onionbagblog

Well, not quite closure as in no longer trading as a business (which it currently isn’t…) but closure from the point of view of a hugely successful community based campaign to keep away the proposed bonkers 5am booze and live bands licence for Kelly’s along the Clap’ham Road.

Confused?

A quick re-cap: Having closed as a traditional boozer just over two years ago, Kelly’s was bought by a local Porto businessman with grand plans. The first of Antonio da Silva’s money making schemes was to use the space to open up a clinic. This was rejected by @lambeth_council planning. The exterior neon lighting request can’t have helped.

Then came the non-licensed and illegal Porto car wash. Except that it was the most unsuccessful car wash in all of South London (tip for would be car washers: drinking booze outside your business all day ‘aint great for… business.)

The car wash was closed by @lambeth_council, but it probably wouldn’t have lasted the summer anyway, such was the lack of interest in actually washing any cars.

Da Silva then switched his attention to becoming a landlord. An ambitious planning application was submitted to @lambeth_council to squeeze nine luxury development flats (yeah, right) into the tiny space.

Building on top of the car wash garage was part of the deal, ignoring the obstacle of a grand old tree rather inconveniently blocking the building space. The application was thrown out on the grounds of over-crowding.

Running short on options, da Silva then turned back towards a bar for Kelly’s. Fine – this was the original purpose of the building, although a bonkers 5am licence didn’t exactly go down too well with the local residents.

And so on Wednesday morning, I (and many others) received official notification from the fine Ross Hill, the Licensing Officer @lambeth_council, stating:

“I write further to your recent representation in respect of the above-mentioned application, which was due to be considered by our Licensing Sub-Committee in early September.

I have just received notification from the applicant that they now wish to withdraw their application. The application will not be processed any further, and will not appear at a committee hearing.

I understand that the owners of the premises are now looking to reopen it later in the year, trading within the times permitted under the current licence, which are as follows:

Monday – Wednesday 10:00 – 00:00
Thursday 10:00 – 01:00
Friday & Saturday 10:00 – 02:00
Sunday 12:00 – 00:30″

The generous opening hours still seem to favour the landlord, and not the locals, but they are a damn site improvement on the bonkers 5am proposition. I personally probably won’t oppose the hours, although noise levels will of course need monitoring.

Lessons learnt: It is truly wonderful how the #hyperlocal community around my little patch of South London has managed to work together to overturn such a highly unsocial variation in licence application.

I started off in isolation, first seeing the statutory notices appear on the pub door, and thinking that I would be alone in trying to preserve any sense of community that is left along this corner of the Clap’ham Road.

A knock on the door with my neighbours, a blog post that hooked me up with other concerned locals, communication with the local Safer Neighbourhood Team, interest from the nearby Fentiman Resident’s Association, backing from the Bolney Meadow residents and let’s not forget the HUGE show of support from the very good @janeinlondon / E Hants and Jack the Lad Hopkins.

Here we have a local community united against a landlord chancing his luck with the Licensing Committee. Over forty objections were submitted to the Licensing Committee, as well a petition with double this number of signatures. The applicant was able to view these, a factor which led to the withdrawal of the variation in licence.

It’s such a shame that this may well be one of the final acts that I will be able to carry out around here locally as part of the community. If @AnnaJCowen and I were sticking around, then I would most definitely build upon this local network and work upon other local issues.

And so yeah – you can stick yer bonkers 5am licence somewhere else far away from our local residential community. And please keep the noise down, come the more civilised closing time.

Time gentleman, in more ways than one…

With a huge heads up to the good @labourstockwell, here’s where we find out exactly who is responsible for pitching in with the bonkers 5am alcohol and live music licence for Kelly’s along the Clap’ham Road.

The mysterious CL 21 Speed Ltd, as listed on the Variation in Licence form, didn’t give much away. Likewise for the Southwark SE5 85X postcode. For more of a pointer then you need to look slightly closer to home and the A Toca Cafe, situated along Wandsworth Road, SW8. Mr. Antonio da Silva is listed at Companies House as the current owner, strangely under the business of ‘window cleaning.’

And so it would seem that the plan is to turn Kelly’s into a Porto cafe. I’d be quite supportive of this in principle – custard cream cakes, coffees and sea fish food. I fail to see however why a licence until 5am in the morning is required to provide such a service.

It is accepted that Sunny Stockwell is home to the largest Portuguese community outside of the mother country. We are an inclusive lot around here, working, resting and playing rather well together. I would like to continue to be able to rest at a reasonable hour.

But my #hyperlocal little patch of South London is not a Porto holiday resort. It is a residential area of South London, where locals needs to rest before heading out to work the next day.

Even the Porto enclave of South Lambeth Road doesn’t have any bar with a bonkers 5am licence. My fear is that once Little Porto closes at a respectable hour, the customers will simply stream down Dorset Road and continue to party around my #hyperlocal patch.

This really should be a straightforward common sense decision for the Licensing Committee to make. If the application is to proceed (which is unlikely) then the Committee needs to assess if the lifestyle of locals living nearby will be affected.

The @lambeth_council Licensing Committee is made up of political representation across all three parties. Party politics shouldn’t come into this.

@LambethLabour courted the Porto community ahead of May 6th. It is hoped that this same feeling of respect and understanding is applied to all living within Sunny Stockwell.

It’s surprising how much detail you can actually find by doing some little digging around yourself. Having established yesterday that the planning application for nine flats for Kelly’s along Clap’ham Road had been thrown out last month, the continued on / off saga of the proposed bonkers 5am booze and live bands licence took a further twist on Tuesday afternoon.

With the Oval Safer Neighbourhood Team telling me on Saturday that the licence has now been withdrawn (hurrah!) and the good @JackHopkins_Lab saying the opposite yesterday, it was time to seek official clarification.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle – the bonkers 5am licence hasn’t been withdrawn as yet, but it is the understanding of the officers within the Licensing Department @lambeth_council that this will happen very soon.

So hurrah again.

I think.

I managed to speak with Ross Hill, a council officer working within Licensing. He recognised the confusion, as I re-told the story of how the local police believe that the licence has been withdrawn, whereas the local councillors think that it is still active.

Ross confirmed that this is all rumour, but he mentioned that the understanding within the Licensing Department is that the proposals will be formally withdrawn before they go to Committee.

The allocation of item agendas has already been filled for the next meeting on 31st August, which leaves the 8th September as the available remaining for the licence to be withdrawn ahead of the next meeting.

Ross confirmed that over forty representations against the licence have already been received. The sponsor of the licence has been able to view these, and it is believed that this evidence, along with a stern contribution from the local police, has led to a re-think.

Ah yes – about that re-think…

Kelly’s currently has a weekend licence until 2am. Although this is still rather late for a residential area, it is far more acceptable than the crazy nineteen hours of all day boozing that was planned.

I think most locals could live with a weekend only 2am licence, and then 11pm during weekdays. The conclusion from my chat with Ross however is that a new licence variation is being considered. By implication, this would suggest something slightly later than 2am is being lined up.

Not acceptable.

Ross also mentioned that the building was sold two years ago, along with the existing licence. He wasn’t able to name who the new owner is, but he said that they currently run other nightclubs along the busy commercial stretch of Wandsworth Road.

It seems our #hyperlocal little South London residential community is being confused by the owner for the night time economy patch elsewhere in the borough. Kelly’s should be a community pub, and not a nightclub for outsiders.

So yeah, it’s still very much a case of watch this space. Or even that space on the front door of Kelly’s where all formal licence variations have to be posted. If you objected to the licence then you should receive an email from the Licensing Department, *if* the original application is withdrawn.

Otherwise it looks like being Room 8 at Lambeth Town Hall on the evening of 8th September, to let the Licensing Committee know that a drinking den of a nightclub is clearly not acceptable within our residential community.

How to solve the problem that is Kelly’s along the Clap’ham Road?

*deep, deep sigh*

Consultation with the local community and cooperation to find a working solution for the site would be a good start.

Some digging around on the @lambeth_council planning database confirms that the yuppie flats application was actually rejected last month. Which makes the current bonkers 5am alcohol and live music licence for the site become all the more clearer now.

The timeline seems to suggest that the original plan was to convert the site into nine luxury flats, with a bar below. This was a separate application to the recent request that proposes to introduce nineteen hours a day of boozing into my local community.

I was broadly supportive of the flats development, as were many other locals living around here. The site has been officially empty for two summers now, crumbling around the edges and currently being squatted. It needs a long-term future.

The current owner (still trying to track down – any pointers?) now clearly wants a get rich quick scheme put in place. With the planning application refused, the timeline continued last month with the appearance of the illegal car wash.

This is no laughing matter – with no consultation with local residents, and with no contact with the council for a change of business premises, a Porto car wash appeared overnight within the garage of Kelly’s.

This was the most unsuccessful car wash in South London. It attracted zero customers. It did attract however friends of friends of friends, who all gathered outside the carwash and sat around on the street drinking beer all day.

With some help from our local councillors, the car wash was soon closed down. The handmade (and misspelled) sign still remains, as do the padlocks put in place by the Porto’s running the operation, who return periodically and dump off unknown packages.

Which brings us up to date with the Kelly’s timeline of mismanagement. No yuppie flats, no Porto car wash but a highly offensive licensing application for boozing and live music until five in the morning.

It is clear that the owner wants to make a fast buck out of the building, but not by bringing along the support of the local community on board. The consensus during our door knocking at the weekend is that locals want to find a use for the site. We would be happy for a local pub to return with a properly managed and socially responsible licence.

The complete lack of consultation with local people has given us zero confidence in Kelly’s actually being able to contribute anything to the local community. The twenty-four hour licensing laws were proposed to try an implement a relaxed continental cafe culture. What is currently planned at Kelly’s is the exact opposite of this policy. This is not a delicatessen but a drinking den.

The deadline has now passed for anyone wanting to comment on the application ahead of the meeting of the Lambeth Council Licensing Committee on 31st August. @janeinlondon / E Hants and @JackHopkins_Lab have very kindly set up an online petition to continue with the campaign.

This is a very really #hyperlocal issue, and it is genuinely a case of every extra signature gained will send out the message of mistrust that we have locally about the proposed licence.

This is a community, and not a nightclub site. Let’s keep it that way.

*Monday 16th August update*

Sadly it seems that the information provided on Saturday by the Oval Safer Neighborhood Team is incorrect. The bonkers 5am licence HAS NOT been withdrawn. Today is the deadline for any objections. You can email Ross Hill at Lambeth Council BEFORE 5pm if you wish to comment on the application.

Many thanks to Councillor Hopkins for confirming the situation:

Hi there,

I just wanted to let you know that Kelly’s licence has not been withdrawn yet and today is the last date to make representations.

If you can email Ross Hill by 5pm stating your objections against the 4 licensing objectives:

* the prevention of crime and disorder;
* public safety;
* the prevention of public nuisance; and
* the protection of children from harm.

Myself and Cllr Edbrooke will be putting forward an objection on behalf of the residents who are continuing to sign the petition.

Original blog post…

The campaign to close Kelly’s along the Clap’ham Road continues!

Sort of, and before it’s even opened.

Confused?

Cripes.

And so I spent a very enjoyable and rewarding Saturday afternoon with the most excellent @janeinlondon / E Hants (yep, I was wrong) and Jack the Lad Hopkins, our two fine @LambethLabour councillors here in the Oval ward. Oh, and another local resident as well.

The reason? We are all rather concerned about the fallout from the bonkers 10am – 5am booze and live music licence that someone from outside of our borough had made to our friends from @lambeth_council.

The aim of Saturday afternoon was to spread the message about the proposed plans, and to stimulate conversation about what this might mean for our #hyperlocal patch of South London as we continue to strive forward as a community.

Kelly’s creates confusion on so many fronts. First there is the uncertainty about the bonkers 10am – 5am licence, and how this fits in with the planning application lodged to build yuppie flats. The planning application includes a bar for downstairs. But is this is a separate application from the late night booze den? Who would want to live above a bonkers 5am bar anyway?

The current landlord has past form in pimping out parts of the building for a quick buck. We witnessed this at the start of the summer with the makeshift car wash that appeared without any planning permission. Some liaison with my decent local councillors soon led to the swift closure of the unlicensed business premises.

Saturday afternoon saw more uncertainty creep into the Kelly’s conundrum. We encountered a couple of the nice local cops from the Safer Neighbourhood Team whilst out on our door-to-door campaign.

I had received an email earlier from the Oval SNP, confirming that they oppose the bonkers licence on crime and disorder grounds. I took the opportunity of asking the police face to face if they had any powers to actually speak at the Licensing Committee to expand on these concerns.

The response was revealing: our friendly local police heard on Friday that the licence has now been withdrawn. Hurrah! This hasn’t been confirmed, but I have been promised some clarity on this at the start of the week.

Apparently it seems that the sponsors of the bonkers licence wish to re-think their plans. Too damn right. But not quite time to celebrate just yet. The word on the street (Richbourne Terrace, actually) is that a new licence will be re-submitted, sometime later in the year.

Although 5am may be slightly optimistic, there is no guarantee that a similar highly unsocial hour for serving booze and playing live music may still be part of the application. The police mentioned that the owners want to try and convince the local community that a late night drinking den is just what the area needs right now.

So yeah – it seems that possibly the initial threat to our neighbourhood may have been put temporarily on hold. The mystery that is Kelly’s still needs monitoring however, to see what crazy plans some inconsiderate nightclub promoter wishes to inflict upon us next.

We are not against Kelly’s trading as a pub – we actually welcome the return of the business operating as part of the community, and not as an unsocial business that will divide our neighbourhood. Slapping in 5am alcohol licence requests, with no prior consultation with the locals, is no way to go about building this trust.

Meanwhile, the yuppie flats planning application requires some clarification. Who is behind this, and what is the relationship with the apparently aborted bonkers 5am licence?

Details aside, Saturday was rather ace, I resisted all temptation to do the door knocking thing wearing a @LambethLabour sticker, as was sported by our fine councillors. I was happy to post flyers with their names and party logo on – it was jolly decent of the Jack ‘n Jane roadshow to give up their weekend to rally around our cause.

It is hoped that this new level of understanding (arf!) may even extend out into the badlands of @LambethLabour Stockwell territory. Apparently Kelly’s technically sits within the ward boundary of Councillors Walker, Bowyer and Bigham.

Blimey.

Many, many thanks to @janeinlondon / E Hants and Jack the Lad Hopkins for helping out. Community does exist around these parts. I needed a drink after all of this co-operation. Kelly’s was sadly closed. It was only Saturday afternoon, after all.

Yep – it’s almost that time of year again in Sunny Stockwell where we celebrate all things fruity (and particularly pineapples – it’s an SW8 thing) as the super Sunny Stockwell Festival comes to Larkhall Park.

A few more details have reached my way, care of the lovely folk at the Stockwell Partnership. Dr Bike, a licensed bar and “a chance to meet your local Councillors” – cripes, who could resist? Best visit the beer tent first…

Stockwell Partnership Presents the Stockwell Festival L & Expo – Celebrating 10 Years!

Saturday 25th September 2010

Larkhall Park, Courland Grove, SW8 2PX

1.00pm – 6.00pm

Stockwell Festival & Expo, produced by Stockwell Partnership in association with Lambeth Council, is an annual highlight of the South London cultural calendar. 2010 marks the 10th anniversary of Stockwell Festival and there’s a great programme of activities promised, many of them FREE. The theme, delivered in partnership with local service providers, local organisations and community groups this year is COHESION, CREATIVIY & WELLBEING.

Event highlights includes:

The Stockwell Festival & Expo Stage with a vibrant local line up including Dance Starz and professional Congolese favourites Grupo Lokito.

Children’s Village with face painting, arts and craft workshops, Punch and Judy shows, magic and circus workshops, interactive drumming workshops with Lambeth Music Service plus the Pineapple Car is back to take you on a hair-raising ride around the park!

Celebrating 10 years of local artists – Art 4 Space invite us to make A Wish For Stockwell – watch out for the giant birthday cake.

Later in the afternoon, Lady Pineapple leads the Pineapple Parade around the park with an array of pineapple puppets, masks and hats culminating in a performance on the main stage.

Well Being Zone: Trust Art invite you to join them for The Big Tea – pull up a chair, have a brew and a slice of yummy cake. NHS Lambeth and Communities for Health will be offering health checks and sharing information about local services. Or why not pamper yourself with a 30 minute massage or reflexology treatment; local therapists are on hand to treat you.

Peace Zone: As part of Peace Week, come and meet your local safer neighbourhood teams, their police dogs and horses and find out information about local safety.

Stockwell EXPOsed – find out what’s available on your local doorstep as organisations and Council services offer a one stop shop of information. There’s a chance to meet your local councillors [um, thanks but no thanks] and put your burning questions to them or simply browse around the many arts and craft stalls selling their wares.

Dr Bike – Get your bike fixed for FREE! London Sustainable transport offer advice and mechanical know how. Friends of Larkhall Park showcase the latest park developments.

Caterers and bar – taste the flavours of Stockwell from the spice of the Caribbean and the heat of a hot dog to the chilling delight of a whippy ice-cream or a nice cold beer – you’ll not be hungry or thirsty that’s for sure!

If you’d like to get involved, have a stall or volunteer please contact Anna or call 07973 711173.

Election expenses – it’s enough to send a shiver down the spine of any self-respecting local politician (assuming they still have a spine left, that is.) How much exactly does it cost to buy a @lambeth_council seat?

Ooh, just under £500 if you consider the average amount spent on each candidate by our friends from @LambethLabour and @LambethLibDems in the May local council elections. But even this doesn’t guarantee a seat. If only it was as simple as that.

Inspired by @darryl1974‘s poking around of the election expenses register over in Greenwich, I made my own appointment with the Electoral Services team at Lambeth Town Hall to have a snifter around the receipts that have now been filed.

It was all very co-operative, dare I say, being given my own desk space and the complete run of the accounts. By law, the party agents that are propping up the candidates have to declare all the expenditure spent during the campaign.

I wasn’t quite sure what I was looking for in Lambeth; evidence of an equal contest would have been encouraging. This is more or less the conclusion I came out with just over an hour and a half later as I left Lambeth Town Hall.

First of all, one would hope the electorate vote for policies, and not be pampered by the amount of cash spent on a campaign. Local election campaigns are a world away from the Westminster seat buying option, with strict guidelines in place dictating the maximum spend within each ward.

This is worked out as a ratio of the number of votes up for grabs – so for example a candidate could spend no more than £756.20 on their campaign in the Oval ward. You really wouldn’t want to spend any more around here to be honest.

With twenty-one wards to peruse, I needed some focus as I took up my seat in the Electoral Services office. Best keep it local I thought, and immediately got my grubby paws to work, leafing through the receipts for the Oval ward.

Let’s start off with the winners.

The good @janeinlondon / E Hants has declared election expenses of £569.88. This is a figure worth remembering – I soon found out that this is the exact same amount that every single @LambethLabour candidate in the borough has filed as an expense.

In fact every single @LambethLabour candidate in the borough has filed an exact same copy of expenses, pound for pound, penny for penny. This includes £38.83 on accommodation (slightly strange, seeing as though one would hope all candidates live locally,) £33.33 for staff and £6 for a rosette. Bless. Let’s hope they weren’t blue.

It soon became clear as I thumbed through the various ward expense sheets that all the returns for @LambethLabour were in fact photocopies of the exact same expenses sheet. It’s good to know that for a party where some are more equal than others, this thankfully isn’t the case when declaring election expenses. The same sheet was bundled in for every single @LambethLabour candidate.

But who pays for this campaign?

The entire funding for all @LambethLabour candidates came from an organisation called the Lambeth Campaigns Forum. Google is no friend here; it simply appears to be the name being used to print and publish the promotional material. The postcode of SE24 9DL (Rosendale Road) also appears across the campaign blogs.

It all appears above board, but it would be decent to know who or what the Lambeth Campaigns Forum is, and where exactly it obtains any funding from itself. If it is simply a collective pot for all @LambethLabour subscriptions, then why not publish under the name of Lambeth Labour, as is the case with the Libdems and Tories?

Ah, about those Love Me I’m a Liberal Lot…

Councillor Brown, the lone LibDem here at the Oval spent £426.25 on her successful campaign. The same figure has also been filed for @LambethLibDem candidates Andrew Brown and Claudette Hewitt, both of whom failed to get elected.

The Vauxhall LibDem party kindly donated £380.85 for each LibDem candidate in the ward. It wasn’t clear where the rest of the cash came from.

The breakdown of expenses here locally for Councillor Brown includes figures of £30.00 paid towards the Streatham LibDem manifesto and £15.40 for an item called the Streatham LibDem Housing Tabloid.

Blimey.

And so with @janeinlondon / E Hants, Jack the Lad Hopkins and Councillor Brown all elected to serve the Oval ward, what of those that missed out? Pity poor old Karim Palant, who despite having the deep pockets of the affluent Lambeth Campaigns Forum at his disposal, still managed to miss out on a council seat, seemingly on account of his surname.

As for the Blue Rinse lot? For a party that prides itself on running a tight ship, it is pleasing to see that each Conservative candidate in the Oval ward only spent £22.33 on their campaign. Given the absence of any Tory literature through my letterbox, I hope the party agent has kept a receipt.

Further down the political food chain and you start to see where the political realists lay. The three English Democrat candidates for the Oval ward have all filed away a great big blank zero on their campaign expenditure. Now that’s what I call cost cutting.

And so going back to the original question of how much does a vote cost? Matching up the election expenses data with the actual votes, and we find that @janeinlondon / E Hants’ 2,274 votes clock in at 25p per endorsement; Jack the Lad Hopkins comes in slightly more costly at almost 26p per vote.

In these days of austerity, it is the LibDem Councillor Brown who is more cost effective in absolute terms, coming in at 19p per vote. The Tories meanwhile are valued at tuppence each, which in relative terms, is probably about right.

To be honest and that was all that I could be arsed to work out. The lovely chaps at the Electoral Services team were starting to get curious as to why a lycra clad bloke was flicking through their books at 9am on a Monday morning, and yep, I really did have better things to do.

But just one more task though…

You may remember the incredibly vile election campaign attack mounted by @LambethLabour over in Herne Hill. Having first refused to even acknowledge the existence of the Green vote, a final smear was put in place by party agent Alexis Darby, claming that the Green party had plans to turn Herne Hill into a “drugs supermarket.”

We should expect nothing less from someone whose job description is basically to s*** stir.

It was truly sickening electioneering, but did the job in scaring the electorate to vote for three @LambethLabour councillors, with the Green party losing its one previous seat in the borough.

But what of the cost involved? As we have seen, @LambethLabour is consistent is spunking away £569.88 on every single candidate in the borough. The Green party however proved slightly trickier to get a handle on.

The Electoral Services team file away the receipts for all parties via wards. There is a ring bound folder for each ward, where all candidates that stood are lumped together. All except the Green party that it. How very strange.

A separate file is kept at Lambeth Town Hall on the Greens. The index sheet is a revealing read, stating that a total of zero pence was spent on all Green candidates in Lambeth. All except Herne Hill that is.

It was no secret back in May that the Greens were targeting Herne Hill as a possible hunting ground. The figures now filed away confirm this. A total of £1,782.29 has been returned for election expenses for ALL THREE Green candidates in Herne Hill. An individual costing was not made available.

As a comparison, @LambethLabour spent £1,709.63 on ALL THREE mud slinging red flag flying candidates in Herne Hill – £72.65 less than the Greens. You would have to say that with a return of three councillors, this is either money well spent, or money well manipulated, depending on your political point of view. The LibDems meanwhile spent absolutely nothing in Herne Hill, leaving @LambethLabour and the Greens to slog it out.

And so with apologies for any readers out in St Leonards, Streatham Hill or Streatham South – one and a bit wards was really all that I could stomach. Of course it’s not about the filthy wonga and the cash from chaos. Oh nope, not here. It’s all about value, or even perceived value.

I’m still struggling to make any sense of the figures.