# The Hero Of Switzerland



## ringo (Mar 2, 2007)

Is now the only pub between my place in Loughborough Junction and Brixton that is still open, whichever way you walk. Even the Paulet has recently shut. 
The Hero does have a great sign by the bar though: "Order your own taxis".


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 2, 2007)

Best sandwiches of any pub in South London. Made freshly every time. Cheap too. Do they still do Young's there?


----------



## ringo (Mar 2, 2007)

I'll have to check. It's got to the point where I automatically order Guinness in a lot of pubs just 'cos it's so hard to get a decent pint of real ale in a pub not owned by an ale brewery.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Mar 3, 2007)

ringo said:
			
		

> I'll have to check. It's got to the point where I automatically order Guinness in a lot of pubs just 'cos it's so hard to get a decent pint of real ale in a pub not owned by an ale brewery.


No Guinness served there


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 3, 2007)

They definitely sell Guinness in the Hero.


----------



## madolesance (Mar 3, 2007)

The Cambria is not a bad boozer. Usually good food, not sure really about the beer.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Mar 3, 2007)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> They definitely sell Guinness in the Hero.


My bad


----------



## rich! (Mar 4, 2007)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Best sandwiches of any pub in South London. Made freshly every time. Cheap too. Do they still do Young's there?



If you're north of the river, the Wenlock does a mighty sandwich. Not sure they'd sink so low as to serve Young's, though


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Mar 10, 2007)

ringo said:
			
		

> Even the Paulet has recently shut.



 that was a nice friendly pub.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 10, 2007)

Just off the tourist trail is the Hero - I think you need to be one to use it!


----------



## Badgers (Oct 19, 2012)

Relevant bump


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 19, 2012)

Let's go there for a drink 

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...hat-october-2012.299928/page-31#post-11618676


----------



## gabi (Oct 19, 2012)

I popped in there a couple of times when i lived nearby. 

The best I can compare it to is this. That's not necessarily a bad thing though. I remember it being a friendly bunch in there, not sure I'd order any food though (£2.99 a meal i think)


----------



## Badgers (Oct 19, 2012)

Indeed

We will be kicking off (not literally) at 7pm on Wednesday the 24th


----------



## gabi (Oct 19, 2012)

I seem to recall it had two rooms, one of which they use for things like karaoke. you should definitely time your run for that.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Oct 19, 2012)

Might be up for it, handy to Loughborough Junction 

Driven past it so many times on my way up town. I'm intrigued how it got its name being  a modern pub.


----------



## Ol Nick (Oct 19, 2012)

I always liked those Taylor Walker pubs with the cannon as they would usually have Ind Coope Burton Ale. Why I don't know, but it's a great antidote to sugary Fullers and soapy Wells.


----------



## Badgers (Oct 24, 2012)

Anyone joining us for a refreshing pint at the The Hero Of Switzerland later? 

Aiming for 7pm at the bar


----------



## 19sixtysix (Oct 24, 2012)

Grrrr. Was think about this but working nights.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 24, 2012)

Tonight's the night!


----------



## RaverDrew (Oct 24, 2012)

Good pub, run by a Crystal Palace supporter iirc 

I'd join you guys tonight but I'm still bogged down by a heavy cold, next time.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 24, 2012)

Might  manage a swift half about 7, depending on how my day goes.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 24, 2012)

*looks out cocktail dress*


----------



## Badgers (Oct 24, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Tonight's the night!


 
It is gonna be propa mental


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 24, 2012)

Wish I could go but another flat roof pub requires me.


----------



## Badgers (Oct 24, 2012)

Anyone else for the jaunt? @Onket


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Oct 24, 2012)

well that's in spitting distance of my house  so sure...


----------



## Badgers (Oct 24, 2012)

Coats on and heading off


----------



## zenie (Oct 24, 2012)

Damn why didn't you say?! Saw Guinness was £3.10 a pint I think?


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2012)

I might be able to get over there later. Can we have some in-pub updates please?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Oct 24, 2012)

Pints are cheap.

Atmosphere is plesent


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2012)

I think I'm too knackered to make it there tonight. Can someone snap a few pics? Be great to have something to stick on the pub guide.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 24, 2012)

Badgers said:


> It is gonna be propa mental


 
Had a nap instead.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Oct 24, 2012)




----------



## kittyP (Oct 24, 2012)




----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2012)

I was hoping for more general photos of the pub!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 24, 2012)

The Hero is a great boozer. It's possibly the cheapest pub in Brixton...like stepping back 10 years: £2.80 a pint


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 24, 2012)

Mrs Magpie will love the ladies' toilets btw - apparently they are mint!

Haven't got a photo, but I think someone has.....


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 24, 2012)

There's two bars - this is one side of the bar, as Man City were getting thrashed 3-1 by Ajax






Main features of the pub are: 
 - two fish tanks, with unidentifiable tropical fish
 - £3.99 meals (food served til 8pm)
 - £2.80 pints
 - 2 darts boards
 - pool table
 - good locals and friendly bar staff
 - the Prince Albert darts team in the other side of the bar (getting beaten 2-0 last time we checked  )
 - extensive outside smoking area, complete with Crystal Palace figurines above the entrance to the pub
 - A William Tell scuplture by the front door, depicting the famous arrow/apple/head incident, hence the "Hero of Switzerland"

Good to meet Shippy for the first time and Gergl made an appearance too.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 24, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Had a nap instead.


we will meet someday soon!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 24, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Mrs Magpie will love the ladies toilets btw - apparently they are mint!
> 
> Haven't got a photo, but I think someone has.....


I know this pub well already. My mate Mary Hogan, doyenne of Irish pub singers, used to do gigs regularly in the Hero.


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2012)

Maybe we should organise a bigger urban mission sometime soon?


----------



## RaverDrew (Oct 25, 2012)

Now _that_ is my kind of place, proper pub


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 25, 2012)

editor said:


> Maybe we should organise a bigger urban mission sometime soon?


 
Yeah, we could pick a nice place to eat in the Villaaage beforehand


----------



## editor (Oct 25, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> Yeah, we could pick a nice place to eat in the Villaaage beforehand


Well you could, but I won't.  I'll go somewhere nice that I won't post up about here


----------



## zenie (Oct 25, 2012)

This thread wants deleting before the Hero is overrun with hipsters


----------



## editor (Oct 25, 2012)

zenie said:


> This thread wants deleting before the Hero is overrun with hipsters


I think certain key elements have to be in place before hipsters take an interest. I think the Hero is safe for a while.


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 25, 2012)

editor said:


> I think certain key elements have to be in place before hipsters take an interest. I think the Hero is safe for a while.


 
Does it have wi-fi?


----------



## editor (Oct 25, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> Does it have wi-fi?


*cough
*Windmill
*wi-fi


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 25, 2012)

editor said:


> *cough
> *Windmill
> *wi-fi


 
Necessary tool of business. Touring bands need access. I think we were the first to have it in Brixton; certainly had it before the Mobile Phone Company Academy. You need a password though!


----------



## Badgers (Oct 25, 2012)

Was good fun there last night. Mr Hatter has it pretty well covered. It was quite a time warp of a pub but in a good way. I found out the fish were Texas Cichlids and there was a second tank of fancy goldfish. Scampi Fries available as bar snacks  

Photo of the wall carving:






Cocktails a gogo:


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 25, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Cocktails a gogo:


 
Oh no, a key element on the hipster checklist........Elderflower martinis !!!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 25, 2012)

I'll eat my hat whilst downing an elderflower martini if the place gets overrun with hipsters. I doubt they'd even make it as far as Loughborough Road....!


----------



## Kanda (Oct 26, 2012)

I hate hipsters. Their smug faces, vegan diet, tiny feet & sawdust bedding. No wait. Hamsters. I hate hamsters.


----------



## editor (Jun 2, 2013)

I was there today. It's a grand community pub.


----------



## Effrasurfer (Jun 4, 2013)

Brixton Energy held several meetings in the Hero when we were doing the project to install solar panels on Elmore House and later Styles Gardens. The natives were friendly and the Strongbow was perfectly adequate.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jun 4, 2013)

I should revisit because it's technically my ,local.....  i just don't pub enough to make it viable


----------



## editor (Jun 4, 2013)

I'm just doing a bit of research for an article I'm going to post up on Brixton Buzz and I cam across this video. It's probably the oddest one I've seen about a pub.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jun 4, 2013)

The WAY THE PLACE IS laid OUT IS A bit desolate.  It LOOKS  VERY  LOWEST COMMON DEMOMINATOR.  however   when i actually spent time there  it was  reasonably plesent


----------



## editor (Jun 5, 2013)

I've posted up a review here: 











http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/06/...ero-of-switzerland-loughborough-junction-sw9/


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 5, 2013)

editor said:


> I'm just doing a bit of research for an article I'm going to post up on Brixton Buzz and I cam across this video. It's probably the oddest one I've seen about a pub.



he he, and he was on the way IN to the pub!


----------



## Badgers (May 27, 2014)

It has been refurbished!!!!!!!!


----------



## Old Gergl (May 27, 2014)

!


----------



## Badgers (May 27, 2014)

The good news is that the refurb has barely changed it one bit  
If anything the new wallpaper knocks the vibe back about ten years into the past


----------



## Badgers (May 27, 2014)

We should have an ale there soon peeps? 

Who's with me?


----------



## Old Gergl (May 27, 2014)

Badgers said:


> The good news is that the refurb has barely changed it one bit
> If anything the new wallpaper knocks the vibe back about ten years into the past


*sigh of relief*



Badgers said:


> We should have an ale there soon peeps?
> 
> Who's with me?


Sounds good  Do you want your bag back btw?


----------



## Badgers (May 27, 2014)

Old Gergl said:


> *sigh of relief*
> 
> Sounds good



 Will look at a date early June? 



Old Gergl said:


> Do you want your bag back btw?



Don't really need it chap


----------



## Old Gergl (May 27, 2014)

Early June, yep. Can't do Mondays or Wednesdays.

el-ahrairah? I see you


----------



## Badgers (May 27, 2014)

Brixton Hatter might be up for it


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (May 27, 2014)

I've never been in The Hero  but looked in the windows recently (i was walking a friend home), i noticed the pool table


----------



## Badgers (May 27, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:
			
		

> I've never been in The Hero  but looked in the windows recently (i was walking a friend home), i noticed the pool table



You will love it Dex, it will complete you.


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 27, 2014)

i'm in.  name a date a week early and i can book it off.


----------



## Badgers (May 27, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:
			
		

> i'm in.  name a date a week early and i can book it off.



Don't wear those tight jeans with the turn ups  you will charm the snakes out of the village.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 28, 2014)

sounds like a plan


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 28, 2014)

IN


----------



## mango5 (Jun 3, 2014)

Could do Friday this week?


----------



## Badgers (Jun 3, 2014)

mango5 said:


> Could do Friday this week?



Possible


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 3, 2014)

i need a week's notice dammit.  next friday?


----------



## mango5 (Jun 3, 2014)

Possible


----------



## Old Gergl (Jun 3, 2014)

Works for me.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 4, 2014)

Possible


----------



## buscador (Jun 4, 2014)

May I join you? I've always wanted to go in there, but felt intimidated by it. I might bring friendofdorothy if you don't mind.


----------



## zenie (Jun 4, 2014)

No dogs allowed. (I will still come *sigh*)


----------



## Badgers (Jun 4, 2014)

buscador said:
			
		

> May I join you? I've always wanted to go in there, but felt intimidated by it. I might bring friendofdorothy if you don't mind.



You can cower behind my pale flabby torso if it helps?


----------



## buscador (Jun 4, 2014)

zenie said:


> No dogs allowed. (I will still come *sigh*)



Well, I can bark a bit, but I can't promise it will be that exciting.


----------



## buscador (Jun 4, 2014)

Badgers said:


> You can cower behind my pale flabby torso if it helps?



I look forward to it.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 4, 2014)

Old Gergl said:
			
		

> Works for me.



Is the Shipster about?


----------



## Old Gergl (Jun 4, 2014)

Let's see.

Shippou-Sensei?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jun 4, 2014)

Next Friday? Why not.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 4, 2014)

alright, i'll book the day off


----------



## mango5 (Jun 4, 2014)

I assumed it would be an evening thing, can't get there until around 6pm


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 4, 2014)

Badgers said:


> We should have an ale there soon peeps?
> 
> Who's with me?


So Thats Friday 13th, what time?  (I love afternoon drinking) Do they do real ale? 



buscador said:


> May I join you? I've always wanted to go in there, but felt intimidated by it. I might bring friendofdorothy if you don't mind.


I'm sure I must have been there when I lived in Loughborough Junct over 20 years ago - I went in most pubs around there to check them out - but it obviously it wasn't very memorable. No more intimidating than the rest of them.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 4, 2014)

top stuff.  has anyone invited Onket ?


----------



## Badgers (Jun 4, 2014)

Onket should be invited


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 5, 2014)

right, i've booked the day off work now.


----------



## co-op (Jun 5, 2014)

Has it still got the little figurines on the roof wearing Crystal Palace shirts?


----------



## Badgers (Jun 5, 2014)

co-op said:
			
		

> Has it still got the little figurines on the roof wearing Crystal Palace shirts?



I think so


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 5, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> right, i've booked the day off work now.


so are you up for afternoon drinking?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 6, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> so are you up for afternoon drinking?


 
afternoon drinking is the best drinking.


----------



## Onket (Jun 6, 2014)

What's this?


----------



## Onket (Jun 6, 2014)

I've read the thread now. I could probably have done a quick one tonight but I'm not sure about next week, tbh.


People MUST NOT FORGET that the 'Brixton news, rumour and general chat - June 2014' thread drinks are on the 24th June, though.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 6, 2014)

Onket said:


> What's this?


 
we're planning on going to the pub.  you can come too, if you want.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Jun 6, 2014)

Onket said:


> I've read the thread now. I could probably have done a quick one tonight but I'm not sure about next week, tbh.
> 
> 
> People MUST NOT FORGET that the 'Brixton news, rumour and general chat - June 2014' thread drinks are on the 24th June, though.


What Boozer mate?


----------



## Onket (Jun 6, 2014)

SarfLondoner said:


> What Boozer mate?


Good question.

Effra Social, possibly, depending on screen.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Jun 6, 2014)

Onket said:


> Good question.
> 
> Effra Social, possibly, depending on screen.



You dont need a screen when you have all us wonderful urbanites to entertain you.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 6, 2014)

Onket said:


> Good question.
> 
> Effra Social, possibly, depending on screen.



Not really a football pub.

White Horse usually makes an effort. But poor beer selection

Hoot?


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 6, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Not really a football pub.
> 
> White Horse usually makes an effort. But poor beer selection
> 
> Hoot?



the grosvenor has a screen that they turned on for the winter olympics, if the demand was there they might oblige. 

*apologies for derail


----------



## Rushy (Jun 6, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Not really a football pub.
> 
> White Horse usually makes an effort. But poor beer selection
> 
> Hoot?


Not very comfy.

Effra Tavern has screens. Poor beer selection though.

Trinity has a screen which they use from time to time.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 6, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Trinity has a screen which they use from time to time.



Let me guess......... a Sony Trinitron ?


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jun 6, 2014)

What about the other Effra, Effra Hall Tavern?


----------



## SarfLondoner (Jun 6, 2014)

cuppa tee said:


> Let me guess......... a Sony Trinitron ?


----------



## SarfLondoner (Jun 6, 2014)

The Marquis of lorne has screens and pool table,I cant vouch for the Beer quality though.


----------



## Onket (Jun 6, 2014)

This isn't a fucking free for all, you know.  Jesus wept.

Leave it with me and I'll sort it out for you bunch of clowns.  etc.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 6, 2014)

SarfLondoner said:


> The Marquis of lorne has screens and pool table,I cant vouch for the Beer quality though.



Hopeless. Bass!


----------



## Onket (Jun 6, 2014)

Stop.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 6, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> What about the other Effra, Effra Hall Tavern?



the effra is a great place to watch football, but you need to get there early these days.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 6, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> afternoon drinking is the best drinking.


yes. Are we still talking about the the Hero of Switzerland, Loughborough junct on the 13th june?


el-ahrairah said:


> the effra is a great place to watch football, but you need to get there early these days.


what are you all on about? any brixton thread social is in addition to this outing, surely?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 6, 2014)

Onket said:


> This isn't a fucking free for all, you know.  Jesus wept.
> 
> Leave it with me and I'll sort it out for you bunch of clowns.  etc.



can't we go the pub without your permission?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 6, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> yes. Are we still talking about the the Hero of Switzerland, Loughborough junct on the 13th june?
> 
> what are you all on about? any brixton thread social is in addition to this outing, surely?



1. i thought so.

2. yes.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 6, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> can't we go the pub without your permission?



you're new here, innit.

(no, we can't, sorry )


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 6, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> 1. i thought so.
> 
> 2. yes.


oh good. See in the H of S next friday afternooon.



el-ahrairah said:


> you're new here, innit.
> (no, we can't, sorry )


I met Onket recently, he even bought me a pint, seemed like a decent chap.
But hey I'm older, bigger, and uglier than him.  I'm sure he won't mind at all
See you in the H of S next friday.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 6, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> What about the other Effra, Effra Hall Tavern?


Bloody'ell Dex. I said that two posts ago and you liked it. Are you off the wagon already?


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jun 6, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Bloody'ell Dex. I said that two posts ago and you liked it. Are you off the wagon already?



No. I posted without seeing your post, then saw your post and liked it out of politeness and a nod to the fact that you had mentioned it first.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 6, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> No. I posted without seeing your post, then saw your post and liked it out of politeness and a nod to the fact that you had mentioned it first.


Fair dos. You should write a blog on board etiquette.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 11, 2014)

did we establish a time for kick-off?


----------



## Onket (Jun 11, 2014)

I can't do this Friday, sorry.

But I will see you all on the 24th anyway, won't I.

WON'T I!


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 11, 2014)

what's happening on the 24th?


----------



## Onket (Jun 11, 2014)

Nothing at all, very probably.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 12, 2014)

Badgers Brixton Hatter Shippou-Sensei Old Gergl zenie buscador friendofdorothy mango5 

apols if i missed anyone... so, tomorrow then.  what time?


----------



## zenie (Jun 12, 2014)

I am looking after a dog and dogs are not allowed


----------



## mango5 (Jun 12, 2014)

zenie 

eta el-ahrairah I was thinking around half six because I am not taking the day off


----------



## trabuquera (Jun 12, 2014)

I'll be up for the 24th but sadly can't make the H o S


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jun 12, 2014)

I'm looking at 7:30 onwards.  Probably won't finish work till 6. Marking hell.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 12, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> did we establish a time for kick-off?


So what time were you planning on? buscador and me were hoping for an afternoon drink, late afternoon maybe?  
We want to meet the South Norwood urbs later.



mango5 said:


> zenie
> 
> eta el-ahrairah I was thinking around half six because I am not taking the day off


 see you there then - how will we recognise you?


----------



## Old Gergl (Jun 12, 2014)

I'll come for a bit whenever people want to start (provided it's after lunch time ish), and return to catch up with the after work crew later. As much as I like it I'm not spending the whole afternoon & evening in the pub. 

El-day-off-ahrairah, name a time.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 12, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> Badgers Brixton Hatter Shippou-Sensei Old Gergl zenie buscador friendofdorothy mango5
> 
> apols if i missed anyone... so, tomorrow then.  what time?


cheers for the heads up mate. 

I'm going to a mate's in Forest Hill tomorrow to watch the Spain Holland game, but I might be able to pop in for a beer on the way, depending what time you're all meeting….


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 12, 2014)

i dunno, everyone's a bit like "we'll do it for a bit" so maybe we'll do it another time.


----------



## mango5 (Jun 13, 2014)

It was never going to be an all day thing for me. Maybe divert to South Norwood drinks today and reschedule this one as you suggest?


----------



## Onket (Jun 13, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> i dunno, everyone's a bit like "we'll do it for a bit" so maybe we'll do it another time.


Oi, bring your ball back!


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 13, 2014)

Onket said:


> Oi, bring your ball back!



nah, people can't really commit today so we'll rearrange, not a problem.   not being grumpy or owt, just realistic


----------



## Onket (Jun 13, 2014)

I know (before I get accused of bullying you).


----------



## mango5 (Jun 13, 2014)

I reckon there's commitment, but not to a full scale all day piss-up.  Will you go to Norwood drinks then? It would be nice to see you.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 13, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> nah, people can't really commit today so we'll rearrange, not a problem.   not being grumpy or owt, just realistic


Shame, we were looking forward to a walk over to Loughborough junct! Never mind lets do it soon, please. 
Meanwhile South Norwood beckons.


----------



## boohoo (Jun 13, 2014)

Urban75 - couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery!


----------



## Badgers (Jun 13, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Urban75 - couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery!



 

 I have been held up at work so would not have got down there till late


----------



## Old Gergl (Jun 13, 2014)

mango5 said:


> I reckon there's commitment, but not to a full scale all day piss-up.


As a non-drinker I'm deeply disappointed in el-ahrairah's lack of commitment to spending all day on the lash. Where will I get my sense of smug superiority from now? 

Might see people in South Norwood in a bit then.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jun 13, 2014)

Still at work. Starting to write sarcastic comments on students work.


----------



## Onket (Jun 13, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Urban75 - couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery!


Hang on a minute, some of us can manage it!


----------



## Rushy (Jun 13, 2014)

Bit of an identity crisis going on Badgers? I can't keep up with your avatars!


----------



## boohoo (Jun 13, 2014)

Onket said:


> Hang on a minute, some of us can manage it!



Although you like to avoid those ones.


----------



## editor (Sep 11, 2015)

I've heard rumours that the pub may be closing. Please say they ain't true.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Sep 11, 2015)

editor said:


> I've heard rumours that the pub may be closing. Please say they ain't true.



Nooooo


----------



## concerned1 (Sep 23, 2015)

Road closures will make a difference they have a lot of weddings, funerals birthdays, etc use the pub.
Owner is very concerned about them.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2017)

Something arty going on



> Hero of Switzerland is the toy in a box of cereal, an empty bouncy castle, a shiny in a pack of stickers, the laugh you’re trying to hold in during assembly, a free buffet, a fiver on the floor, the conga at the end of the night, a guilty pleasure, a pint after work, a banana and two oranges in a fruit bowl, the fart you let out at the end of a date, a swear word in Scrabble, the cock drawn in the condensation on a bus, a porno in the bushes, the lump in your trousers and the damp in your gusset.



home //


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 28, 2017)

Nothing to do with teh pub though.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2017)

snowy_again said:


> Nothing to do with teh pub though.


Well sort of: there's a pic of the pub on their homepage. But yes, nothing directly to do with them. Bit confusing rally.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 28, 2017)

I was at the Hero after LJ Neighborhood Planning Forum. It's old school local pub. And relatively cheap. A lot of people on estate use it. I liked it.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 28, 2017)

editor said:


> I've heard rumours that the pub may be closing. Please say they ain't true.



I've heard the same. It may go the way the Canterbury did in Brixton. Gentrification hasn't reached LJ yet. So fingers crossed.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jul 29, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> I've heard the same. It may go the way the Canterbury did in Brixton. Gentrification hasn't reached LJ yet. So fingers crossed.



What? You haven't seen the newly decorated railway bridge, still don't know quite what that signifies ?
But yes in general you're right.


----------



## Angellic (Nov 2, 2017)

Seems the HoS is going to be knocked down. Replaced by a block of 6 flats and a new pub. Anyone heard anything more about this?


----------



## bimble (Nov 2, 2017)

Angellic said:


> Seems the HoS is going to be knocked down. Replaced by a block of 6 flats and a new pub. Anyone heard anything more about this?


No. Where did this info come from?


----------



## Angellic (Nov 2, 2017)

bimble said:


> No. Where did this info come from?



A trusted source, once removed.


----------



## bimble (Nov 2, 2017)

More and more and more flats we must be becoming one of the most densely populated corners of London.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2017)

Angellic said:


> Seems the HoS is going to be knocked down. Replaced by a block of 6 flats and a new pub. Anyone heard anything more about this?


Nooooooooooo!


*rushes over to Lambeth planning

Update: can't find anything


----------



## Angellic (Nov 2, 2017)

editor said:


> Nooooooooooo!
> 
> 
> *rushes over to Lambeth planning
> ...



From what I heard it is due to happen in the next 12-18 months. I'll see if I can find out more and apologies for the mysteriousness.


----------



## brixtonblade (Nov 2, 2017)

Shit. That's a proper pub.


----------



## SpamMisery (Nov 2, 2017)

brixtonblade said:


> Shit. That's a proper pub.



You've got your word order slightly jumbled.

Seriously though, what did the source say about the new pub? I can't imagine it will be the same as the HoS


----------



## editor (May 13, 2019)

Please send in your objections now!
Historic Hero of Switzerland pub set for demolition: deadline for comments is 16th May 2019


----------



## brixtonblade (May 13, 2019)

editor said:


> Please send in your objections now!
> Historic Hero of Switzerland pub set for demolition: deadline for comments is 16th May 2019


That is bad news :-(


----------



## editor (May 13, 2019)

It's frustrating to see that nearly 650 people have read the Buzz article today and at least 17 have then gone on to the planning site, but as far as I can see there's been no more objections lodged. I suspect that some people are baffled by the way it works.


----------



## madolesance (May 13, 2019)

editor said:


> It's frustrating to see that nearly 650 people have read the Buzz article today and at least 17 have then gone on to the planning site, but as far as I can see there's been no more objections lodged. I suspect that some people are baffled by the way it works.


I didn’t bother clicking through because I really don’t care. The Hero is not my local and it probably doesn’t appeal to many others that live locally to it. Areas have demographic changes.
Shame it’s not able to go like say the Effra Social, it was on it last leg as a conservative club but was revived by new owners.


----------



## editor (May 14, 2019)

madolesance said:


> I didn’t bother clicking through because I really don’t care. The Hero is not my local and it probably doesn’t appeal to many others that live locally to it. Areas have demographic changes.
> Shame it’s not able to go like say the Effra Social, it was on it last leg as a conservative club but was revived by new owners.


Effra Social is an entirely different thing as it was never a traditional pub. 

A lot of the people who use the Hero are unlikely to be as digitally engaged as the young incomers, nor would they want their pub turned into a DJ hotspot. Why are you assuming that the pub was struggling anyway? It's always been fairly busy when I've visited. 

Their most recent Google reviews would also suggest they're filling a community need:


----------



## cuppa tee (May 14, 2019)

i have been in the hero a couple of times lately, granted it has a bit of a run down feel but with the possibilty of demolition looming why is the owner/landlord gonna invest in the future ? the pub is not going to be knocked down cos of lack of customers but because the plot it stands on is being redeveloped, there is nothing that would put anyone off drinking there apart from their own prejudice, I will leave an objection fwiw but I get the feeling this is a fait accomplis


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2019)

editor said:


> Effra Social is an entirely different thing as it was never a traditional pub.
> 
> A lot of the people who use the Hero are unlikely to be as digitally engaged as the young incomers, nor would they want their pub turned into a DJ hotspot. Why are you assuming that the pub was struggling anyway? It's always been fairly busy when I've visited.
> 
> ...



I'm trying to comment now.

I have a user log in for the planning portal. Its saying Im logged in. But if I try to do anything its saying "server error".

So I will have to do it all manually again. Put in my address etc etc.

Lambeth IT is imo dreadful. 

No wonder people can't face commenting.

It takes persevering with Lambeth shambolic IT system.


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2019)

madolesance said:


> I didn’t bother clicking through because I really don’t care. The Hero is not my local and it probably doesn’t appeal to many others that live locally to it. Areas have demographic changes.
> Shame it’s not able to go like say the Effra Social, it was on it last leg as a conservative club but was revived by new owners.



I don't know if you live in LJ. Hero is right in middle of Loughborough estate. No demographic change there. Unlike Brixton.

In fact at early pre application exhibition on the estate the developers/ architect were telling me that building this big tower of yuppie flats would help, and I quote " kickstart the regeneration of the area".

Stuck in my mind as I was open mouthed they could say that here in LJ.

One of the upsides of my new neighborhood is that the gentrification regeneration of LJ by developers and architects hasn't happened yet. And the local population aren't at all keen on it. Not keen at all. Its rather refreshing to be on same wavelength with my new locals. No tortuous discussions on the pros and cons of "regeneration" as get here.

To be fair the developers/ architect after the responses they got from locals have dropped the regeneration angle.

I do use the Hero. Its a great pub. One of the last community pubs. Reminds me of the Albert when I first used it.

Also looks good. The bar and fittings haven't changed.

I agree with CAMRA description

Hero of Switzerland - London Pubs Group CAMRA


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2019)

The developers bought the pub site a while back. From what I understand the landlord will, after taking a sabbatical, come back to run the new pub.

Well we will have to see.


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2019)

I must say I was having to say to local resident few days ago that this proposed tower had nothing to do with Lambeth council. Such is the distrust of Lambeth council that privately owned proposal is seen as being implicated with Lambeth council. Who would be happy to see the area gentrified in the eyes of lot of working class residents. Pretty standard view I come across.


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2019)

Had a read if this as I went to the public consultation. I see I'm in the photos.

Its the statement of community involvement in the planning application. De Rigeur now.

Its interesting reading.

Results were approx 55% opposed scheme. Approx 5% supported it.

Yet they are still ploughing ahead with scheme with minor adjustments.

They are saying the pub will be reinstated on ground level with elements of the old pub including bar.

So imo they are focusing on reprovisioning the pub to cater to same demographic as before in order to get the scheme through. A good tactic.

They have done some redesigning to stop overlooking.

They also to my surprise still put in a couple of gentrification arguments. "Positive impact on residential values" and the new tower being a new "focal" point for area. Tasteless in a 100% Council housing area.


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2019)

So WTF is the point of pre application consultation meetings?


----------



## editor (May 14, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> So WTF is the point of pre application consultation meetings?


Just to tick a few boxes. I've been to several. All a complete waste of time.


----------



## editor (May 14, 2019)

And there you have it:


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2019)

editor said:


> Just to tick a few boxes. I've been to several. All a complete waste of time.



Its that the results were accurate representation of my memory of the consultation. Yet Lambeth planning officers who must have seen these results are supporting the scheme.

The planning officers are supposed to be on residents side. Or so I thought. Pre application consultation should be taken into account by officers.


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2019)

editor said:


> And there you have it:
> 
> View attachment 171029



My memory of the consultation event was that it was the height and lack of affordable housing that made people object strongly.

I bumped into a few locals. There view was that this was gentrification. But "They" ( council/ developers/ LJAG) would get it through whatever they said.


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2019)

editor said:


> And there you have it:
> 
> View attachment 171029



One would have thought that if a pre application consultation event showed this overwhelmingly opposition one might think its time to go back to the drawing board.


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2019)

Started looking at the Planning Statement on the planning website. They are standard and best doc to read for overall summary of application.

The affordable housing and play space. Page 5. The affordable housing is , surprise surprise , stuck on the bottom above the pub in two floors. So yuppies won't have to see them.

The play space for children is on roof. Statement doesn't say if play space in roof will be available for social housing residents.

This is an issue that needs clarification. It might be in another doc. But worth querying. I kid you not play space when finished has seen social housing residents children excluded from it.

This all reminds me of Ballards novel High Rise.

The quote from page 5,



> 4.6 6 units would be affordable, comprising 4 social rented units (3 two-beds and 1 three-bed)
> and 2 shared ownership units (a studio and a one-bed) grouped together on the second
> and third floors (a total mix of 1 x studio; 1 x one-bedroom; 3 x two-bedrooms & 1 x three
> bedroom). This is based on a developer profit of 17.5% on the market housing and will be
> ...


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2019)

Note the affordable amount will be subject to "review mechanism" ie the developer will seek to reduce it if he doesn't see big profits.

This isn't what they said at the public consultation. The snake oil salesmen that developers are.


----------



## shakespearegirl (May 14, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> Its that the results were accurate representation of my memory of the consultation. Yet Lambeth planning officers who must have seen these results are supporting the scheme.
> 
> The planning officers are supposed to be on residents side. Or so I thought. Pre application consultation should be taken into account by officers.



Lambeth planners are on the side of Lambeth planning! 

Objections that aren’t focussed purely on planning issues are very rarely taken into consideration. If it’s a high profile case (like the previous attempt on 414) and the objections can be tied to a council policy they may have to listen but otherwise they just ignore what they consider ‘emotive’ objections.

Makes it very hard for lay people without design or planning knowledge to object, particularly now when they seem to have dropped the need to notify local residents.


----------



## editor (May 14, 2019)

shakespearegirl said:


> Lambeth planners are on the side of Lambeth planning!
> 
> Objections that aren’t focussed purely on planning issues are very rarely taken into consideration. If it’s a high profile case (like the previous attempt on 414) and the objections can be tied to a council policy they may have to listen but otherwise they just ignore what they consider ‘emotive’ objections.
> 
> Makes it very hard for lay people without design or planning knowledge to object, particularly now when they seem to have dropped the need to notify local residents.


It's almost like they don't care about local residents when there's a big bucks developer in town!


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2019)

shakespearegirl said:


> Lambeth planners are on the side of Lambeth planning!
> 
> Objections that aren’t focussed purely on planning issues are very rarely taken into consideration. If it’s a high profile case (like the previous attempt on 414) and the objections can be tied to a council policy they may have to listen but otherwise they just ignore what they consider ‘emotive’ objections.
> 
> Makes it very hard for lay people without design or planning knowledge to object, particularly now when they seem to have dropped the need to notify local residents.



I disagree. Its a common assumption that only if one has planning knowledge can one object and be taken seriously.

Officers are there to work for us. They are supposed to be servants of the public.

Planning officers have to work to certain guidelines.

Cllrs on planning committee are meant to directly represent the community.

Imo there is nothing wrong with so called "emotive" comments.

Counter intuitive Example. The planning statement put forward by the developer includes what I think can be regarded as "emotive" justification for the design. Going on about the "Golden Mean". This isn't scientific. Its emotive justification based on ancient Greek thought. Which the architect as a professional expert regards as just factual statement. Its not.

Its up to planning officers in conjunction with Cllrs to see if the lay persons comments can be given weight.

Planning should not be an obscure thing only "professionals" can interpret. Its the usual view. I think its undemocratic. It shows how disempowering the local state is to ordinary people.

Something as fundamental as designing and changing ones neighbourhood should not be just delegated to experts.


----------



## Gramsci (May 15, 2019)

Back to affordable housing as discussed on the planning Statement. As I guessed the developer has already used viability to reduce percentage of the affordable element from 40% as per planning guideline to a meagre 17%. This is agreed with officers. Its also subject to "review".

The policy 40% of whole scheme should be affordable:



> 6.25 Local Plan policy H2 (Delivering affordable housing) states that the Council will seek the
> maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private
> residential and mixed-use schemes, at a borough-wide target of 40% (without public
> subsidy) on sites capable of accommodating 10 or more homes. The policy targets 70 per
> ...



After "viability" actual amount will be miserly 17%



> 6.26 Of the 35 units proposed (excluding the pub landlords flat), 6 units would be affordable,
> comprising 4 social rented units (3 two-beds and 1 three-bed at 67% of the AH offer) and 2
> shared ownership units (a studio and a one-bed at 33% of the AH offer) grouped together
> on the second and third floors (a total mix of 1 x studio; 1 x one-bedroom; 3 x two-bedrooms
> ...



The reasoning used is this frankly incomprehensible paragraph. Seems to say poor developer is losing money. Bollox.


> 6.28 The accompanying Development Appraisal of the agreed mix of affordable housing
> prepared by Savills shows a financial deficit in the scheme of circa £370,000 (A Residual
> Land Value of £60,000 compared to a Benchmark of £430,000). Despite this financial
> deficit, the applicant has agreed to deliver the affordable housing as proposed and will
> deliver on this by sacrificing profitability from the project.


----------



## shakespearegirl (May 15, 2019)

In my experience of Lambeth planning they certainly aren’t servants of the people, they routinely ignore the people. I totally agree they should be servants of the people and open to helping people object if there are grounds to.

They are so short staffed and scared of getting into court cases with developers that they are putting planning applications with blatant errors/lack of meeting guidelines.

The initial planning application for a development behind us was riddled with mistakes and breaches of design and material standards, yet the planning officer had recommended it be approved.she continued trying to push the development through when items that had previously been noted by the council as unacceptable hadn’t been changed. even sending out subsequent planning notices with the wrong number of houses/number of floors/number of proposed bedrooms.

On a recent proposed development no notices were sent out to adjoining residents nor notices put up. We only knew it was happening once work started.


----------



## Gramsci (May 15, 2019)

Back to the Planning Statement.

Its so annoying. Despite the public consultation being against it the developers are still arguing this is an enhancement of the public space.




> 6.46 In terms of Townscape, the assessment demonstrates that the proposed scheme has been
> significantly informed by thorough analysis of the surrounding local context and townscape
> character, in order to develop a proposal which will form a high-quality addition to the local
> area and enhance local distinctiveness. Furthermore, the building will be of the highest
> ...



What can I say? This is gentrification agenda dressed up as good for the area.

The "markers" for the estate are the Council housing blocks. This yuppie tower is an insensitive intrusion on the social housing estate. Its not in keeping with the way this estate was designed.


----------



## Gramsci (May 15, 2019)

From my reading of the planning statement the developers are putting these reasons forward.


This development increases housing density thus meeting targets for more homes 

The pub is of no historical or architectural importance
They have worked closely with Lambeth officers on height, density and massing during design process

The tower will enhance the area as a "marker". Thus contributing to making LJ a "destination"
They are contributing money to enhance Hero square ( the tarmac area by the pub) Thus contributing to making this a "gateway" to LJ. Fitting supposedly in with LJAGs ideas for the area.
They have amended the design to stop overlooking.
They really want to put in affordable housing. Due to costs this will be less than 40% as planning guidelines state. This reduced amount may be reduced further as project continues.
The pub and same landlord will be re provisioned in new development.


----------



## Gramsci (May 15, 2019)

I looked at the viability document. They hired Savills , one of the biggest property companies to reduce the affordable element.

For those who don't know large development like this should have 40% affordable. However the developer can argue that the development would not be "viable" is not profitable enough if it had 40% affordable.

Savills professional judgement was to reduce the affordable element to zero.

Counter viability appraisal from Council said 11 units affordable. This was less than 40%. Developer still argued.

So know it's six.

The unacceptable face of Capitalism. Its been good reading this application. Just shows how rubbish capitalism is .

Relevant excerpt from the doc:




> 2.1.1.* Savills provided a Viability Assessment that concluded that the scheme was not able to provide any
> affordable housing.  *
> 
> 2.1.2. BNPP were instructed by the London Borough of Lambeth to review our Viability Assessment. Their
> ...


----------



## CH1 (May 16, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I looked at the viability document. They hired Savills , one of the biggest property companies to reduce the affordable element.


This company behaves like a prostitute, advising Lambeth Council and simultaneously doing its level best to ensure no social housing ever gets built.

In normal life it used to be the case that one had the right to employ professionals who have no conflict of interest. Unfortunately with property management, development and investment conflict of interest is the norm.

a pretty headline from Savill's website:


----------



## Dirty South (May 21, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I looked at the viability document. They hired Savills , one of the biggest property companies to reduce the affordable element.
> 
> For those who don't know large development like this should have 40% affordable. However the developer can argue that the development would not be "viable" is not profitable enough if it had 40% affordable.
> 
> ...



That is a fecking disgrace.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 13, 2019)

nice pic of the original pub before demolition



It had pleasure grounds


----------



## brixtonblade (Jun 13, 2019)

cuppa tee said:


> nice pic of the original pub before demolition
> 
> View attachment 174102


That's brilliant!


----------



## editor (Jun 13, 2019)

cuppa tee said:


> nice pic of the original pub before demolition
> 
> View attachment 174102
> 
> It had pleasure grounds


I'm half way through doing a Buzz feature on this postcard. innit lovely?!


----------



## Crispy (Jun 13, 2019)

Viability Assessments are a massive con, and everyone in the industry knows it.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 13, 2019)

editor said:


> I'm half way through doing a Buzz feature on this postcard. innit lovely?!


 
Maybe we saw it in the same place, the second pic on the thread I saw showed a ruined building which was said to be The Hero just before it was knocked down but the two buildings look very different to me....


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 19, 2019)

Crispy said:


> Viability Assessments are a massive con, and everyone in the industry knows it.



They might say that off the record. But when it comes to planning committee they will say it's all unfortunate, they would really like to have more affordable but the economic climate is against this.

The planning officer will advise that if it turns down this application an appeal is likely to win on appeal.

Property developers are just another aspect of Captialism.

They know that so called viability assessment are bollox but will in public say this is about sound economic analysis.

Of course its not. 

Its what makes this all maddening. 

Property developers per se are scum. But one can't say this.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 11, 2019)

19/01481/FUL	 |			  Demolition of the existing public house and erection of a 13-storey building (plus basement and mezzanine floor levels and roof level access) including a replacement public house at basement, ground and mezzanine floor levels and 1 unit of ancillary staff accommodation (Use Class A4) with 35 residential units above (8 x Studio, 4 x 1 beds, 15 x 2 beds and 8 x 3 beds, Use Class C3), and cycle parking, waste storage, a substation, hard & soft landscaping including beer garden and private/communal amenity space, and associated engineering works.				  |																	  Hero Of Switzerland 142 Loughborough Road London SW9 7LL

Heard today the planning application is going to committee 24th September.

See a lot of objections on the Council website.

https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=600&MId=11271&Ver=4


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 15, 2019)

The officers report pack for the planning application committee came online Friday. 

Officers recommend approval. 

Ive started to read it.

I put in comments on low level of affordable housing. 

Notice in 10.1 section of report The Mayor has objected to the low level of affordable housing the officers have agreed with the developer. 

Recently was told by a senior planning officer that the Council had "robust" policies on affordable housing. Doesn't look like it to me. 

Its still 17% of the housing. 

The report pack does contain all main objectors comments in full. LJAG/ Brixton Society and Helen Hayes MP. 

The officers report for the meeting is a justification for the officers decision to recommend approval, information for Cllrs on the PAC on the application and officers response to criticisms of the the application. 

The report is useful too read as contains a lot of info about the proposal and objections.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 15, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> The officers report pack for the planning application committee came online Friday.
> Officers recommend approval. Ive started to read it. I put in comments on low level of affordable housing. Notice in 10.1 section of report The Mayor has objected to the low level of affordable housing the officers have agreed with the developer. Recently was told by a senior planning officer that the Council had "robust" policies on affordable housing. Doesn't look like it to me. Its still 17% of the housing.
> The report pack does contain all main objectors comments in full. LJAG/ Brixton Society and Helen Hayes MP.
> The officers report for the meeting is a justification for the officers decision to recommend approval, information for Cllrs on the PAC on the application and officers response to criticisms of the the application.
> The report is useful too read as contains a lot of info about the proposal and objections.


Isn't it about time the councillors forced the planning officers to provide more social housing?
That is what they are elected to do after all.


----------



## editor (Sep 17, 2019)

Update: Lambeth officers recommend redevelopment of Hero of Switzerland pub despite united local opposition


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 19, 2019)

Ive been reading the officers report for the Planning Applications Committee next Tuesday.

I'm emailing tonight to ask to speak.

I want to raise issue of the lack of affordable housing and the design which is out of keeping for the area. 

I've started the officers report and got a third way through. Already foaming at the mouth. 

Respectable groups like Brixton Society and LJAG are opposing this tower and officers are blithely stating its a good design. 

I'll post up some choice quotes from the officers report.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 19, 2019)

10.2 in officers report:

This is officer replying to LJAG objections:



> The developer has failed in its duty to plan with the local community
> [Officer comment – the developer has provided a statement of community involvement which
> does demonstrate that there has been pre-submission consultation with residents. The NPPF
> requires that developers engage with the local community. It does not require developers to
> ...



So the pre application process. The meeting local residents were encouraged to go to gave brownie points for the developers but mean nothing. The fat cat developer can have these meetings then totally ignore community feedback. 

So what is the point of them?

I went to them and saw that locals didn't like it. 

On the masterplan. This was never finished because the officers ( Regen) refused to finish it once local residents opposed the officers plans to build on the adventure playground. 

Not the fault of local residents. Its the fault of officers.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 21, 2019)

I'm going to post up some of my thoughts as I've been reading the officers report to recommend the scheme. 


On the affordable housing they have had difficulty getting RSLs interested in the few social housing units. Only two have shown interest. 

There is get out clause if no RSL is interested. Then developer can give money in lieu. 

Officers say they have had "robust" discussions with developer. There is whole page on this in report. I still think Cllrs should make the 40% agreed planning policy stick. What's the point of all these consultations on Local Plan if developers can ignore them?

Mayor has told planning he is not satisfied with the amount of affordable housing. 

The officers say the proposal goes over the agreed density levels that are allowed per hectare. Interesting one this. The officers then give reasons why they recommend despite this. So planning guidelines are just that to officers.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 21, 2019)

I've been reading more of the officers report. Section 13.10 Public Realm improvements.

As the land owned by the developer is small and developer is building to higher density than is normally allowed public realm is important to justify the scheme. 

So the only public realm nearby is Hero square. Not owned by developer. Its publicly owned land. ie ours. So developer is assuming they can use publicly owned land to back up the overdevelopment of the site they own. Bollox to that. 

Therefore the planners are getting developer to cough up for improvements. 

The planners use the unfinished LJ Masterplan to justify the improvements. 13.10.3

Its a "Gateway"

The report states that applicant has been consulting local community groups. Including LEMB ( who manage the site and also Lambeth who own it. 

Did they consult LJAG? I don't think so. I also didn't think LEMB wanted Hero Square "regenerated".

So far I can't see if LEMB have opposed or supported the whole scheme on the comments section of the planning website. 

This will be secured by section 106 agreement. 

I'm not happy its being used in this way. 

This public realm improvement is being used to justify the overdevelopment of the site the developer owns. Which is small. 

Its also very minimal improvements imo. Also the designs aren't part of this application.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 21, 2019)

Other issues I've come across in officers report is putting residential above a function room/ Pub that is going to have live music and amplified music. There are mitigating soundproofing etc but this depends on not opening Windows having a sound limiter. None of which in my experience work well in central Brixton. 

Objectors have raised this in comments. I think its worth saying at committee. Given experience of Brixton its going to be a possible problem in the future. 

Secondly the play space requirement for children is not met. So developer is paying a ( relatively small) amount of money in lieu. 

Imo this is sign of overdevelopment of site that it cannot provide adequate play space for the number number of children officers reckon will be in the development. 

IMO its not acceptable to cram all these flats on a small site and assume can get around adequate play space for children.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 21, 2019)

The whole officers report is about recommending the scheme. 

Overlooking and loss of light are dealt with in detail. That a layman like me finds hard to follow. I feel this is deliberate. 

What I get is that a small number of properties will have a loss of light. But given the benefits of the scheme and the loss being only a few nearby flats its acceptable. 

Well maybe but I'm not in one of the very few flats affected. 

Overlooking is dealt with by "fins" which will discourage overlooking. But does this mean it will stop it completely? Discouraging is the word officers use. 

A bit technical but a valid point?

At several points the officer says that the idea of this being a "landmark" building ( which is what the developer was saying) is not a material planning consideration. But the officers in the report defend the design. Saying it incorporates the corbusier golden triangle which relates it to the estate.

The officers can't have it both ways. Saying criticism of the developer idea that this is a Landmark building is not relevant objection then going in detail to support the architects design for the building. Which is subjective. 

At pre application meeting the developer/ architect justified the height and design as being a "Landmark" building that would "kickstart" the regeneration of the area.


----------



## alex_ (Sep 22, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I'm going to post up some of my thoughts as I've been reading the officers report to recommend the scheme.
> 
> 
> On the affordable housing they have had difficulty getting RSLs interested in the few social housing units. Only two have shown interest.
> ...



The law re the 40% threshold and the affordability test is a really poor piece of legislation, ultimately the council get rings runs around them.

The council probably also knows this, they can push for 40% but they risk the developer getting in the consultants and lawyers and getting nothing.

1 second with google finds stuff like this - S106 Renegotiations  | S106 Management

Alex


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 22, 2019)

alex_ said:


> The law re the 40% threshold and the affordability test is a really poor piece of legislation, ultimately the council get rings runs around them.
> 
> The council probably also knows this, they can push for 40% but they risk the developer getting in the consultants and lawyers and getting nothing.
> 
> ...



This is in the report. The developers already hired consultants to produce a viability report.

At the pre application meetings the developers said the plans would be "policy compliant" .  They understand that people were concerned about affordable housing in the area.

This of course was bollox. Developers are just out to make as much profit as they can. Its pure capitalism.

Property developers in my experience are the worst kind of people I have met.

I still think its an issue to raise with Cllrs.

The viability assessment issue is an example of how capitalists ensure the system works for them whilst on the surface it appears that everything is ok. The myth of viability is that this is just an apolitical test of the market to ensure a fair profit for the hard done by property developer.


----------



## alex_ (Sep 22, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> This is in the report. The developers already hired consultants to produce a viability report.
> 
> At the pre application meetings the developers said the plans would be "policy compliant" .  They understand that people were concerned about affordable housing in the area.
> 
> ...



While the law permits the viability assessment - there isn’t much the council can do, eg “pop Brixton “doesn’t make any money””

Eg After we’ve paid “our brick supplier” fifty pounds per brick, we don’t make any money so we can’t afford any affordable homes.

Alex


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 22, 2019)

alex_ said:


> While the law permits the viability assessment - there isn’t much the council can do, eg “pop Brixton “doesn’t make any money””
> 
> Eg After we’ve paid “our brick supplier” fifty pounds per brick, we don’t make any money so we can’t afford any affordable homes.
> 
> Alex



I know.

But what can I do?

Gentrification is driven by measures like these. So called Viability Assessments are one of the measures that push gentrification.

I don't know what to do sometimes.

This is why people get cynical about the so called democracy we live in. Everyone can have their say then the rich and powerful get what they want.

Really I think authoritarian regimes like China / Russia are missing how to do it right.

They should copy this country. Give people all the rights to speak then set up the system so vermin like property developers do what they want most of the time.

Let's face it property developers are vermin.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 22, 2019)

Another reason to raise the issue of affordable housing is that the Planning Committee is made of mainly of Labour Cllrs.

None of the Cllrs support the idea of the Corbyn / McDonnell led government. Which as least could push the country to the left. Take on the rich and powerful.

These Labour Cllrs need to be reminded these are live issues for local people.

Not everyone is enthusiastic about the neo Liberal third way approach. As exemplified locally by Pop Brixton. So beloved of the Blairite leader the the Council Jack Hopkins.

This isn't being personal about Jack. It is that his politics are symptomatic of the this is how the world works supporters of the Third Way.

You can't buck the system but you can ask business people nicely to "put back" into the community Third Way nonsense.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 22, 2019)

Summary of my thoughts :


I attended the pre application meetings out this proposal. 


Local opinion was universally against this plan. 


A few points. 



This is a gross overdevelopment of a small site. The developer is trying to maximise profits by building a tall tower. Other recent development nearby haven't done this. So I don't understand why the developer in this case is saying the site isn't feasible unless they build this high. 


Overdevelopment of the site is seen in two ways in officers report. The amount of playspace required for a development of this size is to small according to planning guidelines. This is imo unacceptable. The developer paying money in lieu does not make up for the lack of playspace that future residents by right ought to have. 


The footprint of the site is small so the developer is relying on publicly owned space nearby to justify a high density tower block. This is unacceptable. The developer bought the site knowing full well the size. I object to a private property developer relying on public space to justify their development.


So on two measures this is overdevelopment of this small site.


Putting flats directly above a pub that has live and amplified music is likely to cause conflict in the future. The soundproofing measure rely on people not opening windows for example. Whilst the present landlord will keep to management plans premises change hands. I don't have faith in Lambeth Licensing to ensure measures to stop nuisance to occupants in the future.


The PTAL rating isn't that high. The officers report does not take into consideration the fact that at peak times the LJ station is packed. 


The Mayor of London , as stated in the officers report says he is not happy with the level of affordable housing. I agree with the MayorI. I attended the pre application meetings. Developer said to me affordable housing would be "policy compliant". Its not. Developer said they understood in an area like this that affordable housing is an issue. Policy is 40%. Developer has been arguing with planning. Applicant has been trying to reduce the affordable housing to as low as they can. This is not acceptable in an area of high deprivation that desperately needs more genuinely affordable housing. 


On design. I agree with Brixton Society this tower is out of keeping with the Corbusier design of the housing estate. This is a great example of early post war Council housing. The proposed tower is out of keeping with the existing architecture. 


Most aggravating is the developer saying at the pre application meetings that this tower block would kickstart the regeneration of this area. This is an insult. Nothing wrong with this area. Except for Tory cuts. 


Officer report imo is contradictory. The developer at pre application meetings was also saying ( along with this kick-starting the regeneration of area)that this tower would be a "Landmark" building. They produced drawings to show this. Officers say opposing this is not a material planning consideration. Yet the same planning officers support the developers questionable contention that this design fits in with the Corbusier design of the Council estate. Officers can't have it both ways. Deeming one kind of criticism illegitimate but saying their views on design are.


I think a site visit is in order to see full effect of this design on the neighborhood


----------



## alex_ (Sep 22, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> Summary of my thoughts :
> 
> 
> I attended the pre application meetings out this proposal.
> ...



I agree with all of this, but none of your objections are going to lead to more affordable homes.

Alex


----------



## CH1 (Sep 26, 2019)

Regarding the planning committee hearing for the Hero site, it has to be said Gramsci and Anthea Massey put in clear well organised speeches (within the diminutive 2 minutes now allowed to each objector to speak).

I was pleased that Cllr Scarlet O'Hara (Coldharbour Ward) put in an appearance to relay objections to this scheme from her constituents.

What was altogether weird was the tone of the planning councillors' debate.

In the end only one councillor (Ben Kind - Tulse Hill ward I think) dared to vote against the proposal - he seemed very concerned with design issues about over-looking and window screens to prevent this.

To be honest I would say that 5 years ago an issue like serious overlooking would have been enough for the application to be withdrawn for radical alteration and submission.

As me and Gramsci were reminiscing afterwards, gone are the days when there was some opposition holding officers and Labour councillors to account. Former Cllrs Brian Palmer (in particular) and aslo Steve Bradley were clear in highlighting defects in planning proposals than had to be put right.

Not only that former Cllr Diana Morris as committee chair would wind up discussions and was not averse to putting forward proposals to chuck out unsatisfactory plans. She also would insist that the officers give guidance on appropriate watertight grounds for refusal. The present chair allowed the meeting to drift on interminably with no direction. The agenda was set by the officers - and the agenda was to get the application through.

The overal impression one gets from the current proceedings at the Town Hall is that the planning officer sells the scheme for 30 minutes, the objectors are give 2 minute each to object (4 minutes total in this case).

The planning committee are then given time to ask questions. Virtually all the questions were answered by officers. Including questions about viability assessments - it seems that Lambeth Planning employ a firm of property consultants to work out viability assessments. Lambeth's property consultants then apparently swap notes with the developer's viability assessment consultants - and present a suitable stitch-up to the councillors.

Generally all the questions from councillors were simply batted away - like asking Boris Johnson something (but without the abuse!).

Thanks to Councillor Ben Kind for not being fobbed off. Why on earth did the other 5 councillors just rubber stamp this monstrosity?

Becca - we think you will be in a maelstrom of discontent if you do the same again on Higgs!


----------



## teuchter (Sep 26, 2019)

I totally missed that this had gone to committee already - it's now been given permission?


----------



## CH1 (Sep 26, 2019)

teuchter said:


> I totally missed that this had gone to committee already - it's now been given permission?


Yes - without any apparent alterations required. Subject to section 106 of course - this seemed to be to do with childrens play space and landscaping. 

One point - one of the planning councillors said she thought she might  - if a resident - require access to the roof garden at 5 am if she had a crying baby to nurse.  Accordingly I think they dropped some condition about limiting access to the roof garden between 10 pm and 7 am.


----------



## editor (Sep 26, 2019)

CH1 said:


> Yes - without any apparent alterations required. Subject to section 106 of course - this seemed to be to do with childrens play space and landscaping.
> 
> One point - one of the planning councillors said she thought she might  - if a resident - require access to the roof garden at 5 am if she had a crying baby to nurse.  Accordingly I think they dropped some condition about limiting access to the roof garden between 10 pm and 7 am.


Maybe you might get a pair of those essential eggs that have brought such joy to a deprived council estate.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 26, 2019)

editor said:


> Maybe you might get a pair of those essential eggs that have brought such joy to a deprived council estate.


I take your point. But remember we had to wait about 4 years before those supposed dinosaur eggs materialised.

In the case of the Hero of Switzerland development it seemed to be more a matter of planting two or three trees in front of the Featley flats - and I think blocking off one end of the access road - which might not be good if the restaurant got into Deliveroo etc.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 26, 2019)

Agree with what CH1 has posted.

Cllr Ben Kind was the only Cllr to vote against the application. Where I differ from CH1 account of the meeting Im sure Cllr Kind ( Labour) voted against the application as he didn't think he had a satisfactory explanations from the officers why the original Lambeth viability assessment, which said a much larger percentage of affordable housing was posssible,  was later changed. This was after talks with the developers viability assessment consultants Savills with Lambeth planners and the Lambeth consultants. Cllr Benn Kind was trying to get to the bottom of how Lambeth planners agreed with a lot of what the developers consultants Savills said.

Out of all the Cllrs Ben Kind did ask probing questions.

In short why didn't the officers stick to their guns and say their viability assessment should stand. Rather than have it watered down by their opponents.

There was defence by officers/ viability consultant that they are duty bound to negotiate and discuss figures with the developers consultants. Savills had according the the Council consultant and officers put forward figures about costs that in the opinion of the Council consultants and officers were reasonable.

Viability is about how much profit the developer can make versus the amount of affordable housing that can be obtained. The developer will try to argue that the costs of development are high. Which will reduce profit. Also the housing market is variable. So the discussion between planners and developers is about projected costs of development, profit levels ( around 16% is considered the reasonable amount).

In this case as it is a high tower costs are higher than low rise. So its less "viable".

I can understand why Cllr Kind found the whole discussion on viability frustrating.

The Council policy is 40% affordable on large developments such as this. But every time developers /planning officers agree much lower amount than the democratically agreed 40%.

So what is the point of the policy?

Being there hearing the discussion at the Planning Committee I ended up thinking this democracy stuff is bollox.

Wha is the point of taking part in the so called democratic process when developers get what they want and agreed policy in practise never happens?

I had to sit right next to the developers. They all turned up in their suits.

Bunch of slimy sharks.

Worst was that the officers had written a long report for the meeting. We objectors read this and came to committee with our notes to read out.

Then the Officers sprang on us that the report was now out of date.

Turns out they and developers had been frantically trying to get the Mayor / GLA on board. So between the developer and planning officers they had agreed one more unit of affordable housing and this has meant the GLA / Mayor supported the scheme.

Thank you so much Sadiq for that.

Really not helpful to read a long report then turn up to have sprung on you that.

I reckon officers / developer knew that was a weakness in the report. And pulled out all the stops to overcome in the last few days before the committe meeting.

The officers claimed at the meeting that the GLA/ Mayor had done their own Viability and agreed with planning officers/ developers one.

That didn't get questioned by Cllrs. This was all very last minute with little real evidence presented except the planning offficers saying so.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 26, 2019)

I did ask for a site visit to see the effect of this tall tower on the area. As I didn't think looking at drawings / models was enough.

None of the Cllrs took this up.

I was somewhat annoyed by this.

A site visit can be requested by Cllrs so they can visit the actual site and see the context in which a new development would sit.

As this is a big tower I thought that was reasonable request.

Several objectors had brought up the issue of the existing layout of the Council estate and this new tower. 

Brixton Society, LJAG and Loughborough Junction Neighborhood Forum for example.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 26, 2019)

One of the Cllrs said it was unfortunate that this would effect the Corbusier influenced Council estate but he still voted for the application.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 26, 2019)

I agree with CH1 about the general tone of the planning committee meeting.

I haven't done one of these PAC for quite a while.

IMO they have deteriorated.

Someone like Cllr Palmer would have definitely asked more about design and the architecture.

What I found my disturbing was the way officers saw it as their role to persuade Cllrs to support the application.

They didn't present an even handed evaluation of the scheme. Describing the pros and cons of the application. What issues Cllrs ( who after all are layman who are their to represent the ordinary Joe) might like to question developers about. They didn't do any of this.

I felt the whole processs was staged managed by the planing officers. The head was present - Bristow. He had another one of his staff give the power point presentation. She spoke glowingly about how the planners and developers had worked together to produce this wonderful scheme. Whilst Bristow looked on approvingly as his minion did a great presentation.

I find it aggravating that the new high tech refurbished Town Hall is used to give Sharks what they want.

Cllrs on the PAC can ask questions of the developers. As CH1 says all the discussion was between Cllrs and planning officers. Not developers.

The planning officers turned up with power point presentation of why this application should be agreed.

As I told one of my Ward Cllrs next day the Planning officers were doing the developers job for them. Lobbying on their behalf.

Its like someone said to me the senior officers and developer spend a long time discussing the application and get to close.

Planning officers, on my experience of that meeting, have forgotten that their role is to support the local community.

We got two minutes each to present our case.  The planning officers got the majority of the two hours it took to discuss this the application.

Its unfair and its not democratic as the planners have got an unhealthy relationship with developers.

As we objectors had followed this application, had local knowledge as residents and read the whole of the application it was most frustrating that we could not ask questions. Especially as the Planning officers saw their role as getting the application agreed.

I had my two minutes then had to listen to the developers friends our Planning officers support this scheme with no reservations.

It was noticable that the developers never had to say anything , except a few minutes of bland statements.

Lambeth planning officers made sure the developers got what they wanted.

As a example of how a Cooperative Council works in practise this was very disappointing.

It makes me understand why people can be totally cynical about the democratic process.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 26, 2019)

The developers said the LEMB supported the application.

critical1

Anyone know about this? If that is true?

Developer said they are going to refurbish the Hero Square. And LEMB supported this.


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2019)

CH1  and Gramsci  - are you OK if I use your comments here for a Buzz article?
(Just 'like' this post if so!)


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 27, 2019)

editor said:


> CH1  and Gramsci  - are you OK if I use your comments here for a Buzz article?
> (Just 'like' this post if so!)



Yes. 

I'd appreciate it if you put in good word for Cllr Kind. He did put a lot of effort into trying to question officers. He opposed the application due to not being happy about officers explanations of why their negotiations with the developer over the amount of affordable housing led to so little in the scheme the officers recommended approval for. 

I was impressed by Cllr Kind grasp of the issues.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 28, 2019)

CH1 said:


> I was pleased that Cllr Scarlet O'Hara (Coldharbour Ward) put in an appearance to relay objections to this scheme from her constituents.
> 
> !



It was good to see one of the new Coldharbour Ward Cllrs support local feeling about this application. 

Anthea spoke for LJAG. Who ( along with Brixton Society) opposed the application. 

The Hero is in Coldharbour Ward.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 28, 2019)

The other thing that I don't think I've added is that the planning officers say they now have agreement that the playspace on the roof of the tower block will be accessible to all future residents. Whether in the social housing / shared ownership or private. 

Its one concession officers made to objectors. 

The issue of playspace not being accessible to social housing / shared ownership residents comes up a lot in London.

Disabled children among social tenants blocked from communal gardens

This recent one describes how complicated and unclear it is. 

It appears in the case of Westbourne Place the original plans said access to all residents.  Its now a tangled web of different sides blaming each other for the social housing residents being excluded from the communal garden.

From what I can gather from the article the development was planned to have communal gardens open to all residents. It hinges on service charges. So both sides ( the social housing provider and the private property management) say its purely economic cost of service charges. But after questioning by Guardian change story. Its so unclear and tangled that the losers are the social housing residents.


----------



## BusLanes (Sep 30, 2019)

Sounds pretty grim. Guess this is what happens when there are only 6 or so opposition councillors.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 30, 2019)

BusLanes said:


> Sounds pretty grim. Guess this is what happens when there are only 6 or so opposition councillors.



The opposition Green Cllr voted for the application.

The only Cllr who voted against was a Labour Cllr.

The underlying issue is how planning has become less democratic.

Planning is something , whilst boring, has big effect on people's every day lives. 

My years of taking part on and off in planning issues/ master plans haven't imo had much effect.

Its about time property developers were put in their place. Its them in reality along with big name starachitects who now mould the environment we live in. They are increasing a move to a more divided city.


----------



## BusLanes (Oct 1, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> The opposition Green Cllr voted for the application.
> 
> The only Cllr who voted against was a Labour Cllr.
> 
> ...



Huh. Thought the Greens would have opposed it, even if just to make the point. Who was it - Thackery?


----------



## alex_ (Oct 1, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> The opposition Green Cllr voted for the application.
> 
> The only Cllr who voted against was a Labour Cllr.
> 
> ...



The law is written to favour developers, and Lambeth needs to build a lot of houses ( forecast 30k population growth in Lambeth 2018 to 2028 ), that’s at least 1k extra flats/houses per year. ( Assuming each holds 4 which is probably a bit high. )

I suspect the reason it looks like the council officers support the developer is that the council officers will be the ones who end up in court, paying for the lawyers when the developer takes them to court.

Alex


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 1, 2019)

BusLanes said:


> Huh. Thought the Greens would have opposed it, even if just to make the point. Who was it - Thackery?



Yes it was her.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 1, 2019)

alex_ said:


> The law is written to favour developers, and Lambeth needs to build a lot of houses ( forecast 30k population growth in Lambeth 2018 to 2028 ), that’s at least 1k extra flats/houses per year. ( Assuming each holds 4 which is probably a bit high. )
> 
> I suspect the reason it looks like the council officers support the developer is that the council officers will be the ones who end up in court, paying for the lawyers when the developer takes them to court.
> 
> Alex


I've never hear of that. When did a council officer get taken to court personally because councillors on a planning committee refused an application?


----------



## alex_ (Oct 1, 2019)

CH1 said:


> I've never hear of that. When did a council officer get taken to court personally because councillors on a planning committee refused an application?



They’ll be in court representing the council, not personally.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 1, 2019)

alex_ said:


> The law is written to favour developers, and Lambeth needs to build a lot of houses ( forecast 30k population growth in Lambeth 2018 to 2028 ), that’s at least 1k extra flats/houses per year. ( Assuming each holds 4 which is probably a bit high. )
> 
> I suspect the reason it looks like the council officers support the developer is that the council officers will be the ones who end up in court, paying for the lawyers when the developer takes them to court.
> 
> Alex



Lambeth needing a lot more homes and the law being written to favour developers are two separate issues.

This is the whole problem with the rise of Neo Liberalism.

Peoples needs get put together with the "this is just how things are. Its unfortunate but that is how it is" line of argument.

Conflating the two issues of need for extra homes and developers is part of the problem.

Not having a go at you here. I think you are a good poster.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 1, 2019)

Link didn't work


----------



## alex_ (Oct 2, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> Lambeth needing a lot more homes and the law being written to favour developers are two separate issues.



But they are both your problem if you working in the Lambeth housing department !

I don't think that Lambeth housing are “the developers friend”, they’ve just been dealt a shitty set of cards and are trying to do the best they can.

Trying to avoid being sued by developers and running up legal costs is probably pretty high on their list of priorities as it takes time away from useful work.

Alex


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 2, 2019)

alex_ said:


> But they are both your problem if you working in the Lambeth housing department !
> 
> I don't think that Lambeth housing are “the developers friend”, they’ve just been dealt a shitty set of cards and are trying to do the best they can.
> 
> ...



Your are mixing up different departments. Planning and Lambeth Housing are separate. 

Also this is not about developers suing the Council. Developers can appeal a decision.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 2, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> Your are mixing up different departments. Planning and Lambeth Housing are separate.
> 
> Also this is not about developers suing the Council. Developers can appeal a decision.


Costs can be claimed on an appeal. This used to be used as a threat against councillors on planning committee - particularly in Tescos cases.

Not sure if any costs ever got claimed - or what for. Specialist advice is mentioned, but the cost of an original application is ruled out. Not clear either re cost of barristers - are they specialist advisers?
Claim planning appeal costs


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 2, 2019)

alex_ said:


> The law is written to favour developers, and Lambeth needs to build a lot of houses ( forecast 30k population growth in Lambeth 2018 to 2028 ), that’s at least 1k extra flats/houses per year. ( Assuming each holds 4 which is probably a bit high. )
> 
> 
> 
> Alex



On housing.

The local plan and London plan give density levels for housing.

This limits the amount of housing on one site.

Lambeth needing more homes and planning policy are separate issues.

This application density was way over what is allowed in the Local plan.

What officers said was that "emerging" policy in the Mayor's London plan was for higher density.

There is a difference between agreed policy and emerging policy. As local, London and national policy undergo revisions , which take time, emerging policy is what will replace agreed policy. But is still under consultation.

In this case the officers gave more weight to emerging policy on density than agreed policy.

Something imo that is questionable.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 2, 2019)

Is it true that 'emerging policy' is for higher density? 

I think when I last looked into this (which was for the Higgs site) there was a draft london plan in progress but the density allowances weren't all that different. I might be wrong though.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 2, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Is it true that 'emerging policy' is for higher density?
> 
> I think when I last looked into this (which was for the Higgs site) there was a draft london plan in progress but the density allowances weren't all that different. I might be wrong though.



You could be right.

In the officers report for the meeting they said emerging  policy was for higher density.

The officers report put forward the view that planning officers could take a very relaxed view on density. That density limits should not be applied "mechanistically".

I do find statements like this in planning reports to Cllrs on PAC highly subjective interpretations of planning policy.

Its saying yes there are limits on density but as a planner I have special ability to see whether these planning requirements are followed to the letter.

A few quotes from the report the officers wrote for Cllrs



> 12.3.6 Officers consider that the density proposed is, in this instance, appropriate noting the site’s access to
> public transport, local amenities, wider setting and the direction of *emerging development planning
> policy. *



And:



> 12.3.3 Based on a net residential site area of 0.036ha and 93 habitable rooms, the scheme has a density of
> 2,540hr/ha or 956u/ha. *The scheme would far exceed the nominated density* range, but this is a guide
> which is not to be applied *mechanistically*



Not saying you are wrong.

It was one of my problems with the officers report and the PowerPoint presentation they did at the PAC. Plus as CH1 pointed out batting off queries by Cllrs.

I didn't like the way Bristow the head of planning , who attended the PAC, talked to Cllrs who questioned aspect of the Developer application and Officer endorsement of the the application. He talked to them at times like an exasperated adult talking to a child. As though he had to explain the obvious to the child in simple language.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 2, 2019)

CH1 said:


> Costs can be claimed on an appeal. This used to be used as a threat against councillors on planning committee - particularly in Tescos cases.
> 
> Not sure if any costs ever got claimed - or what for. Specialist advice is mentioned, but the cost of an original application is ruled out. Not clear either re cost of barristers - are they specialist advisers?
> Claim planning appeal costs



I bet 106 “optimisation consultants” are specialist advisors.

Alex


----------



## CH1 (Oct 3, 2019)

PS I was just deleting loads of planning portal emails when I saw this.
2016 - Secreatary of State Greg Clark blocks Ipswich Council from providing a scheme with 94 units of affordable housing on the site of former Ipswich airport.
_20.The Secretary of State considers that despite the high quality of physical design and despite the mix of different tenures of affordable housing, a single cluster of 94 affordable units would conflict with the objective of Policy DM24 to achieve developments in which the affordable units are truly integrated into the market housing. Consequently he also considers that so large a cluster would conflict with the aim at Framework paragraph 50 to create inclusive and mixed communities._

In other words in this case the government cancelled the scheme because no market housing was provided.
Latest news | Planning Portal

This sot of nonsense needs to be challenged at parliamentary level.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Aug 7, 2020)

What became of this? Are we to be gifted with a massive rent-extraction rig drilling into the heart of our neighbourhood, did covid kill the plan, or what?


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 8, 2020)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> What became of this? Are we to be gifted with a massive rent-extraction rig drilling into the heart of our neighbourhood, did covid kill the plan, or what?


Think I read  it got the go ahead but when I spoke to the landlord he reckoned not.


----------



## editor (Aug 8, 2020)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> massive rent-extraction rig drilling into the heart of our neighbourhood


I like your turn of phrase


----------



## CH1 (Aug 9, 2020)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> What became of this? Are we to be gifted with a massive rent-extraction rig drilling into the heart of our neighbourhood, did covid kill the plan, or what?


The planning committee minutes are here Agenda item - Hero of Switzerland 142 Loughborough Road (Coldharbour) 19/01481/FUL | Lambeth Council
It was approved subject to section 106.
However depending on the developer's source of funding it might not happen - which may be what cuppa tee is picking up from the landlord.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 21, 2020)

From the link immediately above (last para):


> In the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed within six months of committee, to delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development to refuse planning permission for failure to enter into a section 106 agreement for the mitigating contributions identified in the report, addendums and/or the PAC minutes.


That was decided last September so is well out of time now - does anyone know if the S106 was completed?


----------



## CH1 (Aug 21, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> From the link immediately above (last para):
> 
> That was decided last September so is well out of time now - does anyone know if the S106 was completed?


I don't know - but there is likely to be a time limit anyway. That said its possible planning changes coming down the line from Build, Build, Build Boris might make this all obsolete. Maybe more planning oriented urbanites such as teuchter might be able to help?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 21, 2020)

CH1 said:


> I don't know - but there is likely to be a time limit anyway. That said its possible planning changes coming down the line from Build, Build, Build Boris might make this all obsolete. Maybe more planning oriented urbanites such as teuchter might be able to help?


No particular insight to offer I'm afraid!
I've also been wondering what the impact of everything that's happened this year will be on the Higgs project.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 21, 2020)

teuchter said:


> No particular insight to offer I'm afraid!
> I've also been wondering what the impact of everything that's happened this year will be on the Higgs project.


Presumably they will be tempted to go back to the drawing board to get more units - and higher blocks.
The situation at Higgs suggests that it is not only private developers who landbank and sit on sites.
LJAG should invite Lord Kerslake for a Zoom meeting to explain what the hold-up is.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 21, 2020)

If there's a big shift to more home working then I'm not sure that adding more units to expensive-to-build developments whose resale value is based on easy access to central london workplaces is the obvious response.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 21, 2020)

teuchter said:


> If there's a big shift to more home working then I'm not sure that adding more units to expensive-to-build developments whose resale value is based on easy access to central london workplaces is the obvious response.


Quite so - but if Peabody were trying to self-finance their deveopment in the manner of Your Nu Town Hall some extra units might make their sums add up better - unless they hang about ntil the next property crash, whenever that might come.


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 27, 2020)

Gensler to replace Damien Hirst hangout with 13-storey tower
					

Gensler proposal for pub at the centre of 1990s art movement approved




					www.building.co.uk


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2020)

Just got an email from Lambeth telling me that the development has been approved.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 27, 2020)

editor said:


> Just got an email from Lambeth telling me that the development has been approved.


From cuppa tee 's article it looks like this was US consultancy inspiration.
As essentially is Hondo's thing - with the fig leaf of a BAME owned architect.
Are we already into the delights of BREXIT and Trumpism in the property market?


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 27, 2020)

CH1 said:


> From cuppa tee 's article it looks like this was US consultancy inspiration.
> As essentially is Hondo's thing - with the fig leaf of a BAME owned architect.
> Are we already into the delights of BREXIT and Trumpism in the property market?



they have had some high profile clients in the past.....








						Featured | Projects | Gensler
					

Discover design and architecture projects from across Gensler's practice areas and offices across the world.




					www.gensler.com
				



.....will be interesting to see their vision for ye olde estate public house.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 27, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> they have had some high profile clients in the past.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Makes me wonder if these people are scraping the barrel doing smaller schemes because the big stuff is either drying up or saturated.


----------



## Tw75 (Mar 23, 2021)

Hero now has metal plates over doors and windows and all outdoor ornaments and plants have gone.


----------



## TopCat (Mar 23, 2021)

Tw75 said:


> Hero now has metal plates over doors and windows and all outdoor ornaments and plants have gone.


A real shame.


----------



## editor (Mar 23, 2021)

Tw75 said:


> Hero now has metal plates over doors and windows and all outdoor ornaments and plants have gone.


Really depressing news.


----------



## r0bb0 (Mar 23, 2021)

See what happens, maybe he went on a trip?


----------



## editor (Apr 9, 2021)

A sad sight




















						The Hero of Switzerland pub is now closed and boarded up – photo feature
					

This is the sad sight of the boarded-up Hero of Switzerland community pub on the Loughborough Estate, which is to be demolished and replaced by a 13 storey new development.



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------

