. But officers have never been that keen on Rec.

This was , as officer reminded me recently, reason why Council Regen opinion was that these buildings had reached the end of there life. That better option was to demolish them and start again.

Structurally the Brixton Rec / International house are sound. The concrete structure is to a high standard.


----------



## ricbake (Feb 4, 2018)

The original boilers for the whole building the Rec and the offices are buried in the bowels, they still heat the Rec, swimming pool etc and are over 40 years old. International House has a separate boiler plant in shipping containers in the side yard put in about 5 years ago. This leaves the 40 year old boilers operating even more inefficiently than just being too old and very difficult to maintain or find parts for... 
If they don't knock the Rec down they will have to find somewhere else to put in new boilers and then find a way to connect them to the old pipe work. 
The concrete probably is good but there are all sorts of difficulties with other parts of the structure and how different materials and parts of it fit together


----------



## editor (Feb 13, 2018)

A total fucking disgrace. There was no reason to destroy this beautiful pub.

Lambeth Council set to spend half a million pounds on buying the site of the demolished Canterbury Arms boozer


----------



## Twattor (Feb 13, 2018)

There is a lot of this that doesn't make sense - £500k wouldn't touch the value of the site let alone the costs May will have incurred to date.

May's initial consented scheme fitted within the land within their ownership, as does the revised consent (which is still live until 6th December 2019). Cleared land with that sort of consent is worth way more than that, particularly in this location.

The proposed land swap gives Lambeth a strip of Popes road in exchange for a strip from the car park, but the drawing also shows the rest of the car park being transferred under a 999 year lease to give a square site far better suited to a bigger development.  Throw in May's EIA scoping application for a 20 story tower and this feels to me more like a joint venture in the making, and the £500k more a contribution towards costs to date and for the next planning application just dressed up as a payment for a bit of land.


----------



## happyshopper (Feb 14, 2018)

According to Lambethtalk International House "._.. is being considered for re-use as much needed workspace to support enterprise and employment opportunities in the town centre. It is expected that the future use could support over 500 new jobs_."


----------



## editor (Feb 14, 2018)

happyshopper said:


> According to Lambethtalk International House "._.. is being considered for re-use as much needed workspace to support enterprise and employment opportunities in the town centre. It is expected that the future use could support over 500 new jobs_."


Sounds a bit entrepreneurial

Cue: Pop Brixton 2!


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 14, 2018)

ricbake said:


> The original boilers for the whole building the Rec and the offices are buried in the bowels, they still heat the Rec, swimming pool etc and are over 40 years old. International House has a separate boiler plant in shipping containers in the side yard put in about 5 years ago. This leaves the 40 year old boilers operating even more inefficiently than just being too old and very difficult to maintain or find parts for...
> If they don't knock the Rec down they will have to find somewhere else to put in new boilers and then find a way to connect them to the old pipe work.
> The concrete probably is good but there are all sorts of difficulties with other parts of the structure and how different materials and parts of it fit together



Two of the Rec boilers have been replaced.


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2018)

Just what Brixton needs: 






Behold Brixton Central – luxury living on top of the flattened Canterbury Arms, with more on the way


----------



## CH1 (Jul 4, 2018)

It's like the Doge's Palace - without the lagoon - or the Doge!


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 4, 2018)

editor said:


> Just what Brixton needs:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Council have been starting to consult on Brixton Central area. BTW the developer has stolen the name from the Brixton Masterplan. Rather annoying.

This is a problem with "regeneration". The Council consult us local residents/ community group on improving area.

The people who cash in are property developers.



> Their developer’s website gushes with talk of “future plans for large scale regeneration of the land surrounding the scheme” with the promise of “a new urban quarter and significant improvement to the public realm.”



Above quote is property developer piggy backing on  Council led ( with local community input) improvement. A developer using this to make more profit. Ive said before that property developers are all scum. And been criticized for it. This reinforce my opinion.


----------



## Twattor (Jul 5, 2018)

Odd. I though this had been shelved and there was some sort of Joint Venture on the cards between Lambeth and May to build out a much larger development.  I wonder what's happened to that.  Perhaps the involvement of Sports Direct bloke in the central masterplan area has thrown a spanner in the works.


----------



## trabuquera (Jul 5, 2018)

Not making any snide accusations about the developers' politics (and I guess overpriced "luxury" stacked flats for 2018 London aren't easy to design to look good) but it reminds me irresistibly of this Fascist era behemoth in EUR, Rome:


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 5, 2018)

Twattor said:


> Odd. I though this had been shelved and there was some sort of Joint Venture on the cards between Lambeth and May to build out a much larger development.  I wonder what's happened to that.  Perhaps the involvement of Sports Direct bloke in the central masterplan area has thrown a spanner in the works.



One problem for Lambeth property developer Regeneration officers is the Grade two listing of the Brixton Rec.

Officers response to the listing of this piece of socialist post war architecture ( Heritage England view) was that they had "other plans" that were now thwarted. For time being.

I've heard elements in Council were looking at redeveloping all of Brixton Station road including knocking down Rec. A prime large site.

Other problem is the New Labour obsession with working with thrusting business men. Why should they? Mike Ashley and the developer behind "Brixton Central" follow planning regulations as they stand. Why should they work with Council more than what is statutorily required of them.

The New Labour consultation on the Brixton Central site was on basis of Co Production of a planning Masterplan for this site. ( Covering land on Brixton station road and Pope's road). This fell apart with NR unilateral decision to redevelop arches its way and ignore community.

Unfortunately there is a Brixton Masterplan. A good document. But with weak provision to make sure regeneration works in interest of local community

So my pessimistic view is that improvement to public realm and new housing will further gentrification of area. A perverse outcome of all that local input in writing the Brixton Masterplan.

I also think some officers in Regen are quite happy with that.


----------



## Twattor (Jul 6, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> One problem for Lambeth property developer Regeneration officers is the Grade two listing of the Brixton Rec.
> 
> Officers response to the listing of this piece of socialist post war architecture ( Heritage England view) was that they had "other plans" that were now thwarted. For time being.
> 
> ...


My understanding was that the land swap agreed between May and Lambeth was to facilitate a much larger development that would fit into the masterplan, as having the May structure on its own might compromise the next phase.  I was expecting to see a new planning submission for a revised scheme.  

Perhaps May are getting cagey about their current permission lapsing and the risk of not getting a new consent, or maybe their funders want to see some action.  I'll have to have a look through the docs on Lambeth's website and see what's changed since last time.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 7, 2018)

Did I read somewhere that one of the Antic group of companies are proposing to build flats on top of the Effra Social pub? 

I can't find mention of it anywhere so may have been imagining it.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 7, 2018)

Rushy said:


> Did I read somewhere that one of the Antic group of companies are proposing to build flats on top of the Effra Social pub? I can't find mention of it anywhere so may have been imagining it.


Brixton news, rumours and general chat  - summer 2018


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Apr 30, 2020)

I have this little bit of Canterbury history at home. It's Boy About Town's original decks that he used for all the funerals, weddings, paddy's days etc....it's got some life in it, but needs a little tlc on one of the decks....

Anyone any good at restoring this kinda thing.....I'm shit.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Apr 30, 2020)




----------



## Nanker Phelge (Apr 30, 2020)

It was moved to my garage with all the audio equipment when we first got word the pub was being sold.....little did we know it would drag on for so long and so little, but misery, would come of all the upheaval.


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 30, 2020)

A citronic? I know someone local who can service them - not sure about during lockdown though.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Apr 30, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> A citronic? I know someone local who can service them - not sure about during lockdown though.



No rush...just want to find someone who can look at it for me


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Apr 30, 2020)

yes, a citronic

With soft tape release


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 30, 2020)

I’ve never seen the tape version. I used to play on a belt drive one! Will dig out the blokes’ number


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Apr 30, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> I’ve never seen the tape version. I used to play on a belt drive one! Will dig out the blokes’ number



belt and a tape deck, mate...luxury model


----------



## editor (May 24, 2020)

Sad to hear (via Nanker Phelge ) that Mary has died 












Pics from The last party at Brixton’s Canterbury Arms as gentrification claims another much-loved community asset


----------



## Nanker Phelge (May 24, 2020)

A good woman. R.I.P.

To be honest they were all a lot healthier after the pub closed. She was ill with cancer through all that and got the news it was terminal. They had going on too at the time.

She lasted out, and I think they were happier for having moved on, despite how hard it was.


----------



## editor (May 24, 2020)

Nanker Phelge said:


> A good woman. R.I.P.
> 
> To be honest they were all a lot healthier after the pub closed. She was ill with cancer through all that and got the news it was terminal. They had going on too at the time.
> 
> She lasted out, and I think they were happier for having moved on, despite how hard it was.


And the site of the old pub is still fucking empty.


----------



## clandestino (Nov 13, 2020)

Oh no - I had no idea about Mary's passing. That's so sad. She was the heart and soul of the Canterbury, and was very kind to me personally. I'm really sorry to hear this. RIP Mary.


----------



## editor (Nov 13, 2020)

Crispy said:


> Yep. However, it is not an inappropriate site for a taller building, IMO. The mansion blocks the other side of International House are 5 stories, and the Rec is even taller.
> 
> I predict a residential conversion for International House btw.


I predict a (partial, if not full) residential conversion for the Hondo Tower eventually.


----------



## editor (Nov 13, 2020)

Tonight! Dance away the lockdown gloom: virtual indie club night at the VR Canterbury Arms in Brixton tonight, Fri 13th Nov 2020


----------

