Kelly’s Conundrum

17 August 2010 » No Comments

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.

Last Orders

14 August 2010 » No Comments

*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.

Kelly's, Clap'ham Road

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.

Loathe Me I’m a Liberal

11 August 2010 » 1 Comment

What a strange and slightly obsessive blog post from @cllrstevereed. At a time when a Labour council (a LABOUR council!) is planning 400 local authority redundancies, the Leader of @lambeth_council decides instead to spew out 1,300+ words on his personal pet hate subject: LibDems.

Oh Lordy.

I think we’re all in agreement that the nasty ConDem cuts need fighting, but to then turn this situation around into a very clumsy piece of local electioneering (um when there’s no election on the horizon) seems to somewhat miss the point.

When times are tight, I want to hear words from a leader on how we can improve the lives of those around us, and not yet another obsessive piece trying to score political points. I want to know how our local authority is going to stand up and fight the ConDem cuts, and not read another blame shifting piece of twaddle, ever keen to demonise the opposition with the obsession that has come to characterise Nu Labour within the Rotten Borough.

The public purse is tight, and we need new ways of working together. This almost happened for about five minutes at the last full council meeting. The joint motion between @LambethLabour and @LambethLibdems (Lordy!) just about held in place, until both sides started to point score once again.

But wait! What’s this?

There is a chink in the Nu Labour armour which goes against all previous principles of cross-party co-operation (geddin there!) No surprises that it is taking place at a #hyperlocal level around my little patch of South London.

@cllrstevereed is keen to stress in his rant:

“The unwary support of left-leaning voters saved one Lib Dem seat in each of Oval, Clapham Common and Vassall wards, and three in Bishops [how generous of him!] With the loss of that left-leaning support and the unpopularity of the coalition government as the pain of their cuts becomes more apparent you can see the Lib Dems facing annihilation in Lambeth even assuming their party survives long enough to fight another election.”

Left, Right – careful Comrade, you’ll be spinning around in circles before we even reach election time again. It’s all about the local you see, something that the fine @janeinlondon / E Hants, Jack the Lad Hopkins and Councillor Brown, the lone LibDem, know all about.

Whereas @cllrstevereed is keen to try and force a split in the wards where his Nu Labour machine doesn’t have complete control, the local councillors themselves are simply going about their ward business and working together.

We have the very real threat here in the Oval of opportunists from outside of the borough creating a social nuisance with the proposed bonkers 5am alcohol and live music license for Kelly’s pub along the Claph’ham Road.

The response from the fine @janeinlondon / E Hants has to be rally locals (and LibDems) together, so that the community can resolve the issue collectively. It is this type of co-operation that will succeed, and not some crazy rant trying to bring disharmony within the borough.

Politics will be put aside this weekend as Labour and LibDem councillors will be working alongside locals to build resistance against the license. @cllrstevereed is more than welcome to join us to see how localism can truly work when you put aside your political neuroses.

“There is a real chance their Faustian pact could see the party splinter as the realities of power expose fissures in a party built on the easy opportunism of opposition rather than the realities of taking and defending decisions.”

Having taken ten minutes to digest this text book Nu Labour speak, I’m still not sure if our council leader is talking about his personal pet hate subject, or possibly even looking a little closer to home within his own ranks.

Every Vote Counts

09 August 2010 » 2 Comments

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.

The Edbrooke Effect

20 May 2010 » No Comments

In a move that some locals are dubbing the ‘Edbrooke effect,’ [eek] the hot news coming out of my little #hyperlocal patch of South London is that… a fridge has been moved.

Blimey.

In all seriousness, many, many thanks to my new @LambethLabour local Councillor for acting so promptly on an early piece of casework. I have been genuinely impressed with the speed that this has been achieved, and I am a genuinely grateful.

If only some of the fridge dumping fools around SW8 showed the same kind of community spirit that I am finding from my new Oval Councillors.

Thanks again – good stuff…

Before

Before

Rockin’ Good May 6th

04 May 2010 » No Comments

There’s something of a Shaky ‘n Bonnie business about the latest @LambethLabour letter from our friends in the Oval ward. Overlooking the fact that @LambethLabour addresses literature to the male head of the household (get you!) – the image of our three Nu Labour candidates doesn’t look quite right.

Shaky, Bonnie and the other one

The light is radiating from the face of @janeinlondon / East Hampshire, whereas poor old local boys Karim Palant and Jack Hopkins are left looking rather pale in comparison.

Mmm…

A glance to what our twinned constituency friends over in, um, East Hampshire are up to, and yep – it’s the very same picture that @janeinlondon / East Hampshire has used for both of her political patches.

Blimey!

Here’s hoping that unlike Shaky ‘n Bonnie, Karim and Jack have actually met up with @janeinlondon / East Hampshire, before deciding upon the content of the election literature.

Ah, yes, the letter itself. Never mind the photoshopping, talk to me about the policy, my friends:

“The LibDems finished a distant THIRD in the last local elections in 2008, behind Labour and the Conservatives.”

Hang on – “the last local elections” – um, weren’t they back in 2006? And didn’t the Oval ward return three LibDem local councillors?

Cripes.

So yep, with the final stretch almost in sight (and thank f*** for that,) the local campaign around my little patch in South London has taken on the @LambethLabour porky pie approach of Nu Labour in Herne Hill.

No quite so hyper #hyperlocal, but the fine chap @darryl1974 is having a similar problem over in his Greenwich Peninsula ward. The good man is standing as a Green candidate, and is fighting a campaign that could just upset the complacent current Labour councillors.

So much so, that his local Labour party is also resorting to the re-writing of political history, with the exact same strategy that has happened to Lambeth Greens back in Herne Hill.

Telling lies in election literature isn’t an offence, as Lambeth Green candidate John Hare confirmed to me last week. That certainly explains @janeinlondon / East Hampshire‘s “2008 local election” slip up.

The Shaky ‘n Bonnie balls up of the picture is stretching reality somewhat though.

Meanwhile, over at @LambethLabour’s rather decent Stand Up For Stockwell blog, Labour candidate Alex Bingham writes:

“People locally are telling us that they want community champions who live in their local area, know what is happening locally and can be trusted…”

Fine words. All three local Stockwell candidates live locally. @imogenwalker has represented her ward extremely well over the past four years. Alex Bigham is hoping to replace @LambethLabour’s Councillor Akhtar (Mr 40% attendance, 100% allowance). Alex has been active in the local area, and certainly knows his patch. I can’t comment on Counicllor Bowyer as I haven’t seen him around in the fourteen years that I have lived around this little patch.

But anyway…

“On Thursday 6th May Stockwell residents will have the chance to have their say – local candidates from Labour who they can trust with their services, or Lib Dems from outside the area who would put everything at risk.”

Good for the people of Sunny Stockwell. But what over my Oval ward, I hear you ask?

Community champions who live in their local area, know what is happening locally and can be trusted?

Local candidates from Labour who they can trust?

Um… ‘fraid not with the @LambethLabour candidate who lives on the other side of the borough in Herne Hill, in-between trying to convince the good people of East Hampshire that she should be their next MP.

Whoops.

Plus…

*cough*

Top Slicing

02 May 2010 » No Comments

Hit me over the head with a giant wrecking ball and shout out “CRIPES!” at the top of your voice on the corner of the Clap’ham Road and Crewdson Road in SW8 – it has finally happened: the dodgy landlord who took a laissez faire approach to planning applications has had a share of his profits top-sliced.

Build 'em up...

You may remember Mukesh Andani, the cowboy builder of Sunny Stockwell who decided to overlook the award winning planning department at @lambeth_council. Someone certainly remembers – ‘mukesh andani‘ has been one of the top search on m’blog for the past nine months.

Having put up an illegal top floor on the property, rented it out, been fined £10,000, threatened with a six month jail sentence and then *still* flaunted the law (and peeving people off in my little patch of South London,) it would seem that Andani has now accepted that yep, the award winning planning department at @lambeth_council has finally caught up with him.

He fought the law and the law kicked its feet, shuffled around for almost a year, and then finally decided that the local environment is more important that profit.

Phew.

Activity is taking place on the top floor of the Clap’ham Road / Crewdson Road corner. Early fears from the good @garethwyn that a a fifth floor is about to be added (arf!) have now been forgotten. The fourth floor is falling, much to the relief of the locals who have suffered the eyesore for almost two years now.

It is the very same team of builders that are dismantling the top floor, brick by brick, and then trailing all the way down the rest of the building to create a big pile of rubble at the base of the property.

The poor chaps must be scratching their heads and pondering what the chuffers the past two years have all been about. Two for one pay packets perhaps, with an unexpected (and pointless) job. I wonder if the profits that Andani bagged for the brief period of letting out the top floor cover the cost of the builders, not to mention the pointless scaffolding bill? Or even the £10,000 fine?

It is of course purely coincidental that real results are finally being seen around the borough, what with the local election less than one week away. The @LambethLibDems took a hard line approach to Andani (seriously) and so did @janeinlondon / East Hampshire, when she finally realised where the exact location was in her locality…

So yeah – we got there eventually. Whatever next? A new swimming pool in Clap’ham by May 6th?

Don’t forget the planning permission…