"New" Merrett Nightclub Plans for Old Bike Shop

[William of Walworth]

Plans will be rejected

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

 

[Anna Key]

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]

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!!

 

[IntoStella]

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]

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

 

[Bob]

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.

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

 

[Fuzzy]

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]

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

Yes. I've seen the public notification letters.

 

[lang rabbie]

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]

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

 

[IntoStella]

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)

[trainspotter] I didn't do too badly from memory! [/trainspotter]

 

[Streathamite]

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]

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]

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

 

[Anna Key]

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]

fuzzy-we really should start paying you!

Too right.

 

[Fuzzy]

its my pleasure.

 

[Gramsci]

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]

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]

There's actually three CHL applications up!

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]

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]

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

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.

 

[lang rabbie]

<<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]

slippery slope?

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 (??!!)

 

[THE WARRIOR]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[IntoStella]

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

Come on then... elaborate...

 

[Mr BC]

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.