# Coldharbour Lane redevelopment



## Mr. Lee (Aug 31, 2004)

Dunno if this has been talked about before here...

I got a letter from Lambeth Council today, to summarise



> Proposed Development: 419-423 Coldharbour Lane London SW9 8LH
> 
> For: Demolition of existing buildings (retail units) and erection of a fice storey building comprising two retail units at ground floor level, with fourteen self-contained flats on the floors above and rooftop plant room. Provision of 8 parking spaces to rear of site to be accessed via Rushcroft Road, and associated works, (Planning permission and Conservation Area applications recieved).
> 
> Applicant: Milegate Ltd.



I am invited to let both the council and the contractor know what I think about the whole thing - which should be something as my flat is in the block directly opposite. Is this the (much prophesized) "yuppification" of Brixton? Although I had no particular love for Pedro Keys and many of its regulars, the actual building itself looked kind of cool. It would be a shame to see it replaced with some big "modern" monstrosity inhabited by city wankers with BMWs. A building that size could also quite drastically change the "feel" of this end of Coldharbour Lane too (feng shui and all that...)

Anyway, anyone know or think anything about the above?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Aug 31, 2004)

I've heard about this and I know I shall be hearing more...basically it's a no social-housing gated community in the centre of Brixton.....
Boo


----------



## hendo (Aug 31, 2004)

Who/What is Milegate Ltd?


----------



## Mr. Lee (Aug 31, 2004)

More here: http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/publ...plication_detailview.asp?caseno=HY7L89BOFF000


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2004)

WTF is a 'rooftop plant room'?

Which buildings are covered by 419-423? If it's the one currently housing the (ahem) 'hotel' I would have thought that it might have been protected, what with it being a rather attractive temperance building sat in a conservation zone....


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Aug 31, 2004)

Is this the shopping arcade end, where we went today?


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2004)

Mr. Lee said:
			
		

> More here: http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/publ...plication_detailview.asp?caseno=HY7L89BOFF000


Grrr! Rubbish, super slow site insists I use IE to access it...


----------



## Crispy (Aug 31, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> WTF is a 'rooftop plant room'?



Plant in this context = air conditioning, boilers, water tanks, etc. For a building this size, that will probably be fairly substantial (depends on what they do with the serviecs to the retail units) - it may be concealed in the roof structure (if they're doing a pitched roof) or it may be in seperate enclosures, set back from the parapet.

I'm not sure exactly where this site is, but multimap reckons it's just down from the junction with Electric Lane:

http://www.multimap.com/map/browse....e=531155.000038412&amp;gridn=175321.881437066

The drawings for this should be available to view by request at the planning office (which is on the ground floor of the council offices at the bottom of Acre Lane). I have some spare time on the next few days, so could go and check this out if people are interested? Copying regulations vary from council to council, but I'll try and sneak some photos if possible. If it does indeed look out of place, letters of objection can be drawn up.


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2004)

Crispy Newsom said:
			
		

> The drawings for this should be available to view by request at the planning office (which is on the ground floor of the council offices at the bottom of Acre Lane). I have some spare time on the next few days, so could go and check this out if people are interested?


That sounds like the old temperance hall which I would have thought would be protected as it's a fine old building ... http://www.urban75.org/brixton/photos/296.html


----------



## Mr. Lee (Aug 31, 2004)

Yeah - that's the one


----------



## hendo (Sep 1, 2004)

Googling for Milegate finds them listed as a caterer in Rushcroft Road.

http://www.caterer-directory.com/company-55000040.html


----------



## hatboy (Sep 1, 2004)

How come "troublesome" premises (sometimes genuinely so, but sometimes NOT) - ie The Harriers, Nyam Food - get closed by the police and then shortly afterwards a massive, fancy redevelopment is announced that will require their site?

I DO NOT believe that this is always co-incidence.


----------



## IntoStella (Sep 1, 2004)

Yes, it's another 14-unit crock o' crap.

Address: 419-423 Coldharbour Lane
Ref: 04/01481
Applicant/owner of land: Milegate Ltd., 20 Somerleyton Road, SW9
Agent: Bryan Well Associates Ltd., 53 Ross Road, SE25

Proposal:

9 X 1 bed
4 X 2 bed
1 X 3 bed
2 retail units

Some points that have been made by Anna Key, having been up to the planning office to look at the plans:





> The development will cause the loss of 279 square metres of retail space on
> Coldharbour Lane. The three existing shops occupy 400 sm. The two
> replacement units would occupy 121 sm.
> 
> ...


AFAICS the 'plant room' means air conditioning. So more local noise and pollution to provide either 'luxury' airconned yup pads or airconned retail space -- therefore likely to be 'style bars' or the like.


----------



## IntoStella (Sep 1, 2004)

hendo said:
			
		

> Googling for Milegate finds them listed as a caterer in Rushcroft Road.
> 
> http://www.caterer-directory.com/company-55000040.html


 That's as much as I have been able to ascertain. Wtf is 2 Rushcroft road? I know of no such company. As you can see above, they are also listed at 29 Somerleyton. They seem to be a cash and carry. 

Another wideboy make-a quick-buck scheme with no regard for sustainable planning or regeneration.  Great.  

Is one of those furniture shops 2 Rushcroft rd?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Sep 1, 2004)

Crispy Newsom said:
			
		

> Plant in this context = air conditioning, boilers, water tanks, etc. For a building this size, that will probably be fairly substantial (depends on what they do with the serviecs to the retail units) - it may be concealed in the roof structure (if they're doing a pitched roof) or it may be in seperate enclosures, set back from the parapet.




Obviously Editor was thinking of some other type of plants


----------



## editor (Sep 1, 2004)

Minnie_the_Minx said:
			
		

> Obviously Editor was thinking of some other type of plants


Naively, I was honestly thinking of some sort of eco-friendly green space built on the roof.

Of course, now that I know it's going to be a fucking toff "fuck u!" gated community with 'drive in and avoid the locals' facilities, I realise that there's no chance of anything like that appearing.


----------



## lang rabbie (Sep 1, 2004)

I don't think the address for correspondence on a planning application has to be the registered office of the company.




			
				Companies House search said:
			
		

> Name & Registered Office :
> MILEGATE LIMITED
> 15 COCHRANE MEWS
> ST JOHNS WOOD
> ...


----------



## Errol's son (Sep 1, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> Naively, I was honestly thinking of some sort of eco-friendly green space built on the roof.
> 
> Of course, now that I know it's going to be a fucking toff "fuck u!" gated community with 'drive in and avoid the locals' facilities, I realise that there's no chance of anything like that appearing.



Maybe the penthouse will have a roof garden?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Sep 1, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> Naively, I was honestly thinking of some sort of eco-friendly green space built on the roof.
> 
> Of course, now that I know it's going to be a fucking toff "fuck u!" gated community with 'drive in and avoid the locals' facilities, I realise that there's no chance of anything like that appearing.




tsk tsk.  The new residents will probably end up as Albert quaffers


----------



## Fuzzy (Sep 1, 2004)

plant rooms also mean lift mechanisms which i believe are required when developments go above 4 storeys. 

it does appear to be going for the under the threshold of 15 units for affordable housing to kick in. sneaky fuckers. 

you could object on the grounds that 8 car parking isnt enough and that it will result in off street parking elsewhere but this is a pretty weak arguement due to the proximity of the site to the tube station. 

what is there at the moment. is the building currently 5 storeys in height. if not you can argue loss of amenity by overlooking, loss of sunshine/daylight, privacy. 

are the retail units A1 or A3?


----------



## Errol's son (Sep 1, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> I don't think the address for correspondence on a planning application has to be the registered office of the company.



I doubt it too.

Many companies have a variety of trading addresses as well as a registered address.  Many small companies in the UK put their accountant's address as their registered office and the accountant just forwards anything of importance on to his/her client.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 1, 2004)

Minnie_the_Minx said:
			
		

> tsk tsk.  The new residents will probably end up as Albert quaffers



Embrace and Extend is the way forward. 'Free Pint' vouchers and a friendly smile 

Besides, 60sqm (1/2 of the total 120sqm ground floor space mentioned upthread) is far too small for a decent pub/bar, so they'll just _have_ to try out the local, won't they


----------



## Mr. Lee (Sep 1, 2004)

Fucking hell this doesn't sound very good at all. I'll check it out and start complaining....


----------



## hatboy (Sep 1, 2004)

What is there at the moment is a one storey building of no significance architecturally. But it does contain three substantial shops units. (The one where Nyam food was, is that right? I can't see them pulling down the old temperance hall building).  

However that doesn't excuse replacing this with an ugly bigger building that squeezes private flats in and squeezes shop space out.

A building of quallity that was three or four storeys high, with no loss of retail (in character and rental affordability) and inclusion of a proportion of social/affordabe rental housing I'd have no objection to.


----------



## Fuzzy (Sep 2, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> A building of quallity that was three or four storeys high, with no loss of retail (in character and rental affordability) and inclusion of a proportion of social/affordabe rental housing I'd have no objection to.



i'd let the authority know that if you were to put an objection in. planners get so fed up with hearing about what people dont want but if you would be happy with that form of development then let them know. its easier for them to start telling the developer what would be acceptable if they have some idea from what objectors have said.


----------



## IntoStella (Sep 2, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> What is there at the moment is a one storey building of no significance architecturally. But it does contain three substantial shops units. (The one where Nyam food was, is that right? I can't see them pulling down the old temperance hall building).


No great shakes architecturally but contemporaneous with the old temperance hall if you look at the external decoration. For what it's worth.  I assume they must have been part of the same complex originally. Perhaps the sinlge storey part was  kitchens, laundry or something. 





> A building of quallity that was three or four storeys high, with no loss of retail (in character and rental affordability) and inclusion of a proportion of social/affordabe rental housing I'd have no objection to.


I agree. Of course build quality does not come under planning's remit, which is where it gets very easy to send concerned residents on a wild goose chase through the council's labyrinthine departments while getting away with murder. 

Rabbie -- nice one for doing the company search.


----------



## Fuzzy (Sep 2, 2004)

is there a brixton society or something that is interested in local buildings of historic significance. as its in a conservation area it may be worth contacting them and seeing whether they want to put anything in.


----------



## hatboy (Sep 2, 2004)

Lambeth Conservation 
E-mail Address(es):
mcopeman@lambeth.gov.uk
Phone: 7926 1215

Alan Piper (Brixton Soc)
E-mail Address(es):
apiperbrix@aol.com

Alan Vinall (Planning)
E-mail Address(es):
avinall@lambeth.gov.uk
Acre House
10 Acre Lane
London SW2 5LL
Phone: 7926 1212

Anyone found any pictures of what this will look like?


----------



## lang rabbie (Sep 2, 2004)

Although the single storey bit is in a pretty shabby state at the moment, don't some of the shopfronts have some original faience tiling under several coats of paint as well as some "twiddly bits" above the shops (or am I imagining it???)


----------



## IntoStella (Sep 2, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> Although the single storey bit is in a pretty shabby state at the moment, don't some of the shopfronts have some original faience tiling under several coats of paint as well as some "twiddly bits" above the shops (or am I imagining it???)


Don't think they're painted. I think they have the orignal green glazed surface. They run all the way round the hotel and up to Nyam's. They're in surprisingly good condition on the whole. And yes, there is a moulded blaustrade above with a sort of mock (?) Georgian portico with a painted, circular motif in the middle.


----------



## IntoStella (Sep 2, 2004)

Any chance of someone with a dig cam taking some pix  of the overall building and the tiles if they wander by?


----------



## IntoStella (Sep 2, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> Anyone found any pictures of what this will look like?


I think AK may have seen drawings at the planning office from what he said -- comments above.


----------



## Fuzzy (Sep 2, 2004)

just had a thought. have any of you lambeth residents heard of a housing needs survey? if so can you get hold of it or view it. it should let you know what type housing is most in need in within the borough. i can hazard a guess that its not going to be 1 and 2 bed apartments and that more likely family housing is required. its another reason to throw at the planners to say that flatted developments are not needed for lambeth residents. speak to someone in the housing department who deals with section 106 agreements arising through new housing developments and they should be able to tell you what is and isnt needed in central brixton.


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 2, 2004)

What I have never understood about these luxury developments in places like Coldharbour lane is who the hell buys them?  It's bad enough having to live here when you don't have a choice but to pay £250,000 for the honour?


----------



## IntoStella (Sep 2, 2004)

Fuzzy said:
			
		

> just had a thought. have any of you lambeth residents heard of a housing needs survey? if so can you get hold of it or view it. it should let you know what type housing is most in need in within the borough. i can hazard a guess that its not going to be 1 and 2 bed apartments and that more likely family housing is required. its another reason to throw at the planners to say that flatted developments are not needed for lambeth residents. speak to someone in the housing department who deals with section 106 agreements arising through new housing developments and they should be able to tell you what is and isnt needed in central brixton.


Nice one fuzzy. I like your thinking. 

Lambeth is always going on about housing homeless families -- while busly selling its stock to the private sector.

Pacific -- many people would like to live on or near CHL, but only with a lovely secure gated courtyard/carpark so they feel nice and safe and keep the locals out.


----------



## Bob (Sep 2, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Pacific -- many people would like to live on or near CHL, but only with a lovely secure gated courtyard/carpark so they feel nice and safe and keep the locals out.



Err... isn't the only gated block of flats on Coldharbour lane at the moment Clifton mansions subject of an article by Anna Key    Or is that the right sort of gated development?  

http://www.urban75.org/brixton/features/yuppies.html
Photo here:
http://www.urban75.org/brixton/photos/307.html


On a more serious note what does the UDP say about this area? Even if the place is to be developed it would ruin the look of that corner if the frontage was redeveloped....grrr....  

Pacific - I'm about to come and live on Coldharbour lane!


----------



## IntoStella (Sep 2, 2004)

Bob said:
			
		

> Err... isn't the only gated block of flats on Coldharbour lane at the moment Clifton mansions subject of an article by Anna Key   Or is that the right sort of gated development?


You do say the daftest things, Bob.  Clifton is hardly a new development, is it? Besides, the gates are there to keep undesirables *in*.  You ever been in Clifton? Yuppie it ain't.

Of course, lots of property developers would love to get their hands on it. After all, we cannot have *poor* people living in prime real estate, can we?    That is the exclusive right of the rich. God I love social housing. Especially in places like Bloomsbury, Fitzrovia and Cheyne Walk. Swivel on that, you grasping fuckers.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 2, 2004)

hendo said:
			
		

> Googling for Milegate finds them listed as a caterer in Rushcroft Road.
> 
> http://www.caterer-directory.com/company-55000040.html



  Yes I found this as well.The name Milegate rings a bell.Ill have to check but it may have been associated with a previous retrospective planning application not a hundred mile away from this site.If Im correct it will make more sense about who is behind it.This might not be a Developer coming from outside but someone cashing in on rising land prices in central Brixton.


----------



## lang rabbie (Sep 3, 2004)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> Yes I found this as well.The name Milegate rings a bell.Ill have to check but it may have been associated with a previous retrospective planning application not a hundred mile away from this site.If Im correct it will make more sense about who is behind it.This might not be a Developer coming from outside but someone cashing in on rising land prices in central Brixton.



They were the applicant at 411-417 Coldharbour Lane London SW9 8LQ
See page 107 of Planning Applications Committee Reports- 10 February 2004 (4.9Mb pdf document so slow to download on dial-up connection)

The application was deferred for the odd reason


> RESOLVED: That the application be deferred to allow additional time
> for officers to obtain further information.


AFAIK it has never come back to the committee


----------



## lang rabbie (Sep 3, 2004)

*Curioser and curioser*

The application for 419-423 is advertised in this morning's SLP.

There is also a new application listed there for the former *Brixton Cycles* site:



> Shop, 435-437 Coldharbour Lane
> 
> Conversion, change of use and extension of property above the ground floor shop to provide 9 self contained flats, including the extension to rear at first and second floor levels with the erection of an additional storey above, replacement of the existing shop front and other fenestration on front elevation, together with associated alterations.
> 
> 04/02232/FUL/DC_WHA



Does somebody with more time available this morning want to look that up on the Lambeth Planning drying paint viewer?


----------



## Fuzzy (Sep 3, 2004)

housing above flats is not a bad thing. means that town centres have people in them once the shops shut giving life to the town on a night. it also makes good use of space that would otherwise not be used.

edited to add, if the retail use at ground floor is retained i think using hte space above a shop for flats is a good idea.


----------



## lang rabbie (Sep 3, 2004)

It's possible that what is now proposed for the Brixton Cycles site is a fairly good scheme, if they have dropped the attempt to get an A3 use (food/drink/bah) at ground floor level, even though many people will be disappointed if there is no social housing.   

It's just that with the planning history of the site, many locals need some convincing that the shops will be actively marketed at reasonable rents for retail, rather than the owners returning after eighteen months claiming that there is no interest in them and asking for A3 to maintain an "active frontage" on Coldharbour Lane.

I wouldn't be averse to an infill scheme at 419-423, but it needs to be 
sensitive to the former temperance billiard hall, and preferably keep and refurbish the Edwardian ground floor shop surrounds which are a continuation of the temperance hall block.


----------



## prunus (Sep 3, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> The application for 419-423 is advertised in this morning's SLP.
> 
> There is also a new application listed there for the former *Brixton Cycles* site:
> 
> ...




As no-one seems to care about railway bridges like I do, here is some small info from Lambeth Planning site:
The Brixton Cycles application (if that is 435-437 CHL as I think) is being made by 'TBAC Ltd' - Companies House website seems to be down at the mo so dunno about them, but the agent is McMorran And Gatehouse Architects, (http://www.mcmorranandgatehouse.com/) - the same people involved in the Part Worn Res site development.  Co-incidence?  Probably, but there you go.

Aha:  A little more googling finds TBAC Ltd registered at 1 Lordship Lane, the same address as The Black Ant Co (for which I now see it is the initials...) involved in (or at least the last registered owners of) the Part Worn Res development (thisun: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=82065), so I'd guess it's not a co-incidence.  The Black Ant is taking over CHL.


----------



## Bob (Sep 3, 2004)

I'd guess they're taking quite a risk on Coldharbour lane - it's fairly obvious that lots of people want to live on the (relatively) quiet streets off it like Rushcroft road - but the Part Worn Res site has 49 flats - which in itself is probably about the same as the number of Coldharbour lane flats this side of Loughborogh junction that have come up in 3 or 4 years... they'll be in severe danger of flooding the local market. If the housing market goes really badly they might end up renting to HB recipients anyway - like the Docklands in the early 90s!


----------



## IntoStella (Sep 3, 2004)

prunus said:
			
		

> Aha:  A little more googling finds TBAC Ltd registered at 1 Lordship Lane, the same address as The Black Ant Co (for which I now see it is the initials...) involved in (or at least the last registered owners of) the Part Worn Res development (thisun: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=82065), so I'd guess it's not a co-incidence. The Black Ant is taking over CHL.


Too fucking right they are  . 

Also registered at 1 Lordship Lane is Antic Ltd, owner of the Queen (which I hear they want to pull down and turn into -- you guessed it) and sub-lessee of the Dogstar. 1 Lordship lane is the East Dulwich Tavern, of course. 

It was also Antic who tried to build the gated community up Tulse Hill but were refused permisson for gates, mostly thanks to Justin. 

I seem to recall they have another chinese-wall company name as well but I can't remember and can't get AK on the blower. 

Fucking hell. They are on a mission. We must watch closely that they don't use their mutiple names to get round the 14-unit rule.


----------



## IntoStella (Sep 3, 2004)

Is TBAC  a separate co from The Black Ant Company or just an abbreviation?

Can somebody do a company search and find out just how many more companies are registered at that address?


----------



## prunus (Sep 3, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Is TBAC  a separate co from The Black Ant Company or just an abbreviation?
> 
> Can somebody do a company search and find out just how many more companies are registered at that address?



Weeelllll.....

TBAC Ltd is a company in its own right, but not at Lordship Lane (it's registered to somewhere in Uxbridge).  It used to be The British Aluminium Company, so I *suspect* that The Black Ant are just using the initials on applications for convenience (or they could be deliberate obfuscation) - they've made applications as 'TBAC Limited' to Lewisham council as well.  However you can use pretty much anything as a registered address, so it doesn't prove anything for certain.

The Black Ant Co. Ltd itself was called Readydogma until 1997.

There appears also at 1 Lordship Lane to be a company called Whizissue Ltd doing a development in Lewisham with, guess who, McMorran and Gatehouse.  So there's another one I'd guess.
That's all I can find for now.

found another one: Billsop Properties Ltd. - interestingly, Billsop Properties Ltd is registered to 10 charterhouse square EC1M, but using 1 lordship lane as its address in a planning application to Lewisham council (associated name is Mr A. Thomas if that means anything to anyone).

McMorran and Gatehouse have at some point at least used (edit131 Railton road as an address (in an application to Corporation of London).

that really is all for now, I'm off to get beer.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 3, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> They were the applicant at 411-417 Coldharbour Lane London SW9 8LQ
> See page 107 of Planning Applications Committee Reports- 10 February 2004 (4.9Mb pdf document so slow to download on dial-up connection)
> 
> The application was deferred for the odd reason
> ...



   I checked my notes.Milegate Ltd put in 2 retrospective applications for the infamous "Visits"/"Pedro Keys" bar/restaurent.The application for a "hotel" had been agreed."Visits" was extended into the ground floor of the "hotel" without planning permission.The retrospective application was for a change of use  from a "hotel" use on the ground floor to A3(entertainment) with the shop becoming a bar as well.Thus a large bar space for up to 60 people. 

   Visits had been closed down by the police for the understandable reason that it was causing to much trouble on the street.The retrospective application included a note saying that the applicant would make sure that the premises would be run in a "proper and orderly manner".I assume the planners were trying to get assurances that it would be run properly.Also the "hotel" would not in reality have stayed if this application had been accepted.

  "Pedro Keys" along with Nyams were raided and closed by the police permanently.

  My conclusion is therefore that the same people behind Visits/Pedro Keys are behind the application that started this thread.So anyone considering putting in written objections bear in mind that they can be seen by the applicant.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 3, 2004)

PacificOcean said:
			
		

> What I have never understood about these luxury developments in places like Coldharbour lane is who the hell buys them?  It's bad enough having to live here when you don't have a choice but to pay £250,000 for the honour?



  A lot of new developments are sold as investments-buy to let in central London


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 3, 2004)

Getting a bit confused here as this thread has know turned into a Brixton cycles building thread.Could we have separete thread on that please?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 3, 2004)

Must say I agree with Bob on the "gated" development.If one objected tothis at planning all the applicant has to say is that many other places are "Gated".Clifton Mansions also the Barrier Block is know gated.Unless its an estate of buildings enclosed by a wall and gate(as one gets in the USA) or a development closing off a public right of way I dont see how that argument could hold up at Planning Committee.

  It will lead to loss of retail space,there are design considerations-as LR/HB have shown.Fuzzy has made some points that can be taken up.Are the flats in line with what is required in the borough?Trouble with this argument is that some of us are also arguing for more social housing for single people at the same time.There is the issue of the car parking space-whether it is neccessary as car use is to be discouraged in central London.

  Given whose involved in this application it could be they are trying to get it to increase the value of the site to sell.

   Im also as Fuzzy has pointed out not against flats above shops in CHL.When Larrys Bike shop plans were being opposed one of the issues was that CHL could become a dead zone of late night bars.More flats may improve CHL.Im not against the new Bike shop plans in principle for example.

   The issue of capitalist property developers building overpriced flats in central Brixton is not entirely going to be dealt with by opposing planning applications.Except for the amount of units involved and whether they should be more "affordable units" included.

   If thats what people think they should put it in their comments on the proposal.At least then the Councillors will know its an issue even if its not covered by the UDP.

  A lot of this is down to IMO that these private developments could lead to the Council thinking about flogging off Rushcroft RD/Clifton Mansions/Somerlyton Rd to developers.If that happens then a concerted effort should be made to defend these as social housing areas.

  Somerleyton Rd,according to the minutes of the last BAC,may be classified for housing-this would increase the value of the land considerably.Making it worth selling.

  Another issue is that the Guiness estate is to be redeveloped -leading to a loss of affordable housing.As Guiness have to subsidise the redevelopment by some sales.

   Their is an issue of a gradual lowering of social housing in central Brixton.

  Oh and just because Ive said all this does not mean I support Capitalism as I dont.I just think one has to be clear.I loath property developers but the revolution has not happened yet.These people wont be stuck in front of a firing squad just yet.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 5, 2004)

I looked at the architects drawings for both schemes(they are at the Tate library).Here are comments.First the scheme for 419-423 CHL.This is to replace the 3 shops in between Clifton Mansions and the "Hotel".Architect Bryan Wells Associates.

   Their will be 9 one bed flats,4 two bed and 1 three bed.Their will be 2 retail units (A1) with a loss of 279 sq m retail space.The space around the back has 3 existing car parking spaces.This will be increased to 7 ,1 disability space and 6 cycle racks.Their will be space for a delivery vehicle.This means that deliveries to the shop and refuse collection can be done from the rear-meaning CHL wont be obstructed.

  The main entrance to the flats is on CHL.Therefore IMO this development is not a "Gated development".

  The 2nd and 3rd rear floors have balconies that may overlook the flats in Rushcroft Rd.

   The front of the building is built from a steel clad frame stone cladded.The colours not decided yet.The building is "modernist"-it has a large amount of glass filling in the steel frame.The floors dont line up with Clifton mansions.The is a central pillar that sticks up with a clock on the top.

   The design is radically different from the Victorian buildings next to it.This may be controversial to some.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 5, 2004)

The design for the old bike shop 435-437 CHL is by McMorran & Gatehouse Architects.

   Their design is also for flats and retail(A1).Their will be no loss of retail space.Sorry I did not note number of flats.Their may be an issue of balconies on the rear overlooking Rushcroft Rd.

  The design for the front retains the original facade with an extra floor on top making the building the same height as Clifton Mansions with a flat roof.

  The Architects have done a scheme which blends into the existing street frontage whilst totally refurbishing the building.The flats from what I remember from the drawings looked good.

   It looks like their will be two shop units at ground level.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 5, 2004)

Given that those of us who opposed the original plans for the bike shop(Larrys 3 floor bar) were using as one of the argumants that the retail sector was being pushed out by late night bars Im not minded to oppose the bike shop scheme(435-437CHL).Im not sure about the one for 419-423 CHl-the design and involvement of Milegate Ltd. 

  I dont agree that 419-423 CHL is a "Gated scheme".I think that those of us who opposed Larrys scheme have won the argument.Developers are putting forward schemes for a retail/residential mix.Seems to me that planners and developers have got the meesage on appropriate developments for CHL.Which is partly IMO done to the bike shop campaign.

   I know these are private flats that may be out of the price range of any local people.Thats another issue.In fact having two new private developments in CHL may make it easier to argue that Clifton Mansion/Rushcroft Rd be kept as some form of social housing.

  One of my local Councillors told me they thought that their was to much social housing in Brixton.These developments show that this is not necessarily so.

   Out of the two schemes I think the one for the old bike shop is best.Im not sure about the other "modernist" one .Its difficult to tell from black and white drawings what it will be like.Also the 419-423 scheme is just below the limit for a proportion of "affordable housing" element to the scheme.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 5, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> It's possible that what is now proposed for the Brixton Cycles site is a fairly good scheme, if they have dropped the attempt to get an A3 use (food/drink/bah) at ground floor level, even though many people will be disappointed if there is no social housing.
> 
> I wouldn't be averse to an infill scheme at 419-423, but it needs to be
> sensitive to the former temperance billiard hall, and preferably keep and refurbish the Edwardian ground floor shop surrounds which are a continuation of the temperance hall block.



   Both schemes have filled in the forms to say that the retail units will be A1.Im not clear whether this has to be kept to once they are built.Do you know Fuzzy?

   The infill scheme is definitely not in keeping with the Temperance hall.The ground floor Edwardian ground floor shop surrounds will go to be replaced by "modernist" glass and steel.

  The Brixton cycles scheme is IMO a good one.I liked the layouts of the flats as well on the top floor.Not that Ill get one  

  If you want to comment on the 419-423 scheme the planning officer is Mr Andrew Mulindwa-Town planning ,10 Acre Lane SW2 5LL


----------



## Fuzzy (Sep 6, 2004)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> Both schemes have filled in the forms to say that the retail units will be A1.Im not clear whether this has to be kept to once they are built.Do you know Fuzzy?



A1 is shop use i.e. not selling food or a pub/club. if its classed as A1 and they want to try using the premises for selling food or pub/club they will have to apply for planning permission to get the change of use. its not a back way in of getting a pub or a club there as the change of use from A1 to A3 is normally protected by retail policies such as those that stopped the loss of the bike shop.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 7, 2004)

Thanks Fuzzy.Also I heard that because flats are being built above A3 use would lower their value.Still doesnt stop it happening elsewhere.

   Anyone got any more comments on the 2 schemes?


----------



## Fuzzy (Sep 8, 2004)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> Thanks Fuzzy.Also I heard that because flats are being built above A3 use would lower their value.Still doesnt stop it happening elsewhere.



not suprising really when you think about the noise that residents would suffer at kicking out time. hardly makes them desireable locations to live.


----------



## hatboy (Sep 8, 2004)

"I wouldn't be averse to an infill scheme at 419-423, but it needs to be 
sensitive to the former temperance billiard hall, and preferably keep and refurbish the Edwardian ground floor shop surrounds which are a continuation of the temperance hall block."

These three single storey shops really aren't worth saving. Go and look at that mosaic thing and the tiles, nothing special and the shopfronts themselves are long gone. I'd like good quality build here too but the shed those shops are in isn't anything special.


----------



## hatboy (Sep 8, 2004)

"The design is radically different from the Victorian buildings next to it.This may be controversial to some."

I like buildings in most styles, but I want the best of each style.   I don't want half-measures - unuseable balconies, weak detailing, pretentious but poorly referenced period-style features.


----------



## IntoStella (Sep 8, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> These three single storey shops really aren't worth saving. Go and look at that mosaic thing and the tiles, nothing special and the shopfronts themselves are long gone


 True, I went and had a proper look at them the other night and they are fucked. There is none of the lovely faience tiling seen round the corner on the hotel.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 10, 2004)

Their was something IS posted that Pooka had talked to one of the planners re affordable provision.Ive checked the Draft UDP and it says that on developments on 10 units or over an affordable alement is required.The adopted UDP does it on how big the site is in hectares(whatever they are  ).So the plans for 419-423 CHL could be contested on this.Though the draft UDP does not carry so much weight.The hectorage ill have to check

  Ill put up the correct details later.

  Still its worth querying this as a comment on the plans.


----------



## Fuzzy (Sep 10, 2004)

i think from what i've seen posted here is that the UDP is nearly at the revised deposit stage which means it holds a reasonable amount of weight. 

the whole planning process is a state of flux at the moment what with the passage of the planning and compulsory purchase being passed back in may. UDPs will be a thing of the past in a couple of years. dont ask. i'm still getting my head round waht the new system will be and i have to deal with it every day.


----------



## IntoStella (Sep 10, 2004)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> Their was something IS posted that Pooka had talked to one of the planners re affordable provision.Ive checked the Draft UDP and it says that on developments on 10 units or over an affordable alement is required.The adopted UDP does it on how big the site is in hectares(whatever they are  ).So the plans for 419-423 CHL could be contested on this.Though the draft UDP does not carry so much weight.The hectorage ill have to check
> 
> Ill put up the correct details later.
> 
> Still its worth querying this as a comment on the plans.


Cheers gramsci.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 12, 2004)

Looked at the Revised Deposit UDP(June 2004)-which is online-and the relevant bits are:

  "Policy 15 (c) On developments capable of 10+ units or on sites 0.1 Ha+ irrespective of the number of units,a mix of dwelling type,affordability and size of unit will be required,having regard to local circumstances and site characteristics,to meet the changing composition of households in the light of assessed housing need." page 64

   The "adopted" UDP (now out of date-but Im not sure how much more weight it gets.As Fuzzy says-correctly-the new one is almost completed)says:

   Policy H7 Affordable Housing

  "For developments of new housing on larger sites(normally over 0.3 ha,gross area) the Council will regard provisionof affordable housing as a material consideration.It will seek to negotiate a rasonable proportion of affordable housing through a legally binding agreement with the developer or enforced by way of planning conditions as appropriate".

 Didnt check the hectares of these sites so not sure on this.However IMO its definitely worth querying the fact that 419-423 has 15 units with no "affordable" ones.Cleverly the plans for the old bike shop are for 9 units.I wonder if the architects decided that so their would be no reason to hold up their application?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 12, 2004)

The Deposit UDP also has Policy 32 Building Scale and Design(Pages 106-107).For infill developments like these 2 plans their are special considerations under Policy 32.

   They should "respond to the context and sensitivity of the site and area,as follows:

   In Townscapes of significant quality..new infill developments will normally be required to be a scholarly replica of the predominant pattern..In areas of varied townscape significant quality,including most conservation areas..new points of interst are encouraged.New development should be disciplined by the:

  Building lines and scale of area
  heights,massing,rhythm and roofscape of adjoining buildings
  architectural characteristics,profiles and silhoutte of adjoining buildings
  type, colour, material of adjoining buildings
  form and detailing of existing buildings

  The Deposit UDP goes on to say that modern design is acceptable.That a modern copy of adjacent buildings can look just as naff as a poor modern design.

  The 2 designs for the street can be compared.The one for the old bike shop keeps strictly to the deposit UDP by retaining the facade of the building.

  419-423 is completley new design.The architects could have-as Lang
 Rabbie suggested-restored or rebuilt the shops to their original Edwardian design.This would have kept it in keeping with the adjacent buildings.I think their is an issue with whether the design for 419-423 does keep with the "rhythm" of the adjacent buildings.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 26, 2004)

Ive put in comments on the 419-423 CHL scheme-lack of affordable element,poor design etc.So i update what happens.


----------



## IntoStella (Oct 1, 2004)

Dragged my flu ridden carcass up to the planning office to have  a look at this today. It looks just like a 1970s office block  -- with smoked glass, floor to ceiling picture windows -- and is massively imposing. It is also totally out of keeping with the adjacent Clifton Mansions and Temperance Hall, and not in an 'exciting', 'edgy' way. Just in an ugly, overpowering way.

It will overlook -- with floor to ceiling windows and balconies --  the rear of four to five blocks in Rushcroft Road on the CHL side. There is a separate lift motor room as well as two plant rooms so the latter are clearly for aircon. The lift tower extends far above the roofline of Clifton. 

The building specs look to be as cheap and nasty as they can get away with. 

As has been mentioned before, retail space is being sacrificed at the rear for car parking, and the architects' plans made me laugh aloud, for in the elevation showing the car parking they have drawn in what are clearly Mercs and Beamers.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 1, 2004)

The planners have acknowledged my comments so it should go to planning committee.I know a few others have put in comments as well.Also got the Coldharbour Forum(part of the Councils Brixton Forum) to put in comments as well.


----------



## OldSlapper (Oct 2, 2004)

I live at the back of this proposed development - midway between there and the Brixton Cycles one - and they would each be a disaster.

- Severe overlooking from windows and balconies. Over 100 years of privacy at the back of the Rushcroft Road flats destroyed.

- Coldharbour Lane retail space sacrificed for car parking.*

- A gated security estate on Coldharbour Lane ("security gates" at the back are clearly marked on the plans).

Also, I suspect neither block would be occupied by yuppies: they're nasty pokey little flats crammed into too little space on a busy, noisy, drug-infested street.

So what will happen? 

The yuppies will (quite rightly) shun the flats so they'll be bought by property management companies who'll let them to people off the housing register who Lambeth Council want to keep out of bed and breakfast accommodation. The rent will be paid by housing benefit.

So this development will:

- destroy the privacy of several blocks on Rushcroft Road 

- stick poor people - some of whom may be vulnerable, possibly with drug problems - in nasty little flats on a noisy street surrounded by drug dealers

- cost the state large sums of housing benefit money

- remove daytime retail space from Coldharbour Lane

- line the pockets of property developers and property management companies.

When you think about it these developments are, in reality, a type of council house privatisation scheme: The private sector builds the flats which are then occupied by poor people off the housing register with rent paid for by the state. 

And it's certain the wretched occupants will be asked to sign useless 6 month assured shorthold tenancies as opposed to the powerful council tenancy agreement.

All so property developers can stuff their pockets! And I hear that the Brixton Cycles developer is the same company who bought the Queen in Ferndale Road and then applied to demolish it to build yuppie 'apartments.'

The same company rents the Dogstar off the Merrett clan.

*when there's a tube station, a mainline station and numerous bus routes a few yards away!


----------



## editor (Oct 2, 2004)

OldSlapper said:
			
		

> All so property developers can stuff their pockets! And I hear that the Brixton Cycles developer is the same company who bought the Queen in Ferndale Road and then applied to demolish it to build yuppie 'apartments.'


I thought that there'd still be a pub on the ground floor with the upstairs converted into flats?

Of course, the real tragedy is that the majority of its customers were only there for the late night drinking (a much, much missed part of Brixton nightlife gone forever) and once that went a large part of the pub's income must have vanished.

The few times I went there in the daytime it was _completely deserted_ and at 10pm the place was barely customer-troubled.

I guess cheap bars like the Beehive - with their aggressive buying power - must have tempted away poorer customers too.


----------



## OldSlapper (Oct 2, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> I thought that there'd still be a pub on the ground floor with the upstairs converted into flats?


Nah. The plan is for total demolition. Local Councillors are fighting it by trying to extend the central conservation area to include the pub.

When I go in the pub now I get the feeling they're deliberately trying to run it down - so they can claim it doesn't make a profit so needs to be demolished.

Agree with you about the Queen. It was a great boozer with an excellent landlord. Such a shame it's gone. What have we got now? Living Bar?


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 2, 2004)

OldSlapper said:
			
		

> - A gated security estate on Coldharbour Lane ("security gates" at the back are clearly marked on the plans).
> 
> So what will happen?
> 
> The yuppies will (quite rightly) shun the flats so they'll be bought by property management companies who'll let them to people off the housing register who Lambeth Council want to keep out of bed and breakfast accommodation. The rent will be paid by housing benefit.



   How many more time have i got to point out this development cannot be defined as a "gated security estate" as the front entrance to the flats is on CHL.The back never was a right of way and will also be used for deliveries and rubbish collection for the shops and flats.

  To go to planning committee and argue its "gated" would be counterproductive and make one look stupid.Also as I was one of those arguing against the bike shop being turned into a 3 storey nightclub I cant see how I can logically argue against 2 developments of flats and retail space.This land has never been Counci owned its not like trying to sell RR of to a private developer(which I would oppose).

   The argument I have used is that this development is over the 10 units that he deposit UDP says should incorporate an "affordable" element,is a poor design and removes some retail space for car parking.

  Also new flats in central Brixton may have a good effect on the street IMO.

  The fact of the matter is that private developments often are bought up as investment properties for renting.Whether they are lived in by "yuppies" or not these plans arent IMO pushing out longstanding residents.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 5, 2004)

I got a letter from the Council yesterday saying that the planning application for 419-423 CHL(the modern design) has been withdrawn.


----------



## Fuzzy (Oct 5, 2004)

whilst that is a good start it only proves that the council were probably going to recomend it for refusal. the applicant wanting to avoid getting it refused has withdrawn it and now has a year to negotiate further with the planners about what they would find acceptable before they can resubmit it for further consideration and determination. may be wise to speak to the case officer and find out the exact reasons the applicant withdrew it just so you can make sure that if the scheme is resubmitted you can point out to the planners whether you feel that the applicant has addressed the council's original concerns.


----------



## Bob (Oct 5, 2004)

Would just like to point out that different people are complaining about these either being yuppie or non yuppie flats...  

Flats of any sort sound good to me - as long as they're done sensitively - all other things being equal more housing equals lower rents & house prices.


----------



## IntoStella (Oct 5, 2004)

Bob said:
			
		

> Would just like to point out that different people are complaining about these either being yuppie or non yuppie flats...


 (Here he comes again, spreading confusion before him) 

No they're not!! They're objecting to yuppie flats being done badly!! Do pay attention.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 6, 2004)

Bob said:
			
		

> Would just like to point out that different people are complaining about these either being yuppie or non yuppie flats...
> 
> Flats of any sort sound good to me - as long as they're done sensitively - all other things being equal more housing equals lower rents & house prices.



   I dont think necessarily more flats will lower prices.The only reason developers are building private flats in Brixton is that they think they will get a good return on their investment.

  I was in Clerkenwell yesterday in Dallington St.Yet more "loft apartments" are being built.I dont believe the fact that more are being built will lower their price.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 6, 2004)

Fuzzy said:
			
		

> whilst that is a good start it only proves that the council were probably going to recomend it for refusal. the applicant wanting to avoid getting it refused has withdrawn it and now has a year to negotiate further with the planners about what they would find acceptable before they can resubmit it for further consideration and determination. may be wise to speak to the case officer and find out the exact reasons the applicant withdrew it just so you can make sure that if the scheme is resubmitted you can point out to the planners whether you feel that the applicant has addressed the council's original concerns.



  Thanks for that tip Fuzzy-ill try and talk to him.Hes actually one of the better planning officers.Though it probably helped the officer that people had written in with their concerns as this could back him up if he wanted to refuse it.


----------



## Fuzzy (Oct 7, 2004)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> Thanks for that tip Fuzzy-ill try and talk to him.Hes actually one of the better planning officers.Though it probably helped the officer that people had written in with their concerns as this could back him up if he wanted to refuse it.



indeed. letters of objection pointing out why the development was unsuitable probably helped to confirm the planners recommendation. the system can work sometimes.


----------



## OldSlapper (Jan 12, 2005)

I see from here that the 9 yuppie flat development proposed for the old Bike Shop has been refused.

The developers are having real trouble with that shop. It's still on the market to rent for £82,000 per annum.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 12, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> Flats of any sort sound good to me - as long as they're done sensitively - all other things being equal more housing equals lower rents & house prices.


but 'yuppie flats' - by 'in practice' definition - ain't sensitive to local needs, full stop.


----------



## just_andrew (Jan 12, 2005)

Why aren't yuppie flats sensitive to local needs? Trying to figure that one out.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 15, 2005)

OldSlapper said:
			
		

> I see from here that the 9 yuppie flat development proposed for the old Bike Shop has been refused.
> 
> The developers are having real trouble with that shop. It's still on the market to rent for £82,000 per annum.



   This does surprise me as the development was keeping the original shopfront and retaining the ground floor as retail.I wonder what the reason for refusal was?


----------



## OldSlapper (Jan 15, 2005)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> I wonder what the reason for refusal was?


Someone needs to read the file or phone up the planner. I will if no one else does. I've skimmed planning committee minutes and can't find the decision, suggesting a planner refused it under devolved authority.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 16, 2005)

I looked through the minutes as well and couldnt see it either.


----------



## editor (Feb 14, 2006)

Has anyone seen the sudden leap in size for the development on Coldharbour Lane (where the tyre shop used to be, by Cooltan)?

The thing has suddenly sprouted the skeleton for another two floors at the top and is looking _fucking huge_ now.


----------



## prunus (Feb 14, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Has anyone seen the sudden leap in size for the development on Coldharbour Lane (where the tyre shop used to be, by Cooltan)?
> 
> The thing has suddenly sprouted the skeleton for another two floors at the top and is looking _fucking huge_ now.



Blimey!  I think that's as big as it's going to get though (7 stories).  It's a big old development (60 flats) isn't it though?


----------



## aurora green (Feb 14, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Has anyone seen the sudden leap in size for the development on Coldharbour Lane (where the tyre shop used to be, by Cooltan)?




Could anyone miss it?   
Is it going to be just flats, does anyone know?


----------



## iROBOT (Feb 14, 2006)

Every time I go to visit friends in Brixton my heart sinks, the place isn’t what it used to be.  I'm all for progress but it seems that the only people benefiting in all of this re-development are the (already) rich...  

NB//Got stopped going into one of the bars there a few weeks ago because I was (in the bouncers words) "a lone male" had to get my friend to get me who was already inside, that's the sort of wank I expect from doorstaff in the West End not Brixton!


----------



## Bob (Feb 15, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Has anyone seen the sudden leap in size for the development on Coldharbour Lane (where the tyre shop used to be, by Cooltan)?
> 
> The thing has suddenly sprouted the skeleton for another two floors at the top and is looking _fucking huge_ now.



Walk past it several times a day and had completely missed that. Very odd how slow they are at building it... actually it's not so huge - can't be much higher than the barrier block even now.


----------



## aurora green (Feb 16, 2006)

Bob said:
			
		

> ... actually it's not so huge - can't be much higher than the barrier block even now.




...and you dont think that's huge?


----------



## CH1 (Feb 15, 2015)

*Planning alert:* thread bump as 419-423 Coldharbour is on the menu again.

Following the redevelopment of the site east of Clifton Mansions, there is now a proposal to do the same sort of thing to the rather quaint single storey shops between Clifton Mansions and the "London Hotel" (former Temperance Billiard Hall).
 will shortly become:

The housing is arranged as 9 units - by-passing the need to bother with social housing.
Additionally there will be a much needed 21st century style "house" on land part of the site in Rushcroft Road. A major enhancement clearly.

Anyone wanting to read the extensive gory details can find them here:
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...iveTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=NIYAB0BOFIU00
This hasn't made the "Weekender" yet AFAIK.
Not sure what grounds there are for objection - although I have to say this development is not as vile as Metropolitan Housing Trust's adjacent redevelopment of Rushcroft Road/Vining Street done in the 1980s.


----------



## editor (Feb 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> *Planning alert:* thread bump as 419-423 Coldharbour is on the menu again.
> 
> Following the redevelopment of the site east of Clifton Mansions, there is now a proposal to do the same sort of thing to the rather quaint single storey shops between Clifton Mansions and the "London Hotel" (former Temperance Billiard Hall).
> View attachment 67762 will shortly become:
> ...


Well, there's a building that's completely devoid of any character whatsoever.


----------



## editor (Feb 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> The housing is arranged as 9 units - by-passing the need to bother with social housing.


What are the official rules on this?


----------



## CH1 (Feb 15, 2015)

editor said:


> What are the official rules on this?


It used to be that developments of 10 or more flats have to make provision for affordable.

The council had a run-in with the developer of Toplin House (old Refugee Council building Ferndale Road on precisely this point - refusing planning permission because they said the 9 flats were deliberately too big to avoid having to provide affordable.
Planning then passed a revised application on the site with 11 smaller flats - but still no affordable.
Reference http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=MOL4MVBO67000

So your guess is as good as mine.

BTW in looking at that case I note that some of the administration of Lambeth Planning seems to now be outsourced to Crapita. That's a comfort n'est-ce pas?


----------



## leanderman (Feb 15, 2015)

It was pretty obvious that that single storey bit of the road would be developed at some point.

The only surprise is that it is not Lexadon. Or is it Lexadon?


----------



## CH1 (Feb 15, 2015)

leanderman said:


> It was pretty obvious that that single storey bit of the road would be developed at some point.
> The only surprise is that it is not Lexadon. Or is it Lexadon?


I don't think so - it is not the Lexadon architects, and they always use the same architect in my experience.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 15, 2015)

leanderman said:


> It was pretty obvious that that single storey bit of the road would be developed at some point.
> The only surprise is that it is not Lexadon. Or is it Lexadon?


According to the CIL form it's Richmond Grove Holdings.
Mean anything to you? Part of Golfrate perhaps?

Note the actual application withholds the applicant details saying it's c/o Savills.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 15, 2015)

Richmond Grove Holdings Ltd is not registered at Companies House.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 15, 2015)

They made a similar application last year which was refused see below.
The applicant there is listed as Taher Tayeb, and that name comes up in connection with hotel companies elsewhere on Google etc.
Suggests the development may be connected with the London Hotel?


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Richmond Grove Holdings Ltd is not registered at Companies House.


I checked as well - definitely doesn't exist as that name.


----------



## editor (Feb 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> They made a similar application last year which was refused see below.
> The applicant there is listed as Taher Tayeb, and that name comes up in connection with hotel companies elsewhere on Google etc.
> Suggests the development may be connected with the London Hotel?


Thanks for unearthing this -I'll publish a story on Buzz tomorrow to let more people know. I'm not sure how they've fixed this problem contained in the planning refusal.



> The development, by virtue of its height, bulk and positioning in relation to surrounding buildings would result in significant and demonstrable harm to the amenity of the adjoining occupiers in terms of the daylight received by the windows contrary to Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan 2007


----------



## leanderman (Feb 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> They made a similar application last year which was refused see below.



I imagine they will rein it in a bit and get consent quite easily.


----------



## leanderman (Feb 16, 2015)

editor said:


> Thanks for unearthing this -I'll publish a story on Buzz tomorrow to let more people know. I'm not sure how they've fixed this problem contained in the planning refusal.



In their planning application, they claim to have overcome the reasons for refusal by scaling it all back a bit, and other tweaks.

Following on from this, it seems that the nine-unit arrangement is about what fits,  rather than about dodging social housing obligations.


----------



## editor (Feb 16, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Following on from this, it seems that the nine-unit arrangement is about what fits,  rather than about dodging social housing obligations.


Is that what you honestly believe?


----------



## Crispy (Feb 16, 2015)

The house bit has a strange plan. It's long and skinny going back from Rushcroft Road, then has two staircases - one at the front to bedrooms on 1st and 2nd floors, then another at the back to a 3rd bedroom. I concur with leanderman - the number is convenient, but is a result of the Rights To Light exercise.

BTW, I only count 8 units in the drawings - 1 house, 3 flats at 1st, 2 at 2nd and 2 at 3rd. Yet the description and supporting documents all count 9. There's a 2 bed flat missing somewhere.

EDIT: Oops, I missed the 4th floor


----------



## Crispy (Feb 16, 2015)

editor said:


> Thanks for unearthing this -I'll publish a story on Buzz tomorrow to let more people know. I'm not sure how they've fixed this problem contained in the planning refusal.


By reducing the size of the building, which also reduces the number of flats.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 16, 2015)

leanderman said:


> In their planning application, they claim to have overcome the reasons for refusal by scaling it all back a bit, and other tweaks.
> 
> Following on from this, it seems that the nine-unit arrangement is about what fits,  rather than about dodging social housing obligations.


Sorry to impute motives - but we've seen it all before e.g. Mauleverer Road (funded by HSBC incidentally).

Looking on the bright side - he couldn't have gone up another level, or he would have had an affordable housing requirement!


----------



## editor (Feb 16, 2015)

Crispy said:


> By reducing the size of the building, which also reduces the number of flats.


Do you think that considerations about any possible social housing commitments might have played any part in their decision as to how many flats they intended to build into the space?


----------



## Rushy (Feb 16, 2015)

Only glanced at this but is hard to (rationally) argue that they are cynically reducing the number of units when they are including a studio, a one bed, and several 2 beds each only 5pc over minimum floor size. The one oversize unit is clearly so due to light issues.

Crispy I count nine units. 3, 2, 2 at front and two single units at rear of site.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 16, 2015)

Rushy said:


> Crispy I count nine units. 3, 2, 2 at front and two single units at rear of site.


See my edit upthread.


----------



## editor (Feb 16, 2015)

Rushy said:


> Only glanced at this but is hard to (rationally) argue that they are cynically reducing the number of units when they are including a studio, a one bed, and several 2 beds each only 5pc over minimum floor size. The one oversize unit is clearly so due to light issues.
> 
> Crispy I count nine units. 3, 2, 2 at front and two single units at rear of site.


There's 1 x studio, 1 x one bedroom flat, 6 x two bedroom flats, 1 x three bedroom flat. Maybe I'm just too darn cynical but with Barratt's affordable-housing shirking antics at Brixton Square still fresh in my mind, I'm of the opinion that most developers will do whatever it takes to avoid affordable/social housing commitments. And the government/council lets them do it too. 

It's a disgrace.


----------



## leanderman (Feb 16, 2015)

editor said:


> Is that what you honestly believe?



Why would you think otherwise?


----------



## editor (Feb 16, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Why would you think otherwise?


I thought that you might just be a little more cynical given recent weaselly developments like Brixton Square, that's all.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 16, 2015)

editor said:


> There's 1 x studio, 1 x one bedroom flat, 6 x two bedroom flats, 1 x three bedroom flat. Maybe I'm just too darn cynical but with Barratt's affordable-housing shirking antics at Brixton Square still fresh in my mind, I'm of the opinion that most developers will do whatever it takes to avoid affordable/social housing commitments. And the government/council lets them do it too.
> 
> It's a disgrace.


Is your concern about this proposal that it is deliberately wasting space in order to avoid more, smaller units?


----------



## leanderman (Feb 16, 2015)

editor said:


> I thought that you might just be a little more cynical given recent weaselly developments like Brixton Square, that's all.



Fair enough. Brixton Sq was a disgrace. This seems marginal, at worst. The rules draw the line at nine units. Maybe it should be six or something.


----------



## editor (Feb 16, 2015)

Rushy said:


> Is your concern about this proposal that it is deliberately wasting space in order to avoid more, smaller units?


My concern is that yet another development is springing up in this area that will be totally unaffordable to locals so that, for example, kids who were brought up in the area won't be able to stay in the community.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 16, 2015)

That Utopia London film about architecture - shown on Saturday at the Art Nouveau  place in Atlantic Road - illustrated how architecture and community can creatively interface given political will and proper planning.

Something direly lacking in Lambeth (or indeed the whole country right now).

Obviously local ad hoc developments are not going to satisfy the need for social housing. That is the pity of the present sterile situation.


----------



## leanderman (Feb 16, 2015)

editor said:


> My concern is that yet another development is springing up in this area that will be totally unaffordable to locals so that, for example, kids who were brought up in the area won't be able to stay in the community.



Maybe all developments of 2+ units should be hit with a social housing obligation in some form, such as a tax to pay for social housing?


----------



## Crispy (Feb 16, 2015)

Here's the GLA's London Housing Design Guide: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Interim London Housing Design Guide.pdf
Minimum apartment areas are on page 13



Here's the habitable floor areas of the proposed scheme (ie. excluding stairs, lift and riser)

1st : 190m²
2nd : 149m²
3rd : 129m²
4th : 78m²

Some simple maths will show that 9 units is the absolute maximum that can be fit into this envelope without breaching this standard. With a slightly larger envelope, they could cram the 1st and 2nd floors with 1 bed flats, but this would then reduce the diversity of units, which also goes against the Design Guide and Lambeth's own planning policy.

Even if they did get 10 units on the site, we all know that the "affordable" ones would be anything but.


----------



## editor (Feb 16, 2015)

Might be interesting to look at this snapshot of the changes taking place further down Coldharbour Lane:

 

So here's what we've got: 

(Out of view to the left) 
Angel pub - flats upstairs, downstairs perma-empty
Internet Cafe

1. Jimmy's - Ace fish and chip shop
2. Shop currently being redeveloped
3. Food & Wine 
4. Shop currently being redeveloped
5. Shop currently being redeveloped
6. Shop currently being redeveloped - looks to be something upmarket going in
7. Gresham Cafe
8. Posh cocktail bar Shrub & Shutter
9. Shop currently being redeveloped - looks to be something upmarket going in
10. Morleys chicken
11. Majestic, busy African restaurant
12. Caribbean Spice take away
13. Old betting shop

(Out of view to right) 
Mini mart
Cake shop

Anyone got any more info on the shops being redeveloped?


----------



## editor (Feb 16, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Here's the GLA's London Housing Design Guide: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Interim London Housing Design Guide.pdf
> Minimum apartment areas are on page 13
> 
> View attachment 67788
> ...


Couldn't they just have fewer 2 bedroom units and no three bedroom unit?


----------



## Crispy (Feb 16, 2015)

editor said:


> Couldn't they just have fewer 2 bedroom units and no three bedroom unit?


It's not a simple exchange because a 1 bed is not 1/2 the size of a 2 bed - the kitchen, toilet etc still take up space.
If you take each floor and split the area up , you'll find there's no combination of flats that lets you get more than 3 on the 1st floor, 2 on the 2nd and 3rd and 1 on the roof.

If you added a few m² to the 1st and 2nd floors, you could get 4 and 3 1 bed flats on them, but then you've got a development that's nearly all pokey 1 bed flats, which Lambeth wouldn't approve.

They're not even fully complying with the RTL rules in terms of bulk. The new proposal falls half way between the previous scheme and the "zero infringement" envelope, which they excuse by saying the Hotel is proper residential so they don't deserve the full rights to light.

The fact that the same developer submitted a scheme with 10 flats says to me that they're not too concerned with the affordable homes rule.


----------



## editor (Feb 16, 2015)

Crispy said:


> The fact that the same developer submitted a scheme with 10 flats says to me that they're not too concerned with the affordable homes rule.


I'd say it's fair to say that the developer has appeared to have shown no interest in providing affordable homes at any point. But that's most developers for you.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 16, 2015)

editor said:


> View attachment 67789
> (Out of view to the left)
> Angel pub - flats upstairs, downstairs perma-empty
> Internet Cafe
> ...


My sixpenworth:
6. is the former George's barbershop
Last time I saw inside there was still one chair and a sink.
The other day I bumped into George (owner of Gresham Cafe next door) and asked if it was going to be another barber and when it was opening. He said it was, and he was going as fast as he could, which confirmed my suspicion that both shops share a common owner.

So it looks like there may be a barber back there soon - let's hope at George prices not Barber of Seville prices.

I also hear there is a possibility of a residential development behind the shops on the site currently used as a coach depot (and previously a scaffolding depot)
I can't quite see how this could be suitable for residential. But you know how these developers are these days. [it's not Lexadon by the way]


----------



## editor (Feb 16, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I also hear there is a possibility of a residential development behind the shops on the site currently used as a coach depot (and previously a scaffolding depot)


I've been worrying about this for ages.


----------



## leanderman (Feb 16, 2015)

A CHL trader today was trying to persuade me today that Waitrose is going to take over the Phoenix cafe site. 

More plausible was his claim that the money transfer business by 414 is to become a cafe.


----------



## editor (Feb 16, 2015)

leanderman said:


> A CHL trader today was trying to persuade me today that Waitrose is going to take over the Phoenix cafe site.


I'd say that it's highly unlikely. There's all sorts of access problems there. 


leanderman said:


> More plausible was his claim that the money transfer business by 414 is to become a cafe.


That's definitely more likely.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 23, 2015)

editor said:


> Might be interesting to look at this snapshot of the changes taking place further down Coldharbour Lane:
> View attachment 67789
> So here's what we've got:
> (Out of view to the left)
> ...


Not the shops - though 5 (formerly George Fell electrical shop) does seem to be getting a move on now.

Immediately behind the shops on your picture though plans are afoot for 3 residential towers 9 stories high - one "affordable" with 30 "social units" as they say and 114 "units in total between the three blocks.

Local groups have been consulted (presumably this is the new modus operandi of the planning department) and plans are expected to be submitted by April perhaps.

The complicating factor in this scheme is that the owner is not the developer. The current owner is planning to apply for planning permission and terminating the lease of the coach company using the site currently so that the maximum profit can be obtained selling a vacant site with planning permission for residential development on to a builder.


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2015)

I've heard that a local hairdresser will be moving into George's old premises.


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Immediately behind the shops on your picture though plans are afoot for 3 residential towers 9 stories high - one "affordable" with 30 "social units" as they say and 114 "units in totalbetweem the three blocks.
> 
> Local groups have been consulted (presumably this is the new modus operandi of the planning department) and plans are expected to be submitted by April perhaps.


It's the first I've heard of it. And like fuck will there be more than 15 'social units.'  And even that is optimistic.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 24, 2015)

editor said:


> It's the first I've heard of it. And like fuck will there be more than 15 'social units.'  And even that is optimistic.


Personally I'd rather the site stayed as industrial. I guess we won't know for sure that this is happening until there's a Higgs-like spasm of consultation prior to a planning application being submitted. But I did hear stated in no uncertain terms that the lease for the coach company is expiring in May this year and the owner's architects have clearly done a lot of work on the plans.


----------



## editor (Feb 24, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Personally I'd rather the site stayed as industrial. I guess we won't know for sure that this is happening until there's a Higgs-like spasm of consultation prior to a planning application being submitted. But I did hear stated in no uncertain terms that the lease for the coach company is expiring in May this year and the owner's architects have clearly done a lot of work on the plans.


It will completely deprive the current CHL residents of any light.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Feb 24, 2015)

editor said:


> I've heard that a local hairdresser will be moving into George's old premises.



What happened to George? Got my first ever Brixton haircut there in 1992


----------



## CH1 (Feb 24, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> What happened to George? Got my first ever Brixton haircut there in 1992


He retired on Christmas Eve. Lives in Thorton Heath.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 28, 2015)

A couple of things.
There is an issue lately over the council's policy on tall buildings.

The council altered their guideline map to take account of council regeneration proposals. Here is a copy - rather poor quality I am afraid. This is an interim document and not final.

It can be seen that the area directly south of the Town Hall is now merely "sensitive to tall buildings" where formerly it was "Inappropriate to tall buildings".

Similarly the area around so-called Brixton Central is now sensitive rather than inappropriate.

Most intriguing of all - Southwyck House  and part of Moorlands Estate have also been changed, suggesting they are preparing to cook up a regeneration scheme involving the Barrier Block and Moorlands - some of which will be high rise.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 28, 2015)

On the subject of high buildings here is a mock-up of the shopping terrace starting at Brixton Cakeshop, opposite the barrier block, showing the tower blocks proposed for the rear. 

No planning application as yet - but expected soon.
Curiously this area is "inappropriate for tall buildings"  according to the council map above.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Mar 28, 2015)

CH1 said:


> On the subject of high buildings here is a mock-up of the shopping terrace starting at Brixton Cakeshop, opposite the barrier block, showing the tower blocks proposed for the rear.
> 
> No planning application as yet - but expected soon.
> Curiously this area is "inappropriate for tall buildings"  according to the council map above.
> View attachment 69382



Wow, thanks for the info. This is bad.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 28, 2015)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Wow, thanks for the info. This is bad.


Could be a re-run of the Higgs situation.


----------



## editor (Mar 28, 2015)

CH1 said:


> On the subject of high buildings here is a mock-up of the shopping terrace starting at Brixton Cakeshop, opposite the barrier block, showing the tower blocks proposed for the rear.
> 
> No planning application as yet - but expected soon.
> Curiously this area is "inappropriate for tall buildings"  according to the council map above.
> View attachment 69382


That is fucking hideous and completely out of scale.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 28, 2015)

editor said:


> That is fucking hideous and completely out of scale.


Exactly - and you are one of the people well placed to say so when the application comes in!


----------



## Peanut Monkey (Mar 29, 2015)

CH1 said:


> On the subject of high buildings here is a mock-up of the shopping terrace starting at Brixton Cakeshop, opposite the barrier block, showing the tower blocks proposed for the rear.
> 
> No planning application as yet - but expected soon.
> Curiously this area is "inappropriate for tall buildings"  according to the council map above.
> View attachment 69382


That's where the coach garage is now isn't it? That looks hideous. Time to mobilise!


----------



## CH1 (Mar 29, 2015)

Peanut Monkey said:


> That's where the coach garage is now isn't it? That looks hideous. Time to mobilise!


The coach garage are apparently moving out in May.

I'm not sure how easy this is to oppose. The proposal will be, like Higgs, for an office/employment development at ground level, topped by the vile residential towers. Difficult to know what to say at this point. When the planning application comes in it will have a design statement giving the developer's justification.

The case will presumably be similar to that for what we now call "The Viaduct" - now owned by Lexadon, though originally built by another developer.
In that case it has not even worked out that the employment space got used - yet!


----------



## editor (Mar 29, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Exactly - and you are one of the people well placed to say so when the application comes in!


Can you say where you got that image from? Be good to start stirring up the good folks in advance...


----------



## djdando (Apr 5, 2015)

Apparently these guys have taken the old pub on the Corner of Valentia Place and Coldharbour Lane

http://sodopizza.co.uk/


----------



## CH1 (Apr 5, 2015)

djdando said:


> Apparently these guys have taken the old pub on the Corner of Valentia Place and Coldharbour Lane
> http://sodopizza.co.uk/


I would have preferred a pub - but judging by the website this could be good news for Brixton Brewery and Clarkshaws.
Where did you hear the news?


----------



## aussw9 (Apr 7, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I would have preferred a pub - but judging by the website this could be good news for Brixton Brewery and Clarkshaws.
> Where did you hear the news?



Agreed a pub would have been ideal, but this is still a shed load better than another tesco express


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2015)

It's just another step in the total gentrification of that strip of shops.


----------



## Peanut Monkey (Apr 7, 2015)

Surprised anyone's taking that site on with the rent so high.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2015)

Peanut Monkey said:


> Surprised anyone's taking that site on with the rent so high.


There's loads of money wandering down from the Village these days, so this strip can serve as a handy extension for those people.


----------



## djdando (Apr 14, 2015)

aussw9 said:


> Agreed a pub would have been ideal, but this is still a shed load better than another tesco express



Just had to wait for this chimney to be accepted - http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NFNJ5UBO67000


----------



## CH1 (May 18, 2015)

Curious little proposal to demolish rear of Brixton Cake Shop and the old William Hill (currently vacant) in order to build a two bedroom house fronting onto Gresham Road.

A far as I can see the new house would have all the charm of a concrete skiing chalet - but then the existing out buildings are no better.


http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...iveTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=NNGPRABOKEM00


----------



## editor (May 18, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Curious little proposal to demolish rear of Brixton Cake Shop and the old William Hill (currently vacant) in order to build a two bedroom house fronting onto Gresham Road.
> 
> A far as I can see the new house would have all the charm of a concrete skiing chalet - but then the existing out buildings are no better.
> View attachment 71600
> ...


Curious looking thing, but at least it's not the usual nine stories high.


----------



## ChrisSouth (May 19, 2015)

editor said:


> Curious looking thing, but at least it's not the usual nine stories high.
> 
> View attachment 71602



And better than the two piss stained mattresses that were there this morning


----------



## editor (May 19, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> And better than the two piss stained mattresses that were there this morning


I don't think the existence of a new development or not will have much impact on the behaviour of people who dump rubbish in the streets.


----------



## organicpanda (May 24, 2015)

djdando said:


> Just had to wait for this chimney to be accepted - http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NFNJ5UBO67000


chimney's up


----------



## Manter (May 24, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Curious little proposal to demolish rear of Brixton Cake Shop and the old William Hill (currently vacant) in order to build a two bedroom house fronting onto Gresham Road.
> 
> A far as I can see the new house would have all the charm of a concrete skiing chalet - but then the existing out buildings are no better.
> View attachment 71600
> ...


I like it. Or rather, I think it has the potential to be quite interesting- as ever it depends on quality of the build, the finish etc


----------



## CH1 (May 25, 2015)

Manter said:


> I like it. Or rather, I think it has the potential to be quite interesting- as ever it depends on quality of the build, the finish etc


Always difficult to know what to do when a house is right on the pavement.
Handy for church anyway - if the new occupants like Strict Baptist.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 19, 2015)

Anyone remember the proposed 3 tower blocks to be built behind the shopping terrace from the Angell - Brixton Cake Shop opposite the barrier block?





Seems like Taylor Wimpey are now in the driving seat.
*Taylor Wimpey are pleased to advise that we completed the acquisition of land at 86-88 Gresham Road, Brixton in July 2015. We believe the acquisition offers an exciting opportunity to work with local residents and stakeholders to regenerate a brown field site and deliver a mixed use scheme, providing new commercial floorspace and high quality new homes, including provision for affordable housing.

We will shortly be sending invites to our public exhibition, which will be held on the 2nd and 3rd November between 3pm and 8pm at Brixton East on Gresham Road.*

Not sure if the design remains the same - but in 2 weeks time we will know, and get the chance to comment.


----------



## editor (Oct 19, 2015)

"Work with local residents".
"Affordable housing"
My fucking arse.


----------



## djdando (Oct 20, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Anyone remember the proposed 3 tower blocks to be built behind the shopping terrace from the Angell - Brixton Cake Shop opposite the barrier block?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh shit. Where did you read that?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 20, 2015)

djdando said:


> Oh shit. Where did you read that?


The picture come from the architects of the previous site owner when they were doing their pre application consultations. As far as I know they did not actually put in the planning application.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 30, 2015)

Someone has put up some lamp post laminated spoof adverts for the Taylor Wimpey consultation 2/3 November at Brixton East. Trying to get a copy - but it's A3 - a bit big to scan.

Was wondering what Doug Black Lambeth's Conservation Officer will be saying in the eventual planning report. He objected to the pizza place in the Angel pub having a flue visible from the Overground train line. This contribute to the application failing first time round.

Hope Doug will be as helpful on this rather more important scheme (in terms of its potentially adverse impact on the whole area).


----------



## editor (Oct 30, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Someone has put up some lamp post laminated spoof adverts for the Taylor Wimpey consultation 2/3 November at Brixton East. Trying to get a copy - but it's A3 - a bit big to scan.
> 
> Was wondering what Doug Black Lambeth's Conservation Officer will be saying in the eventual planning report. He objected to the pizza place in the Angel pub having a flue visible from the Overground train line. This contribute to the application failing first time round.
> 
> Hope Doug will be as helpful on this rather more important scheme (in terms of its potentially adverse impact on the whole area).


I grabbed some pics last night - will post up later!


----------



## editor (Oct 30, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Hope Doug will be as helpful on this rather more important scheme (in terms of its potentially adverse impact on the whole area).


I suspect that if it goes ahead it will kill off the busy late nights at the Majestic Restaurant.






I've posted up on Buzz: More exclusive homes in a poor area: Posters condemn large Coldharbour Lane redevelopment plans ahead of consultation


----------



## Rushy (Nov 2, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Someone has put up some lamp post laminated spoof adverts for the Taylor Wimpey consultation 2/3 November at Brixton East. Trying to get a copy - but it's A3 - a bit big to scan.
> 
> Was wondering what Doug Black Lambeth's Conservation Officer will be saying in the eventual planning report. He objected to the pizza place in the Angel pub having a flue visible from the Overground train line. This contribute to the application failing first time round.
> 
> Hope Doug will be as helpful on this rather more important scheme (in terms of its potentially adverse impact on the whole area).


Never met Doug Black personally but I've seen him talk and he is a very interesting and likeable character. Came across as genuinely passionate about his work.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 2, 2015)

Rushy said:


> Never met Doug Black personally but I've seen him talk and he is a very interesting and likeable character. Came across as genuinely passionate about his work.


I'm sure he is - and he looks to me like a hipster. But then one of my doctors looks to me like a hipster - or the proprietor of the Evening Standard.
I know appearances can be deceptive. For example to me you don't look like a hipster.
Confused of SW9.

Seriously Doug Black is highly intelligent - but knows when he needs to sit on a fence. e.g. at the recent BRUG meeting about the listability of the Brixton Rec.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 2, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I'm sure he is - and he looks to me like a hipster. But then one of my doctors looks to me like a hipster - or the proprietor of the Evening Standard.
> I know appearances can be deceptive. For example to me you don't look like a hipster.
> Confused of SW9.
> 
> Seriously Doug Black is highly intelligent - but knows when he needs to sit on a fence. e.g. at the recent BRUG meeting about the listability of the Brixton Rec.


He didn't strike me as hipsterish. Although he was wearing a bow tie...

I'm not sure what to think about you implying that I am a hipster! That is a first for me


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2015)

I went along to the exhibition yesterday. Here's my thoughts: 






Three private blocks proposed for Coldharbour Lane/Gresham Road – up to 8 storeys high with gated access


----------



## editor (Nov 4, 2015)

I'd love to see some 3D renders of these properties from less 'curated' angles - like street level at Valentia Place, a *standing up* view from the Southwyck House green (and maybe from the upper floors of the block) and the view from the back of the Coldharbour Lane properties who will have this thing right at the back of them. I can't imagine they're going to be too pleased with 8 stories rising up in their back gardens. 

Anyone have the tech to do rough renders? Crispy ?


----------



## cuppa tee (Nov 4, 2015)

editor said:


> I went along to the exhibition yesterday. Here's my thoughts:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ooh doesn't Valentia Place look chic in those sketches
maybe we'll get more cafes and boutiques soon......


----------



## Crispy (Nov 4, 2015)

I have the tech and skills, but there's not enough information to go on. WIthout measured drawings, it would be a guess at best. It'd be much easier once the planning app is in.


----------



## editor (Nov 4, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> ooh doesn't Valentia Place look chic in those sketches
> maybe we'll get more cafes and boutiques soon......


That lovely looking pedestrian shopping _boulevard_ isn't actually public space though, with the gates sealing it off at a time that suits the owners.


----------



## editor (Nov 4, 2015)

Crispy said:


> I have the tech and skills, but there's not enough information to go on. WIthout measured drawings, it would be a guess at best. It'd be much easier once the planning app is in.


OK. I just think it would be good to somehow let the people living in Coldharbour Lane know what's coming their way because their selective mock ups don't show any relevant information at all.  But then I figure that was intentional.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 10, 2015)

Jerry Knight's Lexadon has tonight been granted planning permission for the 13 private flats, zero social housing and 1296 sq m of business space and a new restaurant/cafe at the site of the WALTON LODGE LAUNDRY.


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 10, 2015)

Wow, what were the Section 104 (or any equivalent) terms if any?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 11, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> Wow, what were the Section 104 (or any equivalent) terms if any?


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="#Lambeth hashtag on Twitter">#Lambeth</a> PAC has now finished. Minutes will be online in approx. 7 working days</p>&mdash; Lambeth Democracy (@LBLDemocracy) <a href="
Too late (for me) to check the report that was approved.
The only thing I can see is a condition forbidding the business units to operate on Sundays.


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Jerry Knight's Lexadon has tonight been granted planning permission for the 13 private flats, zero social housing and 1296 sq m of business space and a new restaurant/cafe at the site of the WALTON LODGE LAUNDRY.


Has Lexadon provided any social/affordable housing/rental properties in Brixton, ever?

I'm had quite a few stories sent to me recently regarding their owner.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 11, 2015)

editor said:


> Has Lexadon provided any social/affordable housing/rental properties in Brixton, ever?
> I'm had quite a few stories sent to me recently regarding their owner.


As you will know the minimum size of development requiring social housing was 10 units under "old" Lambeth policies.

AFAIK the first time this issue actually arose was when he purchase what is now called "The Viaduct" out if receivership and finished it off.
No doubt Lambeth was at the time terrified of having a partially completed white elephant in central Brixton they rowed back on their planning conditions - it being an exceptional case.

By the time he did the Angell Pub (22 units I think) - Lambeth had become so flexi to everyone it would hjave been a doddle to put the case that affordable housing was unaffordable for the developer.

Seems to me you are conflating two issues here:

1. Mark 10 v 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

2.  the way planning rules concerning housing developments have been relaxed since the Thatcher government signalled the demise of state intervention in housing provision


----------



## CH1 (Aug 12, 2016)

I'm bumping this thread with the inevitable news that Lexadon has been granted planning permission to demolish the quaintly Brixtonian shops at 419-423 Coldharbour Lane and replace with 8 flats and two retail units.
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...B2869E142CCC0F5/pdf/16_00411_FUL--1775852.pdf

I am of course disappointed that we will lose yet more of Coldharbour Lane's character, including the old shop fronts à la "For a Few Dollars More" - soon to be a London-generic monolith.

I was most intrigued to see from the very first post in this thread the original proposal to redevelop was from Milegate Ltd of 20 Somerleyton Road.

Milegate were the ones who recently got planning permission to build flats on 16 - 20 Somerleyton Road, apparently screwing Lambeth's flagship socail housing scheme allegedly: Lambeth Council loses control of part of Somerleyton project with private developer given planning permission to regenerate 

Here are before and after impressions of 419-423 Coldharbour Lane


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2016)

Jesus, more cunt hutches for rent!


----------



## CH1 (Aug 13, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Jesus, more cunt hutches for rent!


This being Brixton and all that I would have thought someone could have built one of those Japanese coffin-style Capsule Hotels.
 
At least that way there would be more customers for the much-needed posh burger bars, though with increasing density we might need our very own Bazalgette super-sewer to remove the after effects.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 13, 2016)

Empty space becomes flats


----------



## laughalot (Aug 13, 2016)

....so what happens to peoples daylight to the flats at the back . There are side windows what will happen to them.
Next we will hear that the market has become unstable and will need to be demolished to be rebuilt but at the same time the developers will add a ridiculous number of flat to the roof space.
Lambeth can then enter the 'Guinness Book of Records' for the largest amount of people trying to use public transport of a morning.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 13, 2016)

laughalot said:


> ....so what happens to peoples daylight to the flats at the back . There are side windows what will happen to them.
> Next we will hear that the market has become unstable and will need to be demolished to be rebuilt but at the same time the developers will add a ridiculous number of flat to the roof space.
> Lambeth can then enter the 'Guinness Book of Records' for the largest amount of people trying to use public transport of a morning.



Which was why Brixton Village was listed. They wanted to do exactly what you say. Both Market Row and Granville Arcade/ Brixton village are both listed.


----------

