Brixton planning watch: planning applications and decisions listed

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

  1. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    Preferred option is landlord like this scum, who flout democratic planning for there own profit, have there buildings taken off them by the Council who can use them to house the homeless.

    Business type landlords like this are social paristites. On the one hand one has Lexadon buying up properties ( including ex Council ) for expensive flats. On the other hand one has the new Rachman's making money at lack of affordable housing.

    Lesson. All business landlords are vermin.
  2. CH1

    CH1 "Red Guard"(NLYL)

    Ironically this billiard hall/Continental Foods place probably did belong to the council originally. Most properties on Coldharbour Lane were due for "clearance" for the Brixton Towers/inner ring road scheme.
    (artwork courstey of Urban75)
  3. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    I'm going to put this comment in on the "London hotel" planning application. When the planning website is working. Says server problem at the moment when I log in.

    (See post 144 for details of application.)

    To get around the problem of building unauthorized self contained small flats the owners are going to go for HMO status. To do this they will be removing cooking facilities from the majority of the flats. Expecting the people living at the "hotel" to use communal kitchen at end of hallways.

    So in practice its going to get worse for tenants.

    The owners also say that the original use granted as a hotel never was acted on. Despite sign saying London hotel the present owners are arguing that never was the use of the premises historically.

    The statement also says (and this is backed up by letter from Lambeth Housing) that Lambeth were well aware this was going on for quite a few years. As they were using flats to house homeless people. The lease is also on planning website. It refers to flats as self contained.

    So applicant is saying they will do works to justify HMO status by removing kitchens, building never was a hotel in practice, Lambeth housing knew this and were quite happy with it.

    I think good question for planning committee is what is this building for? If it is for housing statutory homeless and for affordable rent then it should be treated as self contained flats. As the licence for the 16 flats between owners and Council states.

    Removing kitchens from the self contained flats imo will make things worse for people living in the "hotel".

    One part of Council (planning,) is correctly pointing out this was hotel not flats. That owners flouted planning rules. Another part of Council (Housing) is saying they want this to house homeless people.

    If it goes to committee then in my opinion the issue is is this a hotel or homeless people hostel?

    They should decide on that and make agreements to ensure the best conditions for those that use it.

    I would put uses rights above costs to owners

    From planning enforcement document:

    "The unauthorised 38 self-contained flats provide substandard and cramped living conditions for
    current and future occupiers and fail to comply with technical standards. They provide numerous
    single-aspects with inadequate daylight, limited outlook with a detrimental impact on privacy.
    Additionally there is no access to private amenity space and no cycle/refuse/recycling storage."

    Why were Lambeth housing using these flats when they were providing such poor living conditions? Did not Housing officers check before using this property?

    Does applying for retrospective change of use mean that the issues of cramped living conditions, inadequate daylight etc as stated in the planning enforcement document no longer apply?

    How will lack of access to amenity space, and inadequate daylight be dealt with by changing to HMO status?

    The application says they will put in refuse area and cycle storage. Nothing about the other issues of access to amenity space, inadequate daylight, cramped living conditions and limited outlook.

    Imo these flats were built badly. Ignoring planning guidelines that are there to ensure people have good quality housing. Changing to HMO status won't fundamentally overcome the problems associated with building unauthorized accommodation.

    I also question whether Lambeth housing should be using this building for accommodation. They should not be using what planning officers say was sub standard housing. There are no figures for what the Council paid the owners over years. A large proportion of the flats are used by Lambeth housing. So a significant percentage of income for this property is from Council. Planning committee should ensure that in return owner is providing quality accommodation.

    I object to this retrospective application.
    editor likes this.
  4. CH1

    CH1 "Red Guard"(NLYL)

  5. organicpanda

    organicpanda cat herder extraodinaire

    just wanted to thank Editor for his eagle eyed spotting of a planning application right behind me, we would not have been able to get in our objections to the potential building directly behind us, just found out the appeal was rejected :thumbs:
    editor 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