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

Lexadon resubmits plans for hefty 6-storey building on 43 - 45 Acre Lane, Brixton

Discussion in 'Brixton' started by editor, Jun 13, 2016.

  1. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Their first attempt was booted out by Lambeth, and this email from a local notified me that they're back again. It's certainly not pretty.
    5.jpg

    I can't see any details on social/affordable provision, but being a Jerry Knight venture it's probably best to set expectations as low as possible.

    16/03327/FUL | Redevelopment of the site, involving demolition of the existing buildings and erection of a part 2, part 4, part 5 and part 6-storey building to provide 345sqm of office space (B1 Use Class), 269sqm of retail space (A1 Use Class), 19 self contained flats and 2 family houses, together with the provision of cycle and waste storage, including hard and soft landscaping to create communal amenity space. (Re-submission). | 43 - 45 Acre Lane London SW2 5TN
     
  2. Twattor

    Twattor Well-Known Member

    The planning statement does say that some affordable will be provided, "precise amount to be agreed". Apparently HEDC are undertaking a viablity assessment as we speak in order to ensure this is minimised.

    The cores are split 8 and 11, 8 units being 38% of the total, and suspiciously close to the 40% required if not grant funded. It looks like the architect's brief was to design for this eventuality to appease planners. This leaves the developer the opportunity to appeal on the grounds of viability at a later date to get the numbers reduced.
     
    Greebo and Crispy like this.
  3. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    I'd put money on it. This sort of behaviour would be criminalised if I had any say in it.
     
    Greebo likes this.
  4. quimcunx

    quimcunx Too tall.

    They should have to agree to supply X number of affordable units and if they don't forfeit the whole block to the council.
     
    Greebo and editor like this.
  5. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    A fairly substantial objection has been lodged already.
     
    Greebo likes this.
  6. Wolveryeti

    Wolveryeti Young Lethargio

    I find it hard to sympathise with the objection, which would appear to be the usual NIMBY whining. Complaining about a building being 'bulky' ffs :rolleyes:
     
  7. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    It is FUGLY, mind, and pretty much out of character for its locality.
     
    Greebo likes this.
  8. Twattor

    Twattor Well-Known Member

    FWIW i agree with the comments on height, bulk and massing. Policy usually is more flexible when it comes to increasing storey heights to present a feature corner, but i still feel this is a bit over the top. The Acre Lane frontage is too dense and lacks interest, which planners aren't likely to be keen on either. The feature corner is an expensive design with all those cantilevered unsupported slabs, so expect an amendment during construction to introduce columns which will cheapen the construction.

    Water supply and parking are irrelevant - TWU are responsible for maintaining supplies, not the builder. London policy is to compel zero parking through the s106 by revoking entitlement to resident permits for the residents usually providing car club membership in lieu.
     
    editor likes this.
  9. northeast

    northeast Member

    I wonder if council will manage to apply any consistency, the adjacent plot had planning permission for Genesis housing refused due to the bulk, heigh and scale of the design. It was approved when the plans where reduced to 3 stories. http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...C1D7FF2971C941B8/pdf/07_03371_FUL--736557.pdf

    Those plans where scrapped when some sort of land swap happened and Sudbourne expansion was approved for the site, although not sure what has happened to that.

    Below is a quote from the Sudbourne school application

    Genesis Housing
    An application was made by Genesis Housing in August 2007 to build 78 apartments on the site with a series of buildings ranging from 3 to 5 storeys. This planning application was refused. Planning Reference: 07/03371/FUL A new application was made by Genesis in December 2010, which reduced the size and extent of the buildings to encompass 21 self-contained flats and 7 houses contained within 3 storey buildings (indicated on the left). This application was initially refused, but approved on appeal. Planning Reference: 10/04260/FUL
     
    Greebo likes this.
  10. Twattor

    Twattor Well-Known Member

    I doubt it. Planning policy has moved on since then, and there is a lot of political pressure from all sides to build more units. In the first instance it will come down to the politics of the committee and how persuasive the case officer is. If the committe are obviously biased against an application which complies with planning policy or are unreasonable in their refusal, then the developer will get the decision overturned on appeal.
     
  11. northeast

    northeast Member

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Apr 27, 2017
    peterkro, Gramsci and Angellic like this.
  12. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

  13. CH1

    CH1 "Red Guard"(NLYL)

    This was a committee decision - most unusually (when do they turn things down these days?). So I guess more information may be included in the minutes shortly. Unfortunate we didn't apparenty have a correspondent at the meeting - and I certainly took my eye off the ball.

    I'm more into design originality and IMHO the original refused design was better than this watered down version.

    There were a lot of meaty objections tabulated in the officers report though. I wonder how the officers' recommendation could have been to approve rather than refuse when the objections seemed so reasonable?
     
    Gramsci and editor like this.
  14. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

Share This Page