Brixton planning watch: planning applications and decisions listed

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

  1. CH1

    CH1 "Red Guard"(NLYL)

    Office/workshop use would comply with the previous employment policy for this site - and avoid adding to the already existing problems of an entertainment zone gone mad.

    If the council is intent on every nook and cranny in the Town Centre Triangle being food and drink then they should put in place the facilities required to deal with the effluent/excrement.
     
    wurlycurly, editor and Gramsci like this.
  2. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Abso-fucking-lutely!

    Why the fuck should every available space be handed over to expensive chain bar/restaurant corporates who give so little back to the community?
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  3. Twattor

    Twattor Well-Known Member

    I might be wrong but I though the loading bay was unaffected and it was the redundant warehouse that was being changed.

    If there is no use for a warehouse or loading bay there then why not change use? You can't let a loading bay on its own.

    I think the proposed design looks fantastic. What would happen with the site otherwise? Stay redundant? Is that better use? If an operator like workspace thought it was viable and took it on you wouldn't see designs like that, a start-up wouldn't be able to afford that level of design, and we've all seen the reaction to the last incoming company that had the temerity to take on an old building and turn it into something special.
     
  4. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Why do you think a plain building emblazoned with the corporate logo MEAT looks fantastic? And why do you think Brixton needs yet another multi-million chain restaurant?
     
  5. Twattor

    Twattor Well-Known Member

    Forget the logo - that's just a neon light, but to build those sorts of corbelled arches is something few bricklayers these days have skills to do. Really good design and will be great if they can find the skilled labour to do it justice.

    I don't necessarily think Brixton needs another burger restaurant, multi-million pound or otherwise, but I do think it is better use of otherwise dead space.
     
    wurlycurly likes this.
  6. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Why does every space have to be turned over to multi-million chains to make even more profit for themselves? What's wrong with a bit of quiet 'dead' space anyway?

    And it's not unusual for the glossy CGI mock ups of buildings to look rather different when they're completed.
     
  7. Twattor

    Twattor Well-Known Member

    Doesn't that depend on who's paying for it? Whoever owns it is liable for business rates on it, and if they aren't using it then it makes sense to get rid of it to avoid the ongoing cost.
     
  8. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    That's quite different to the question I asked though.
     
  9. Twattor

    Twattor Well-Known Member

    Not in the context of this discussion.

    If you owned land I would have no objection to you leaving it fallow. If I owned land I might leave it fallow myself if the pleasure I derived from it offset the cost of holding it. I've always dreamt of owning a little bit of woodland just as somewhere to sit.

    I just feel that the owners of that warehouse/loading bay shouldn't be compelled to hold it and bear the costs simply because people object to the prospective purchaser.
     
  10. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    You're twisting the discussion into quite strange shapes here so I'll leave it. Do you even know who owns the current land?
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  11. Twattor

    Twattor Well-Known Member

    Nope, but does it matter? I'd expect Argos or one of their holding companies. Who cares? It is currently a pretty unattractive, disused lump clad in aluminium. There are better things that could be done with it. Bringing it into use can't be a bad thing.
     
    alcopop likes this.
  12. CH1

    CH1 "Red Guard"(NLYL)

    Regarding ownership of the site, it would be interesting to know. As I may have said on the original application I thought this Argos development might have been a Lambeth/Brixton Challenge concoction. The Index Books shop were on the Argos site originally and were Lambeth tenants. The council moved them into another council-owned unit on Electric Avenue when the redevelopment was done.

    Could be that one of the cheapo developers of the mid 1990s moved in - or maybe Lambeth Council have sold the site subsequently. In any case it seems that CBRE who are driving these planning applications are some sort of agent fronting up for the real owner and their proposed tenants.
    Meatailer1.jpg
     
  13. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    My objection is that this proposed use adds yet another bar/ restaurant into central Brixton.

    If you read thread you will see there are valid reasons for objecting.

    I'm not against use of this site. It's the kind of use.
     
    editor likes this.
  14. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    The existing aluminium cladding panels aren't great, especially the battered-in ones at lower level but I find the faux-historical brick facade thing a bit weird. They say they are picking up on the surrounding victorian architcture and railway arches - but that facade looks neither Victorian nor has anything to do with railway arches (which are not facades but solid structural masses). It's a sort of faux early 20thC warehouse with gratuitous arch details. Sure, you could pick up on the 'arch' theme in an abstract kind of way but that's not what this is. It's just a flimsy fake facade. I don't like it, anyway.

    As for the objections to use type - it's opposite the ex Bradys which at one point people were trying to protect in its use as pub/venue. The objections aren't really to use type but customer type, of course.
     
  15. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    Bradys still is A3

    Have a look at my objections again.

    They arent about what you term customer type .
     
    editor likes this.
  16. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Has anyone, anywhere even brought up 'customer type' in this discussion?

    Like you, I'm against even more boozy - and not so cheap - restaurants opening up in an already overcrowded and virtually toilet-free Brixton night economy.
     
  17. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    Your objection seemed to be based on proximity to residential.
     
  18. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    I just got email from planning about the Electric lane application. Not quite sure why. After finally managing to log in to planning database it looks like this application has expired.

    It looks like it never progressed to planning committee.

    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
     
  19. Twattor

    Twattor Well-Known Member

    That doesn't seem right. The statutory expiry date is 13 weeks after validation by which time the planning dept are legally obliged to give a decision. As they can never hit that deadline, they "encourage" applicants to enter into a planning performance agreements whereby the applicant pays a hefty fee and agree a much later target date on the proviso they get a dedicated case officer to walk them through to a consent. The application itself doesn't expire - at that date it should be approved or refused, unless the applicant withdraws.

    What did the email say? It may be that it was notifying you that it was no longer open to consultation. There are still two other applications in for the air handling and extract plant on the roof, and the illuminated signage.
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  20. CH1

    CH1 "Red Guard"(NLYL)

    Gramsci Twattor I note that "comments are no longer automatically available"
    You have to phone them up or email them to find out what the comments are.
    Bet that works well!

    This application has already been discussed on this very thread back in October/November 2017, including an objection lodged by the Brixton Society.

    Maybe it got lost in transferring Planning to Winchester?
    (from Lambeth Council website:)
    Planning
    Our Planning team assess planning applications and other consents such as listed building consent. The team does not offer planning advice by phone, though our call centre will be able to direct you to online guidance on many planning matters and take payments for applications. We provide online guidance on the need for planning permission and a paid pre-application advice service.

    Telephone: 020 7926 1180
    Email: planning@lambeth.gov.uk
    Postal address:

    Planning
    London Borough of Lambeth
    PO Box 734
    Winchester
    SO23 5DG
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  21. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Many alarm bells ringing for this one. I couldn't find anything in Lambeth's planning database for the address,

    [​IMG]
     
    BusLanes likes this.
  22. Crispy

    Crispy The following psytrance is baṉned: All

    This'll be a pre-planning consultation, so don't expect anything in the database for a few months yet.
     
    editor likes this.
  23. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    I don't know why I even bother going to these are the developers invariably start altering the design after the "consultation' has finished.
     
  24. Crispy

    Crispy The following psytrance is baṉned: All

    Well that is (kind of) the point of these events. Get feelers for what kinds of stink might get kicked up and pre-empt them in the planning application.
     
  25. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    The alterations invariably involve extra units/floors being squeezed in. Pisses me off.
     
  26. djdando

    djdando Well-Known Member

    Anything is an improvement on what’s there already.
     
  27. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    I wouldn't bet on that. Vibrant hub incoming!
     
  28. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    For folks living across the street, a 5 or 6 storey block appearing there is probably not going to feel like an improvement.
     
    colacubes likes this.
  29. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    I would like to go to find out if redevelopment means losing the fox and cherries sculpture. Which I like.
     
    alex_ and CH1 like this.
  30. CH1

    CH1 "Red Guard"(NLYL)

    Gramsci likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice