"New" Merrett Nightclub Plans for Old Bike Shop [Archive]

Anna Key

13-10-2003, 12:23

After the trouncing last month of nightclub plans for the old Bike Shop Merrett has returned with a "new" application. This turns out to be almost identical to the scheme rejected last month.

The deadline for comments is 29th October 2003. If you want to object please email the Case Officer, Tim King, on tking@lambeth.gov.uk

Here's a model email:
435-437 COLDHARBOUR LANE, SW9 8LN (REF 03/01663)

I write to object to the above proposal.

This application is almost identical to the application rejected by planning committee on 9th September 2003 (ref 01/01391). The minutes of that meeting state:

"That permission be refused on the grounds of a loss of a retail unit and the cumulative impact on residential amenity of further A3 use in the area."

I object to this application on identical grounds and request that steps be taken to discourage further such applications from coming forward.

In view of the decision by planning committee on 9th September 2003 to reject application 01/01391 I would be grateful if you would let me know why application 03/01663 was not rejected by officers under delegated authority.
Various pissed-off locals are looking into how serial planning applications by Mr Merrett, of an identical or similar nature, can be discouraged, not least to preserve Mike's bandwidth.

Fuzzy: What techniques do you use in Birmingham to stop deranged serial planners? Can the makers of frivolous applications be stuck with a bill for officer time?

Fuzzy

13-10-2003, 13:43

not much you can do on the costs front until the application has been refused and taken to a public inquiry. only then can the applicant or the council make an application for costs against the other. costs awards only occur when in the view of the Planning Inspector one of the parties have acted in an unreasonable manner. tricky to gauge and awards for costs are in no way guaranteed.

unfortunately when you submit a planning application the fee that goes in with it is supposed to cover officer time. once you have had an application refused you have the opportunity to submit another application which is similar without having to pay the fee. its called the free go. its cheaper for the developer to do this i.e. submit an amended scheme rather than incur the cost of pursuing an appeal.

in objecting to the application you should look to see how the application seeks to address those reasons for why it was refused last time. if as you say the application is not materially different then say so and let the case officer know that the concerns expressed by members with the last application still remain unaddressed.

not sure you can do anything about people making serial planning applications. anyone is free to submit a planning applicaiton on any piece of land. the thing you have in your favour is that there is now a record of a refusal for a nightclub on that site and unless the new proposals can adequately address the issues that it was refused for last time then i dont rate its chances of getting through this time.

again make sure the application is properly advertised while the 3 week period is still live. also check your local newspaper as it should also be advertised int ehre.

Anna Key

13-10-2003, 14:35

Thanks Fuzzy. I'll follow your advice (as usual and expect the same results as last time :D).

I'm sure I've read somewhere that identical or near-identical applications to one already rejected may attract some sort of penalty, but am obviously wrong.

Buzz sw9: thanks mate. Very good of you to have emailed. Will be interested to see what they say.

Gramsci

13-10-2003, 19:40

I dont believe this, thanks for putting this up Anna as I did not notice it.U would have thought those planners would have informed previous applicants.Its Larry trying to wear us down.

I assume it means we will have to get a new petition etc as Larry definately will.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

IntoStella

13-10-2003, 19:44

Yup. Business as usual. Still. It keeps Anna Key out of the pub. :)

Anna Key

14-10-2003, 09:24

Originally posted by Gramsci
I assume it means we will have to get a new petition...
The trouble with such petitions is you risk getting knocked down in the rush as folks clammer to sign.
Larry definately will
Much good may it do him. A bunch of drunken drug-tourist Claphamites demanding NIGHTCLUBS 4 BRIXTON! and JUSTICE 4 LARRY! before pissing off back to Cla'ham.It keeps Anna Key out of the pub
Not entirely. :p

IntoStella

14-10-2003, 10:50

Originally posted by Anna Key
The trouble with such petitions is you risk getting knocked down in the rush as folks clammer to sign. I should have thought a person like yourself, of such glamour, would know how to spell clamour. ;) Yes, you're right about the pub. :(

Donna Ferentes

14-10-2003, 10:55

Perhaps he was still hammered?

IntoStella

14-10-2003, 12:16

Originally posted by Justin
Perhaps he was still hammered? If he doesn't show a bit more 'amour', he'll find himself in the slammer! :D :p

wiskey

15-10-2003, 12:36

reworded e-mail sent.

William of Walworth

15-10-2003, 17:35

Originally posted by Anna Key
stop deranged serial planners

Use that slogan in any sustained anti-Merrett campaign ... for laugh value if nothing else ... :D :p

<been to pub :) >

Anna Key

16-10-2003, 09:51

STOP
DERANGED
SERIAL
PLANNERS!
I like it! :D

Fuzzy

16-10-2003, 13:01

*cough cough*

Anna Key

17-10-2003, 09:13

Not you silly. :)

Anna Key

17-10-2003, 11:22

From today's South London Press (p. 65):
LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH
Notice under the Town & Country Planning Act

435-437 COLDHARBOUR LANE, London

Change of use from retail (Class A1) to Food and Drink use (Class A3) including the installation of two chiller units on the roof with associated alterations

03/01663/FUL/DC_TKI
So it's a full-blown application to convert the old Bike Shop into a Merrett nightclub.

Anna Key

17-10-2003, 12:42

Nah. Your email's fine (more than fine). It's the same plan

Fuzzy

17-10-2003, 16:39

if its the same plan anna key then it might be wise to see whether you can talk to the planning officer and see what contact he has had with the applicant or their agent. remember they officer wanted to approve it last time round and it would be useful to know what specific changes have occured on the application. if the officer wont talk arrange to see the working file with the planning department. they cant refuse. there might be correspondence on the file which will show what larry is thinking.

IntoStella

17-10-2003, 18:13

The thing is, the planning officers got a good slap from councillors on the Brixton area committee for putting through the original application. Surely they will be very wary of putting the same thing though yet again??

That's like really pissing off your boss and then deliberately doing exactly the same thing again a month or two later. It makes no sense.
:confused: :confused: :confused:

I will be very surprised if this is recommended for approval. And pissed off. Hell, I'm already pissed off. Why doesn't the fucking little gimp stop wasting people's time? :mad: :mad:

(Note to self: Calm down IntoStella. It's Friday night. Go down the pub and chill out. Don't let scum wind you up <deep breaths>).

Anna Key

18-10-2003, 08:47

Here's the resolution carried at the Brixton Area Committee on 03.09.03 condemning officers for recommending a Merrett nightclub. There was another relevant resolution too but I don't want to weigh this thread down with cut and paste.

Fuzzy: as far as I can judge from the file it's (for all intents and purposes) exactly the same plans as those rejected on 9th September (report here (http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54539).)

So this is what's happened:

(a) Politicians condemn officers on 3rd September for recommending a Merrett nightclub close to flats.

(b) Politicians boot out the application on 9th September.

(c) Officers report to Council Executive on 29th September that planning committee "had in the event refused planning permission."

(d) Officers have another crack, a few weeks later, at getting the plans through (the current application, reported in yesterday's South London Press - transcript above).

Most odd. But if Merrett wants to iritate the Brixton political establishment for a second time in a few weeks, and make everyone go through the same process of rejecting his nightclub plans all over again, that's up to him. It's his right to annoy residents and Councillors if he wants.

As I said earlier, it's so easy to get large numbers of people to sign petitions against his nightclubs. I get complaints if I forget to ask someone to sign.
This Committee notes that Coldharbour Lane between Brixton Road and Atlantic Road is now saturated with A3 uses and therefore calls upon to Council to resist any extensions to existing A3 premises and applications for new A3 uses in this stretch of road. Furthermore, this Committee condemns the Council's officers' support for the conversion of the former Brixton Cycles unit to A3 usage. (My emphasis.)

Gramsci

18-10-2003, 15:05

I have been in the Library to look at the new application.(It is new hes paid for this one already.)Its as far as I can see exactly the same.In details of proposal section it states that;

"Change of use to A3 from A1-bar /internet cafe on ground floor,ancillary room,office,customer toilets on 1st floor-ancillary office space on second floor.Installation of two airconditioning units on roof of 3 storey building."

Application was received on 17/June/2003.A bit odd as this application was active before the planning committee meeting on the 9/9/2003 when the previous(almost identical) application was refused.

The only difference I notice is that the application is in the name of "Living Room Leisure Trading" instead of (for the previous application) "Living Room Leisure".

I agree with Anna that the officers should be asked to tell Merret to go to appeal instead of putting in identical applications.

Anna Key

18-10-2003, 15:44

Originally posted by Buzz sw9
I wasn't aware that Officers had be condemned over the last plans
Oh yes. They had their bottoms well smacked.

If anyone wants to point this out to Mr King - that his colleagues were condemned formally by their political masters for doing what he may be about to do - feel free. :p

Fuzzy

20-10-2003, 08:05

Originally posted by Gramsci
I agree with Anna that the officers should be asked to tell Merret to go to appeal instead of putting in identical applications.

officers cant tell an applicant to appeal. its up to the applicant to decide whether they want to or not.

on the issue of duplicate applications. applicants have done this in an attempt to get their applications decided quicker. planning applications are supposed to be decided within 8 weeks. if they are not the applicant can appeal to the planning inspectorate for non-determination i.e. the council have not decided the application quick enough. the reason for appealing one of the applications is that this can then be decided by a planning inspector whilst the other application is still to be decided by the council. depending on which type of appeal they pursue this can often result in a decision quicker than if the council made it and it can also circumvent local political pressure from elected members.

whilst both applications are the same the fact that they are made in different names raises the question of who notice of ownership has been served on i.e. which certificate on the planning application has been used and which names are on it.

Anna Key

20-10-2003, 13:59

That sounds right Fuzzy. What's this 'notice of ownership' thingy? And what's a 'certificate' in this context?

Sorry Fuzzy: you should start charging for this. :p

Fuzzy

20-10-2003, 14:07

on a planning application there is a one sided piece of A4 that contains a choice of two places to sign. you ahve to sign one or the other. Certificate A is signed if you are the owner of the land you are applying for planning on. say if you owned your own house and you wanted to extend it, you would sign certificate a. certificate b on the other hand is what you sign when you dont own or control the land you are applying for planning permission on. say for example a property developer wanted to buy a piece of land but did so only on condition of getting planning permission to develop it. when they submit the planning application they need to serve certifate b on the land owner telling them that a planning application has been submitted on their land.

in the merret case it would appear that two seperate companies have applied for the same development on the same piece of land so it might be interesting to see who is the actual land owner and who merret has served notice on. incorrect serving of notice is a bit of a technicality and if which not carried out properly can invalidate a planning permission.

Fuzzy

22-10-2003, 15:55

the reasons for refusal given by members are essential to how successful an appeal would be. the reasons for refusal have to reflect how the proposed development is contrary to policies in the adopted UDP, the policies in the emerging UDP as well as if they are contrary to other national and regional planning guidance. in addition to this other material considerations have to be taken into account by members which may override planning policy and planning guidance.

when mr watson said one of the reasons for refusal may not stand up at appeal he probably thinks that the scheme as proposed did not contravene the policy in the UDP it was refused for enough and that the applicant would be able to come up with good enough arguements to say why the council had come to the wrong decision.

the fact that he thought the other reason for refusal was solid probably means that the scheme is so far removed from the policy that an inspector would disregard the development in the same way the council did. it would be like saying that site was allocated for housing and a developer was proposing a supermarket. the reason for refusal would be that "in the UDP the site is allocated for housing and the proposal is for a supermarket. this is clearly contrary to policy and consequently the application should be refused." i dont think it is as cut and dry in this case but from the tone of my watson's comments it appears on one of the reasons it was refused for it is.

on the issue of duplicate applications it comes down to when they were submitted. if they were submitted at the same time i have explained why developers do this. it is so one can go to appeal why the other is decided by the council. it is done to try and get a decision from the planning inspectorate rather than the council so as to avoid local politics and oposition.

if as anna key has said that the second application was submitted in june i dont see why mr watson does not know about it.

as you say buzz sw9 only the applicant can appeal against refusal of planning permission but there is nothing to stop them resubmitting exactly the same plans after their appeal has been decided. they would be fucking stupid to resubmit exactly the same plans if the appeal had been thrown out by an inspector. the local authority would refuse the application immediately giving exactly the same reasons that the plannign inspector had given.

there is no time limit in which the applicant can or cant resubmit plans after an appeal has been decided.

it has been known for developers to resubmit similar applications to those that have been refused persistently in an attempt to grind down the local authority. by constantly putting in a shit scheme the authority gets well and truly fucked off with working on it and after a while recomend it for approval just to be shot of it. dont worry this isnt very common and i certainly havent come across it.

it would be handy to know when the first application was submitted and whether this is a case of twin tracking of applications.

IntoStella

23-10-2003, 17:11

Originally posted by Buzz sw9
I was told “They (the officers) are still writing a report for members regarding their decision to reject the previous application; it is felt that one of the two reasons for rejection may not stand up at appeal but the other almost certainly will and until that report is finalised (shortly I understand) he couldn’t really give me a full answer”So does this mean he thinks Merrett will lose an appeal? I wish he had been more specific as to what reason for rejection he thought would 'stand up' and which wouldn't.

hatboy

23-10-2003, 17:21

Are you lot sure you want to keep publically announcing all this? Aren't you just telling your opponents your strategies.

Donna Ferentes

23-10-2003, 17:36

This may have been dealt with before, but do the residents (and other objectors) still have a voice when it comes to appeal? Or does it just become Developer v Local Authority in front of whoever?

Fuzzy

24-10-2003, 08:24

Justin, they do but only at certain types of appeal. there are three types of appeal.

1) Written representations - both the council and the applicant write why the development should or should not be allowed. a planning inspector reads these and then visits the sites and makes his decision. no participation from the public allowed in this type of appeal.

2) Local Hearings - the council and the applicant sit round a table with a planning inspector and interested residents. residents do get to participate in the debate and make their views heard.

3) Public Inquiry - same sort of thing as a hearing but with barristers involved. again residents can speak but should be prepared to be cross examined by a barrister. its much more formal than a hearing and daunting as well for those not experienced in dealing with barristers.

if you get notified about the apeal and make submissions to the planning inspectorate on that appeal (for 2 and 3) you should get asked whether you want to attend at the hearing or inquiry.

Anna Key

24-10-2003, 12:41

Buzz: no I haven't heard back from the planners. You got some good stuff out of them. Well done mate!
So I think they will have to go to appeal, what is the history with these people?
Yes there's a history of appeals on both planning and licensing matters. There was a thread about it here but it's been deleted. Lambeth need to be encouraged to employ some good lawyers.

Plus there are large sums of money at stake. A new trendy nightclub for visiting Yups on Coldharbour Lane would be license to print money. At its height Dogstar was turning over c. £50,000 per week and the old Brixton Cycles building, if comprehensively Merrettised, has the potential to pull in as much, or more.

It's a big building on a prime site 5 mins from a zone 2 tube. The plans were cut down and cut down but if a nightclub gets a toe-hold it's likely to endlessly appeal planning and licensing limitations with the aim of a nightclub being permitted to occupy the entire site.

There was a discussion about appeals here (http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54539&perpage=25&pagenumber=2). lang rabbie made good points about the so-called 'stress areas' of Camden and Westminster striking fear into the hearts of London's nightclub owners.

There's a move to designate a stress area on Coldharbour Lane, from Dogstar to Ritzy, so the politicians are clearly taking a strategic view. It all fits with the UDP discussions. Senior people seem to be following events closely.
Originally posted by hatboy
Are you lot sure you want to keep publically announcing all this? Aren't you just telling your opponents your strategies.
Hatboy's right. Cats shouldn't be released from bags in a public forum. But so many people have a stake in this - large numbers of locals and friends of Brixton have signed petitions, written letters, lobbied politicians, attended meetings, discussed it in the pub, read these boards, written emails - that some level of public discussion is important or objectors may lose heart. People want to know what's happening in their neighbourhood, and to influence events, which I think is deeply healthy. It's called 'democracy.'

It's an antidote to the cynicism of the "There's noting we can do let's roll another spliff" brigade who love to be proved right. This skirmish is in the process of proving them wrong which I think is great.

Looking back over this thread I don't think any harm's been done. IMO it's just a matter of getting public record info out into the public realm so people can read the stuff and continue to make up their own minds about how they want central Brixton to change.

William of Walworth

24-10-2003, 12:53

Originally posted by Buzz sw9
He told me that as the plans were the same as the ones already rejected ; these will be dealt with in the same manor

Let's hope so, we can't have any sneaky secret hearings in some out of the way office at the edge of the borough ;) :D

Anna Key

27-01-2004, 12:29

Just heard that planning officers are recommending Refuse Permission for these latest Merrett applications.

They go to planning committee on 10th February 2004 (Town Hall, Room 8, 7pm - refs 03/01663 and 01/01391).

Given that Councillors on planning committee voted 5:1 in September 2003 to reject almost identical applications (against officers' advice) it seems unlikely they'll now vote to accept.

But you never know. They're an independent-minded lot. But it's good news officers are saying 'refuse.'

Note for planning junkies: the officers' reports should be posted on the Lambeth website shortly. It will be interesting to see their reasoning for now saying 'refuse' when, four months ago, they said the opposite.

Brixton Hatter

27-01-2004, 12:46

Thanks for that AK and great news indeed - I will look out for the reports on the website. :) I've never had the pleasure (?!) of attending a planning committee - maybe this'll be my first!! :eek:

IntoStella

27-01-2004, 12:47

Great news about the officers rejecting the plans but I'm a bit confused about this as I thought that applications that were recommended for rejection didn't (usually) go to committee.

What is the point? If even the officers say no (which they rarely seem to do), no way are the councillors going to vote against them to pass an application. And PAC is massively oversubscribed as well, going on for many, many interminable hours.

I thought that rejected applications simply went back to the applicant with guidelines as to what would need to be done to make the application acceptable.

Are you sure it's actually going to go to committee?

Fuzzy

27-01-2004, 12:53

Brixton Hatter they are a joy to behold. democracy in action.

Bob

27-01-2004, 12:56

Fuzzy

27-01-2004, 12:58

Intostella, planning officers make recommendations to members at planning committee about how in their professional (the planner's that is) judgement the applicaiton should be determined. if it is recommended for refusal there can still be debate amongst members about whether this is the right decision or not. it can and does occur where members do not follow the advice given to them by their planning officers. when this application was first determined members refused it even though it had been recommended for approval.

it is less likely to work the other way though which is reassuring in this case. that is nto to say it definitly wont but imo there is agood chance that it will be refused.

Anna Key

27-01-2004, 12:58

Are you sure it's actually going to go to committee?
Yes. I've seen the public notification letters.

lang rabbie

27-01-2004, 13:12

any chance of you letting us know which councillors sit on the committee?

MEMBERS: Councillors BAKER(LD), CLYNE(LD), FOLLIS(Lab), GRIGG(Con), LING(Lab), PALMER (Chair-LD) and SMITH (Lab).
SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS: Councillors GENTRY(Con), FEWTRELL(LD), MALLEY(Lab),HUSSAIN(Lab) and CLIVE PARRY(LD)

Although, of course, Lambeth has never seen the operation of party whips on the quasi-judicial planning applications committee under any of the administrations that I've seen in the last fourteen or so years ;)

IntoStella

27-01-2004, 13:14

any chance of you letting us know which councillors sit on the committee?it should be on the website somewhere but, err, off the top of my head (how sad is that?)

Brian Palmer - lib -- chair
Janet Fewtrell lib
Jeremy Cline - lib
Jeremy (I forget) lib

Toren Smith lab
Ruth Ling Lab
(I forget) Hussein Lab

Janet Grigg Con

PLus any I've forgotten

:o

IntoStella

27-01-2004, 13:15

MEMBERS: Councillors BAKER(LD), CLYNE(LD), FOLLIS(Lab), GRIGG(Con), LING(Lab), PALMER (Chair-LD) and SMITH (Lab).
SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS: Councillors GENTRY(Con), FEWTRELL(LD), MALLEY(Lab),HUSSAIN(Lab) and CLIVE PARRY(LD) I didn't do too badly from memory! :D :o

Streathamite

27-01-2004, 14:25

I don't live in brixton-but those who know me know where I stand on this wanker. Fuzzy-Do you have to be Lambeth to send an email in to planning?

Fuzzy

27-01-2004, 14:40

Fuzzy-Do you have to be Lambeth to send an email in to planning?

not really. if you arent a lambeth resident then it may be wise to tone your objection towards the effect that this development has on brixton/lambeth as a whole rather than the impact taht it will ahve on local residents. your letter wont hold much weight if you arent directly affected by the development and you object on behalf of the local residents. hence why i say focus on the effect that this development will have on you as a regular visitor or employee in brixton.

Streathamite

27-01-2004, 16:41

fuzzy-we really should start paying you!
riiiight! email tonight!

Anna Key

28-01-2004, 10:12

Brixton Hatter they are a joy to behold. democracy in action.
It's true!

Also, for those with a dry and/or burlesque sense of humour they can be side-splittingly funny.

During one Living Bar application last year (lost by objectors) Mr Merrett exclaimed:

"You just hate my music!!"

A Labour Member sniggered (turned rapidly into a cough) while a trendy planning officer, who's been clocked by locals propping up the bar at Living Bar (nothing wrong with that. Even a planning officer is permitted a night out) hid behind his copy of the Town and Country Planning Act.

The other amusing thing about planning committee is that a certain type businessman hates it. They loathe it with a passion.

It's just so unfair, positively communist, for commercial decisions to be polluted by democracy.

p.s. Thanks to everyone still emailing the planners. Despite the officers recommending refusal it does no harm to show Councillors the strength of local feeling against this development.

Jezza: you're a regular (much loved) visitor to Brixton and have every right to your say in how the built environment develops.

Anna Key

28-01-2004, 10:25

fuzzy-we really should start paying you!
Too right. :)

Fuzzy

28-01-2004, 12:02

its my pleasure.

Gramsci

30-01-2004, 16:21

Ive got the agenda/reports for the meeting on 10th Feb.

The reason its going to committee is(according to the officer)that the Chair agreed that a comprehensive retail study should be made to see if refusal could be sustained.

The reasons for refusal are:

"The proposed change of use,on an individual basis and cumulatively with other Class A3 uses in the vicinity,would be detrimental to the amenities of nearby residential properties by reason of noise and general disturbance.As such,the proposal is contrary to Policies S14 and ENV19 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policies 7,29 and 53 of the Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan(2002-2017)."

The other way to refuse is if the A3 use puts it over the limit of A3 properties in the shopping area thus upsetting the balance between retail and entertainment.Policy S9 of the adopted UDP is not broken as 40% of the parade will remain retail.

Policy 29 of the Deposit UDP also uses floorspace as a test of overconcentration-no more than 30% of the floorspace within a 100m should be in A3 use.I quote from report:

"In terms of actual floorspace,however,due to the wide frontages of the Satay Bar,KFC and 3 Public houses..a calculation of the floorspace...reveals that currently 35% of total floorspace is in lawful A3 usage which would rise to 40% should this proposed use commence..the proposal complies with A3 percentage criteria(of S29) but fails the prescriptive floorspace limit of 30% A3 use."

The officer does not consider that this is enough to reject the application.This is because the Deposit UDP carries limited weight until it is adopted to replace the UDP(1998).

So instead the main sustainable reason for refusal is the affect on the local residents who live nearby-in 378-424 CHL,above 441CHL and Clifton Mansions.

"Sustainable" reasons have to be found as the applicant can appeal aginst the councils decisions.

Gramsci

30-01-2004, 16:38

The Planning Applications Committee(PAC) on 10th Feb (7pm at Town Hall) will look at two applications from Larry.The first 01/01391/FUL is the same one as put to the PAC on 9/09/2003 which was refused.The second 03/01663/FUL is new but almost the same as the last one.Both are recommended for refusal.The second one does have a difference:

"A subsequent application..is an identical submission to that already determined,save for the proposed hours of opening.The applicant now proposes that the premises be opened between the hours of 9am to 12 midnight,seven days a week.The previous application also proposed opening hours until midnight,extending until 2am on Thursday,Friday and Saturday."

The officer also points out that the PAC 0n 9/09/2003 did agree planning permission for a new shopfront(02/02435/FUL.Unfortunately in my view as its one for a bar not retail premises.

lang rabbie

30-01-2004, 16:43

The full planning officers report is now available at http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/report/023961.pdf (at pages 37 to 55 of the pdf for the application with opening hours to 2pm and page 56 to 63 for the duplicate application that curtailed hours to 12midnight)

There's also an application on the agenda (at pages 106 to 119) for 411-417 Coldharbour Lane for retrospective permission for restaurant use. [currently Pedro Key's Seafood Restaurant???, having briefly been Visits, which the report states was "closed by Camberwell Magistrates on grounds of public safety".]

Officers are recommending granting permission on this one. They reckon that only two objections were received.

Gramsci

30-01-2004, 16:50

In which case the officers report on the bikeshop is a bit inaccurate-if the officers are recommending approval for "Pedros" they should have said so in their report on the bike shop as it changes the percentages on the retail/entertainment split.

lang rabbie

30-01-2004, 16:55

I think this could cause some fun and games. I think that the law requires them to treat each one independently. :confused:

There was a similarly stupid situation about seven years ago (?)when two of the largest shop units in Streatham (next door to each other) came up for conversion to pubs in separate applications at the same meeting, and they both ended up getting consent.:mad:

lang rabbie

08-02-2004, 19:18

<<BUMP>>

Meeting is on Tuesday 10th. Has anyone found a helpful lawyer/planner yet to discuss how Lambeth gets out of this dilemma?

Given the history of failure to consult near neighbours on applications, is there any more community concern out there about use of the Pedros site for restaurant/bar use - either per se or just opening hours - than the two objections received?

Brixton Hatter

09-02-2004, 12:55

THE WARRIOR

09-02-2004, 14:04

If Larry gets permission for the application with opening hours only until midnight, is there anything stopping him from applying for extended opening hours at a later date?

Hope to be able to make it to the planning meeting tomorrow for some fun and games (??!!)

given the number of late opening premises in the area - I think the answer is if he applied which no one can stop, when permission for other premises is up for renewal there is a high chance permission would be granted.

Anna Key

11-02-2004, 09:36

given the number of late opening premises in the area - I think the answer is if he applied which no one can stop, when permission for other premises is up for renewal there is a high chance permission would be granted.
I think this is 100% wrong, especially given the result at yesterday's planning applications committee (PAC) meeting.

PAC heard that the application for a Merrett nightclub open until 12 midnight 7 days a week had been withdrawn by the applicant. Officers had been recommending refusal (ref 03/01663).

PAC then heard an officer's report on a retail survey of this section of Coldharbour Lane.

This was sought by PAC following the rejection in September 2003 of a Merrett nightclub open until 2am Thurs-Sat, 12 midnight Sun-Wed (ref 01/01391).

The retail survey found a heavy concentration of flats very close to the premises. Officers recommended refusal on grounds of residential amenity.

PAC then voted 6:0, on the Chair's recommendation, to refuse permission. When they rejected the application in September 2003 the vote was 5:1 so opposition to this nightclub, judged by the raw voting figure on PAC, has actually hardened in the last six months.

So I think there's only a low chance of Licensing Committee or Planning Committee allowing additional night-economy activity in this area of residential Brixton.

Especially as there are moves to designate the neighbourhood a "Stress Area" as per bits of Westminster and Camden.

So unless an appeal is won I reckon plans to site a nightclub next to 200 flats in the old Bike Shop are as dead as a Dodo. The premises should now return to daytime retail use.

Incidentally none of the three Labour Councillors for Coldharbour Ward could attend last night - all for legitimate reasons (they've been excellent throughout) - but Cllr Fitchett did.

He looked after objectors, sent the committee clerk running about and generally made sure justice was done. It won't make me vote Liberal but he has been extremely good throughout this whole episode. Perhaps he could join a different party? ;)

Brixton Hatter

11-02-2004, 16:32

So unless an appeal is won I reckon plans to site a nightclub next to 200 flats in the old Bike Shop are as dead as a Dodo. The premises should now return to daytime retail use.
A significant victory for local residents I think, which should be celebrated. Well done AK and others for keeping this live as an issue, making objections and for keeping us informed here. :)

Bob

11-02-2004, 17:54

I think you'll find that Keith Fitchett has already been in another party...

IntoStella

12-02-2004, 10:13

I think you'll find that Keith Fitchett has already been in another party...Come on then... elaborate...

Mr BC

13-02-2004, 08:56

Come on then... elaborate...

I think Cllr. Fitchett was formerly a Labour Councillor in Lewisham. He was then an early member of the Save the Doctor Party, before their merger with the Liberals.

Anna Key

14-02-2004, 09:23

Here's the decision reached by planning committee on 10th February 2004, transcribed from the formal notification to objectors (ref 01/01391):
Proposed development at: Shop, 435-437 Coldharbour Lane, London SW9 8LP

For: Change of use from shop (A1) to a bar/internet cafe (A3) on the ground floor, ancillary store, office and customer toilets on the first floor and ancillary office space on the second floor, and installation of two air conditioning units on the roof of the three story building.

Applicant: L Merrett

The decision on the planning application is as follows:

Refuse Permission

The following conditions for permission or reasons for refusal apply:

The proposed change of use, on an individual basis and cumulatively with other Class A3 uses inthe vicinity, would be detrimental to the amenities of nearby rsidential properties by reason of noise and general disturbance. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies S14 and ENV19 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 7, 29, and 53 of the Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2002-2017).

:D

wiskey

16-02-2004, 10:38

:cool: :D :cool:

Anna Key

02-03-2004, 13:30

Here're C&P extracts from the minutes of the 10/02/04 planning committee meeting:

Shop 435-437 Coldharbour Lane London (page 55)
03/01663/FUL/DC_TKI/17352

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred as the application had been withdrawn by the applicant.
and
Shop 435-437 Coldharbour Lane London SW9 8LN (page 37)
01/01391/FUL/DC_JFX/17352

Officers pointed out that the Committee meeting of 9th September 2003 had resolved to refuse planning permission for the proposed change of use of these premises from a retail shop (A1) to a bar/internet café (A3) on the grounds of the cumulative impact on local residential amenity and also the effect on the retail character and function of the immediate area. However, the Chair did agree that officers would carry out a comprehensive retail survey of this section of Coldharbour Lane and would then report back to PAC if it was felt that a reason for refusal based on the loss of a retail unit could not be sustained.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

The proposed change of use, on an individual basis and cumulatively with other Class A3 uses in the vicinity, would be detrimental to the amenities of nearby residential properties by reason of noise and general disturbance. As such, the proposal was contrary to Policies S14 and ENV19 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 7, 29 and 53 of the Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2002-2017).
Councillors voted 6:0 to refuse the application.

lang rabbie

02-03-2004, 14:47

There is a paper going to the Planning Committee on 9 March under the innocuous sounding title of Planning Application Committee - Procedures (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/report/024565.pdf)

A copy of the proposed new guidance (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/report/024566.pdf) is also on the Lambeth website.

This seems to have been drafted by lawyers running scared of developers's challenges. It appears to put talking to an elected member of the planning committee on a site visit on a par with jury-nobbling!

The main change (if the committee approves the procedures), is that to get heard, objectors will need to be well organised by so .

REQUESTS TO SPEAK
Applicants and those who have written in connection with the application will be notified in writing prior to the meeting advising them that the application is to be considered by the Committee. They will be notified of the date and who to contact if they wish to request to speak at the meeting or require more information.
Anyone can request to speak but must notify Democratic Services in advance.
Although ward councillors are not required to inform Democratic Services in advance it would be helpful if they could. Important All those wishing to address the Committee should contact Democratic Services to register their request. The deadline for this is 1.00 p.m. on the Friday prior to the Committee.

CIRCULATING WRITTEN MATERIALTO THE COMMITTEE
Any additional written material, letters, petitions etc for circulation to members of the Committee should be submitted to Democratic Services by email, fax or original copy one and half clear working days before the meeting i.e. 1.00 p.m. Friday if the meeting is on a Tuesday.

They do at least concede that

Where a site visit has taken place on the Saturday prior to the Committee meeting any further written material and requests to speak will be accepted up to ! p.m. sic on the Monday prior to the meeting.

Fuzzy

02-03-2004, 16:18

one and a half days before is very reasonable. i've worked at certain council''s where you ahve to register your intention to speak 10 workign days before the committee. its Doncaster MBC if you were wondering.

lang rabbie

02-03-2004, 17:59

I don't disagree that Lambeth has always allowed much greater public participation than other authorities.

However, I think that there is still an issue of whether the other processes have been improved sufficiently. IMO, it is because Lambeth planning had such a poor history on:

i) ensuring proper consultation notices are displayed
ii) ensuring that relevant neighbours are given notices
iii) properly representing objectors concerns in officers reports
iv) notifying objectors of the meeting at which case will be heard
v) ensuring that objectors get advance sight of officers report to know whether approval or rejection is recommended.

that successive chairs of the Planning Committe have been willing to allow late objections, and permitted both objections (and planners updated proposals for conditions) to be tabled at the committee on the night.

I've also heard some really alarming reports from elsewhere in the country where local councillors who have been vocal opponents of schemes in their ward, who don't sit on the planning committee, and are not party whips have been forbidden from addressing the planning committee - god knows what secret powers of influence/evil eye they might have used.