1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Brixton planning watch: planning applications and decisions listed

Discussion in 'Brixton' started by editor, Sep 20, 2017.

  1. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    I thought it might be handy to keep an eye on all the latest, more notable planning applications in one place so here's the thread.

    Looks like Mr Khans of Khans of Brixton is flashing the cash:

    63 Barrington Road London SW9 7JH
    Erection of a new dwelling house to the rear garden of 63 Barrington road - two-storey building and basement with provision of refuse and cycle storage.

    The Brixton Beach folks have had a kickback:

    Ex Tesco Building And Roof Car 17/02892/VOC Park London - Application Refused
    Variation of Condition 3 (operating hours) of planning permission 16/05825/FUL (Temporary change of use of the upper and lower roofs for a temporary period of up to three years. The upper roof will be used as a roof top food market involving the erection of timber framed food huts, provision of a bar, toilets and associated structures.

    These are from this document: https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/15-09-17_planning_weekly_list_75.pdf

    You can see weekly planning summaries here: Weekly planning lists | Lambeth Council
     
  2. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Pickman's model likes this.
  3. CH1

    CH1 "Red Guard"(NLYL)

    Gross - even worse than their last application.

    They have issues because they don't own 61 Barrington Road. The aesthetically logical thing would be to build a replica of 61-63 Barrington aligned along Coldharbour Lane. But since the flats at 61 no doubt want to keep their gardens, we have to put up with rubbish proposals like this.
    I will object - the design hardly enhances the conservation area does it?
     
    editor and Pickman's model like this.
  4. Pickman's model

    Pickman's model Starry Wisdom

  5. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    TfL cycle docking hire station for Ferndale Road
    Carriageway Adjacent To 240 To 246 Ferndale Road London SW9
    Proposal Installation on carriageway of cycle hire docking station for the Transport for London Cycle Hire Scheme containing a maximum of 30 docking points for scheme bicycles plus a terminal to secure and release bicycles and to provide registration and payment facilities and wayfinding mapping.
    17/04424/FUL | Installation on carriageway of cycle hire docking station for the Transport for London Cycle Hire Scheme containing a maximum of 30 docking points for scheme bicycles plus a terminal to secure and release bicycles and to provide registration and payment facilities and wayfinding mapping. | Carriageway Adjacent To 240 To 246 Ferndale Road London SW9
     
  6. Crispy

    Crispy The following psytrance is baṉned: All

  7. snowy_again

    snowy_again Slush

    Don't quite understand how they'd squeeze them on to the pavement, as there's very little a) pavement b) roadway to adopt as bike spaces. This doc seems to suggest taking a bit of both from the right hand side of the road. It's also a bit farther away from most passers by / other transport methods to be well integrated.
     
  8. Crispy

    Crispy The following psytrance is baṉned: All

    It'll replace a few cars' worth of parking, right here:

    Google Maps

    No pavement taken
     
  9. snowy_again

    snowy_again Slush

    Ah, I'd assumed from the street number that it was further up the road.
     
  10. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    2017-10-04_013543.jpg

    This one has been permitted:

    124 Dalberg Road London SW2 17/03627/NMC 1AP Herne Hill Mr
    SW2 DEVELOPMENTS LTD, 4th Floor 7/10 Chandos Street W1G 9DQ
    Mr Kishor Vekaria 224 West Hendon Broadway West Hendon NW9 7ED

    Application Permitted

    Application for a Non-Material amendment following a grant of Planning Permission ref: 15/04244/FUL (Demolition of the existing building and the erection of a two storey and a three storey building separated by a lower ground level courtyard, provide one office unit (Use Class B1A), 5 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 1 bedroom residential flats (Use Class C3), with associate amenity space, refuse/recycling facilities and cycle parking.)

    Granted on 22.03.2016.Amendments sought include: Installation of an elevator shaft to provide access to lower ground, ground and first floors within the building; relocation of communal staircases to accommodate the elevator shaft; use of dual height cycle storage to accommodate the elevator shaft; alterations to the layout of refuse/ recycling storage; increased solar panels on the rear block roof; lowering of basement levels and alterations to the design of the rear elevation of the front block

    https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/29-09-17_planning_weekly_list_77.pdf
     
  11. Twattor

    Twattor Well-Known Member

    New covenant church on waterworks lane is appealing their refusal for a 6 storey block of flats

    16/04965/FUL | Demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of site with the erection of a 6 storey building with a basement level to provide, office accommodation (use class B1 and flexible B1/D1) at basement, ground, and first floor levels together with 28 residential units above (Use Class C3). Provision of refuse and cycle parking. | 5 - 6 Waterworks Road London SW2 1SE

    Zero affordable as you'd expect. I can't see a lot of merit to the scheme and the reasons for refusal were pretty conclusive so it looks like the developer is trying to bully their way through. Certainly the appeal doc is very aggressive.

    There's a notice giving the time and place for the appeal hearing on the lamp post outside George IV, but i didn't make a note when i wandered by. Perhaps if someone else is passing they could post.
     
  12. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    They're a bit late with this!

     
  13. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Another offshore cashgrab.

     
  14. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    I was just thinking that what Brixton really needs now is more restaurants. So imagine my joy when I came across this!

    2017-10-24_163710.jpg
     
  15. CH1

    CH1 "Red Guard"(NLYL)

    Any idea what this is all about? There are no documents on the planning application - and the expiry date is 16th October.
    Seems to be located on Electric Lane behind behind W Smith.

    In normal times this would be chucked out immediately as this is residential ("Sleepless Brixton"). But these are not normal times - just ask the JW people at the tube station!
     
    editor likes this.
  16. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    It's on Lambeth planning here - 17/03991/FUL | Change of use from Retail (Use Class A1) to Restaurant (Use Class A3), replacement of the existing Electric Lane facade to create a new shop front, installation of glazed windows to the north facade and the extension of the existing footpath to Electric Lane. | Units On Electric Lane Located Rear Of 427 Brixton Road London SW9

    Sure seems a strange place to wedge in yet another restaurant.
     
    CH1 likes this.
  17. CH1

    CH1 "Red Guard"(NLYL)

    Have you read the design statement?

    Prepared by architects on behalf of CBRE Group - Wikipedia

    who in turn are acting in conjunction wkith the site owner - the Civil Aviation Authority Pension Fund.

    I would have assumed this site was Lambeth-owned since it was part of the early 1990s "regeneration" designed by Ian Parker (Lambeth Council officer in charge at the time - and obviously a devotee of shopping centres in Basildon etc). How did the site end up owned by a pension fund? Presumably it must have either been sold off (privatised) or maybe the Argos/Smiths/Sainsburys scheme was a joint venture between Lambeth and the pension fund (PPP or PFI?). I think we should be told.

    That said, regarding the design spiel, although I take your point on "Oh no not another one!!!!" (to quote Brenda from Bristol) - but I actually think it would be an improvement - a very substantial improvement visually. If I was on the planning committee I would find it hard to vote this one down.
     
    snowy_again likes this.
  18. Twattor

    Twattor Well-Known Member

    I agree. it looks a lovely building and a great improvement on the existing.

    What struck me as really interesting is that it appears they have designed it specifically for Meat Liquor, so they've found a tenant and then asked them what sort of building suits their brand. I've not known that happen before.
     
  19. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    it may be an improvement visually. However this area of Brixton has high residential population. The land in question was basically delivery area. I think this application should be opposed on basis that Brixton has enough A3. This application will contribute to loss of "residential amenity" . What is there is not pretty but it's functional. Squeezing yet more restaurants that undoubtedly will end up as late night bars on weekend is unnecessary. This application won't help the retail in Brixton.
     
    innit and editor like this.
  20. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Talking of which, the nearby Wahaca has morphed into a DJ club on weekends now.
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  21. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    I've just read the planning statement.

    They have a chain ready for this site. The statement goes into the various planning guidelines. Seems to recognise there is issue around residential amenity. Promising people will leave quietly and no outside seating. But at other parts of statement argue that this development is good for area as will increase foot fall around electric lane. I'm sure the residents around electric lane / electric avenue will be pleased with extra footfall in this part of Brixton in evenings. Which the application appears to think is a good thing.Electric lane and avenue were traditionally retail with little in way of food. Except for bakeries doing food.

    Worryingly noticed that this application does not detail plant that will be installed. Nor detail how measures will be taken to ensure the running of this A3 development will not adversely affect residents.

    The developer say they had pre application meeting with Council officers. Who were supportive of the scheme. Which is pretty crap. Officers should be more neutral. Given local community concerns about gentrification and loss of residential amenity.

    All in all this is development that Brixton doesn't need. Don't need yet another A3 backing up on people's homes, don't need another restaurant chain in Brixton.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2017
    editor likes this.
  22. Twattor

    Twattor Well-Known Member

    Reading the information, the building is described as a warehouse but as it appears that is currently accessed from within the Argos delivery area it has limited use to anyone other than them. If Argos aren't using it and it is redundant, then surely it is better to give it a use? Who knows, a restaurant may even contribute to employment locally.
     
  23. Twattor

    Twattor Well-Known Member

    Plant will be covered by a planning condition, as will logistics/management of deliveries etc. Conditions may also dictate some operational parameters, but ordinarily hours etc. would come down to the licencing dept.

    The whole point of a pre-app meeting is to gauge whether the planning department consider proposals to be within policy and would support it, and what improvements they would like to see. When you walk out of a pre-app any feedback other than an absolute hatred of your proposals is always seen as supportive. the proposed facade is such an improvement that it would be difficult for them to be negative about it.
     
    snowy_again likes this.
  24. Rushy

    Rushy AKA some / certain posters

    I can see Gramsci's point and am inclined to agree with it.

    Planning can require management operating plans to form part of the approval. (Gremio has been somewhat ineffectually subject to an enforcement notice for some months now, largely because of its refusal to formalise it's planning use with such a plan.)

    The problem is that whatever is agreed there is only so much that staff can do in practice to deal with customers coming and going. The only effective control to protect residential amenity would be to enforce an 11pm trading curfew, which would not be popular with the operators.

    I agree that the design is good and would be an improvement. As would having an active frontage. But that could equally be provided by offices or retail.

    My own experience of pre apps is that they are usually unhelpfully conservative.
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  25. snowy_again

    snowy_again Slush

    The planning app has that trading curfew though doesn't it?
     
  26. Rushy

    Rushy AKA some / certain posters

    I haven't read it. If it does then It seems reasonable for such a central location. Of course, it's no guarantee that licensing will place the same limit on it and planning have a record of not enforcing such conditions (e.g. Kaff).
     
  27. Twattor

    Twattor Well-Known Member

    Doesn't that come down to how coordinated and organised the local authority is? Surely in this day and age with IT and shared files then a council should be able to manage this. Whether they choose to enforce is a different matter and I choose not share my opinions on Lambeth and their willingness to do anything really. I don't know enough expletives.
     
    editor likes this.
  28. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Oh hello.... let me look this one as I cant work out where they mean...

    2017-10-26_195615.jpg
     
  29. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

  30. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    Where? I've read planning statement and design and access doc. Haven't seen hours of premises.
     

Share This Page