Stockwell Park web site - www.stockwellpark.com

The postcode here is .

image of 189 Clapham Road

2005-04-21, Thursday 21st April, 2005

Dominic Busby wrote to Guy Russ:

Following the letters of 29-MAR-05 and 8-APR-05 neither Sgt. Smith or I have not received, in writing, an answer to questions with regard to the short-term and long-term future of the Lidl site, 189 Clapham Road.

Both myself and Sgt. Andrew Smith are equally concerned that the 'deal' that has been struck with Lidl and the squatters may not hold and that we will face renewed problems.

What actions have you taken to ensure that the squatters do not repeat the activities of the past? What stage are your planning applications? Further
- what is the current position on the meeting you were hoping to organise for this week?

With summer nights rapidly approaching we would like a written reply to our points, raised both here and my letters, so that we can all be clear what the intentions and timetable are for bringing a swift conclusion to the situation at 189 Clapham Road.

2005-04-15 16:00-17:00, Friday 15th April, 2005 from 4pm until 5pm

Meeting Cancelled

Guy Russ, property manager for Lidl, called at 13:50 on Wednesday 13th April to cancel the meeting that had been planned for the following Friday 15th, at 12 Stockwell Park Road.

The expected attendees were:

2005-04-14, Thursday 14th April, 2005

Dominic Busby wrote to Cllr. Andrew Sawdon, Cllr. Darren Sanders & Cllr. Clare Whelan:

Thank you for your email with regard to the Members Enquiry from Cllr. Bowyer and more specifically the problems at 189 Clapham Road, Stockwell.

To set this in some context the initial problems arose last year, when the Lidl-owned site was taken over by squatters, and they were evicted by Lidl after the problems of late night raves (sometime lasting through to the next day) sparked anger among the community. At the time there were call outs to the noise nuisance team (see attached email recently sent through that explains the difficulty they have encountered).

In November, when the squatters were evicted (with the help of the local Police) both the Police and myself asked that Lidl placed high level prevention measures such as we put on closed crack houses to stop a
repeat squat. They did erect wooden barriers over windows but this has proved, as we feared, ineffective.

Recently squatters returned to the site and the raves flared up again. As before we've heard reports that there maybe alcohol sold on site, or payment made to gain entry. Lidl moved to have the electricity switched off, which took place, however, electricity was still being used and it was suspected it was from a generator. I sent a joint letter (myself and the Police) nearly 2 weeks ago to Lidl (both their area manger Guy Russ and headquarters). I enclose this letter. I have had a telephone call from Guy Russ, but nothing from their headquarters, and, crucially, nothing in writing.

Following this letter (and persistence on the part of residents) Lidl said they would visit the site, with a view to take stock of situation and look to having concrete blocks put in to stop the squatters bringing on a
generator to site. The Police, again, visited with Lidl and the upshot was that Lidl 'struck a deal' that the squatters could stay on the proviso they didn't hold raves. I had been away for part of that week, and when I heard, I spoke to some residents and sent an email to Guy Russ (which I enclose) that re-iterated what I had asked before - i. What is the timetable of works (planning) for Lidl ii. They should evict the squatters iii. They should put in sustainable and strong preventative measures (as we had asked in November). I also noted to him that a local newspaper was making enquiries - The South London Press - communications have not heard back from the paper since last Friday.

Again, I received a telephone call, but nothing in writing from Guy Russ who told me that the concrete blocks had been put in, but I asked how this could be effective as we've learnt now that the squatters have had LEB re-instate the electricity they are paying for.

I have been in contact with Licensing, with the Fire brigade, with the Police, with Noise Nuisance and, due to this being private land, out of remit or simply not coming with the statutory levels of nuisance I have found to draw a blank on being able to move this forward from our side having followed all ideas from officers and community.

Last weekend the site was quiet, but residents are still worried (rightly) that the problems may spark at any weekend. The debate has also shifted.

Lidl are seeking planning permission, and have asked me to support a bid to have the site demolished. Obviously I'm in favour of anything that sorts the problem once and for all, but the manner in which Lidl are going about this seems wrong. They are hoping they can 'fast-track' their application, yet no formal application (as far as I'm aware from Planning) has been made, only sketches and preliminary ideas. I think that Lidl hope that by galvanising public opinion they can rush through planning to have the site demolished. It seems to me that if they would simply follow through with our original idea this problem would be gone for good.

The noise nuisance team and Police are on hand to help, and I'm open to all ideas to bring this to an end but the ultimate responsibility holds with the landowner, Lidl.

They are holding a meeting next week to discuss long term plans and I will inform you when I have details of this.

I am away until Monday on annual leave, I will follow up further upon my return. However, on joint work between both the two council officers and Police, I'm not personally aware of this taking place before, so I'm forwarding this to Sgt. Smith who has been exceptional in his partnership, support and help with this matter.

2005-04-11, Monday 11th April, 2005

Pete Bowyer wrote:

I have also taken the issue up with Kate Hoey, asking her to speak to the Leader of the Council about it, and I have forwarded William Coales latest e-mail to Clare Whelan (Executive Member, Environment) and Andrew Sawdon (Executive Member, Community Safety) to ask them to personally intervene in the process.

I will let you know their responses as soon as I hear back from them.

2005-04-09, Saturday 9th April, 2005

William Coales wrote:

I am again horrified by Mr Lewars's complacency and stubborn refusal to serve the community which employs him.

A brief survey of the residents of my end of Stockwell Park Road one Sunday morning late last year revealed that all the residents surveyed, with one exception, had either been wakened, kept awake or both, on a regular basis, by the noise from 189 Clapham Road.

Mr Lewars is correct when he states that the definition of Nuisance is not an objective one and cannot be determined with regard to noise by any particular level of decibels. He is further correct (I have consulted lawyers and the noise unit at DEFRA responsible for this area of legislation) to state that it can be:
"best understood using lay words such as inconvenience, annoyance intrusive, unreasonable, excessive etc.,"

He is incorrect to state that:
"The question of nuisance, however, is
decided by knowledgeable subjective independent assessment by qualified practitioners in the field." at least to the extent that he is referring to his staff. The question of whether or not a nuisance exists is ultimately determined by a court. Mr Lewars goes on in his e mail to refer to the levels of proof required, as set down in legislation, necessary to satisfy a court. The only people qualified to make such a judgement are lawyers and the only people competent are lawyers experienced in this area of law. It is my understanding that neither Mr Lewars or his staff are lawyers.

Mr Lewars states that his officers visited a number of premises on a number of occasions, "listened objectively" and came to the conclusion that" the noise, although audible, was not present at a level to be regarded as a statutory nuisance in law". How so? Mr Lewars has already stated that the "level" of noise is not the issue as far as the definition of statutory nuisance is concerned; it was not even the issue as far as complaints by residents was concerned. The issue was that we were not able to sleep as a result of the noise. What steps did he or his officers take to test this hypothesis? Did he or his officers conduct any kind of survey of local residents to ascertain and define the scope and nature of the problem?
The answer to this second question seems to be no. A large number of residents giving evidence in court that they were unable to sleep would be enough to convince a court, so I am advised, beyond reasonable doubt that a nuisance existed.

The facts are these:

1) Many, many local residents have been unable to sleep at night on several occasions due to the noise from Clapham Road.

2) Given 1) above the noise was without question a "statutory nuisance"

3) Given that the site is likely to remain undeveloped for some time-months, maybe years- and that the site again has squatters there is high probability of this problem re occurring; indeed it already has.

4) The council has the powers under the EPA to serve the relevant orders

5) Other potential solutions are far less viable or effective. Action under section 82 takes many weeks (10-12).

Mr Lewars should be persuaded to:

1) Conduct a thorough survey into the extent of the nuisance last year
2) Take specialised legal advice on whether the perpetrators of the noise had a case to answer
3) Following 1) and 2) issue the appropriate orders to lessen the probability of a reoccurrence.

If Mr Lewars is unwilling to do this the Council should be persuaded to find a replacement officer more willing to do his duty to the community.

2005-04-08, Friday 8th April, 2005

Pete Bowyer wrote to Ralph Lewars:

Thank you for copying me into your response to Mr Sweeney, and for responding separately to other similar complaints.

I have to say, however, I am frankly staggered that the Council's Regulatory Services department have been unable to deal satisfactorily with complaints from many local residents on this issue. It has clearly caused a great nuisance to lots of residents of a sustained period of time and yet no matter how often residents complain, the Council appears too weak to act.

I would be grateful to know what else, besides the statutory minimum, the Council can do to stop this disturbance permanently and would request that resolving this issue is given the highest possible priority.

2005-04-08, Friday 8th April, 2005

Ralph Lewars wrote to Marcus Mayers:

Dear Councillor Mayers,

The Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 79, sets out matters which constitute a "statutory nuisance". "Noise emitted from premises" is one of the categories mentioned in Section 79(1)(g) of the Act.

Under this Act, Local authorities are obliged to investigate complaints of a statutory nuisance and to take appropriate action to secure its abatement.

Section 80 of the Act, states that "Where a local authority is satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists, or is likely to occur or recur, in the area of the authority, the local authority shall serve a notice ("an abatement notice") imposing all or any of the following requirements -

  • (a) requiring the abatement of the nuisance or prohibiting or restricting its occurrence or recurrence;
  • (b) requiring the execution of such works, and the taking of such steps, as may be necessary for any of those purposes."

Local authorities usually employ qualified Environmental Health Officers to carryout investigations of this nature. Case law, evolved over many years, has led to a number of important factors which have to be taken into account when deciding on whether or not a statutory nuisance had occurred.

Generally speaking, nuisance is not amenable to definition by objective measurement, in terms of a decibel reading. The concept of nuisance is best understood using lay words such as inconvenience, annoyance intrusive, unreasonable, excessive etc., all of which your constituents have described at one stage or another. The question of nuisance, however, is decided by knowledgeable subjective independent assessment by qualified practioners in the field.

When investigating allegations of statutory nuisance, Environmental Health Officers will have regard to the common law tests of nuisance, viz: character of the neighbourhood, standard of comfort, time and duration, level of offending noise, the effect of the noise, motive of complainants and perpetrators, reasonableness etc., and common law case histories which help to define nuisance.

Before an abatement notice can be served, Environmental Health Officers will need to be "satisfied" as required by Section 80(1). Satisfaction will be a matter of evidence and the standard or burden of proof is "on the balance of probability". That is to say, the noise would have to be personally witnessed by officers as being unreasonably intrusive to the point where the noise materially interferes with the use, comfort and enjoyment of the complainants' premises. If a prosecution is being considered for a breach of a notice, then a higher, criminal standard of proof is applied i.e."beyond a reasonable doubt".

In the case of 189 Clapham Road, officers visited complainants in their homes, stood quietly and objectively listened to the noise being complained about. They would have thought about the common law tests, the impact of the noise in occurrence on the average reasonable person, the extent to which the room or premises are being materially affected or interfered with, the time, duration and music frequency (bass components), amongst other things. Following this, they would report their judgements and opinions and taken action accordingly. Clearly, a number of different officers attended residents' homes on different occasions, but at the time of their visit and inspection, the noise, although audible, was not present at a level to be regarded as a statutory nuisance in law.

If residents believe they have a strong case to argue and have sufficient evidence to persuade a Magistrates' Courts, then they may wish to consider their right to seek alternative remedy under Section 82 of the Act. In the meantime, we will continue to investigate statutory nuisances in accordance with legislation and to take action, as appropriate to bring about the abatement of statutory nuisances within the borough.

Please come back to me if you require further information.

2005-04-07, Thursday 7th April, 2005

Dominic Busby wrote to Guy Russ:

Following my absence at the Community Safety Team in the past week I have arrived back to read reports that you are allowing the squatters to stay on the site on the proviso that they no longer hold events that involve loud music.

Although I’m sure you have good reason for taking this route, can you explain what safeguards that are in place to ensure that the squatters do not go back on their word? Equally, community representatives have made it quite clear that there was no ‘birthday party’ the week before – rather, another rave.

With the re-engagement of electricity into the site I would ask what legal advice has been sought as the legality of this move by these trespassers on the Lidl site?

I’m being asked questions left, right and centre on the work the council is doing, when it is quite clear this is a matter Lidl has to resolve as owners of the land: there is a need to do two things:

1. Evict the squatters

2. Install high-grade preventative measures

This leads to questions on the long-term timetable for Lidl (as I asked before) - what are their intentions for the site and what indication have they had from Planning as to timetable for demolition?

Among those who have approached me I have been left a message that a local newspaper would like to talk to me with regard to raves in Stockwell. I need to see quick and effective measures to finally put this problem to rest. I wouldn’t want to see Lidl compromised because of a failure to consider the needs of the local community considering the success you had with eviction previously.

I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.

2005-04-06

Ralph Lewars wrote to Ian Sweeney:

I am sorry that you disagree with officers professional opinion on whether the noise amounted to a statutory nuisance under the Act. A number of officers have been involved with the investigations and all the reports indicate that the alleged nuisance had not been substantiated at the time of their inspections.

If you have sufficient independent evidence to the contrary then you may wish to consier your rights under Section 82 of the same Act.

In the meantime, if you are being disturbed by unreasonable noise then please call the night noise patrol service again and officer will endeavour to attend your premises promptly to assess the degree of disturbance in accordance with the legislation.

2005-04-01

Ingo Elbs, regional property director for Lidl, telephoned Trisha Tomlinson to report that Lidl have negotiated a deal with the current occupants of 189 Clapham Road which should ensure no more loud parties. To back this up concrete bollards have been installed within the site which should hopefully prevent any electrical generators being taken onto the premises.

2005-03-31

Ralph Lewars wrote to Dominic Busby:

The Council has a statutory duty under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to investigate complaints of a statutory nuisance and if (the council) is satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists or is likely to exist it (the council) should serve an abatement notice on the persons responsible.

In the case of the squatters at 189 Clapham Rd, the council is NOT satisfied that noise emitted from these premises is or has caused a statutory nuisance, despite the number of residents who have registed a complaint alleging so. In the absence of such first-hand evidence the council cannot issue an abatement notice nor take any other formal action. Officers can only prosecute or carry out a seizure if a recipient has breached an abatement notice.

So far, officers have visited complainants, but have not substantiated a common law nuisance nor consider that the noise is prejudicial to health.

Section 79 of the above 1990 Act allows private individuals (who have their own evidence), to instigate legal proceedings, where councils' do not have such evidence.

Officers will continue to respond to complaints and if they witness a statutory nuisance an abatement notice will be served, provided we can reasonably identify someone responsible for the nuisance.

2005-03-31

Ben Cobley wrote:

I am a trainee journalist (I actually have four years' experience but am doing the formal qualification at the moment). I am also a good friend of Councillor Marcus Mayers - and he has forwarded me some of the correspondence that has been going around about 189 Clapham Road and the nuisance (to put it kindly) that it has been causing yourself and other local residents.
Now I've been in contact with the South London Press about the issue, and they say they are pretty keen about doing something on it, though not until the end of next week at least. Anyway, I was wondering if it might be possible to meet up with you and other residents for an interview/interviews about what has been going on and the effect on your lives, especially over the recent Easter period...
Anyway, if you could let me know ASAP whether that would be OK, and if so, what times/dates would suit, that would be much appreciated. I can either be contacted by email on this address or by phone on 07747 393 850

2005-03-29

Dominic Busby wrote:

"To clarify:

  • i. The Police will be joining Lidl for a site visit on Thursday and Friday - when Lidl will undertake to put barriers up to ensure that generators, that it is alleged are being used for electricity, can no longer enter the site. Sgt. Smith will be in contact with Guy Russ later today.
  • ii. That with the Police, Lidl will be assisted to evict those, when a court order has been sought. In the meantime both parties will visit the site to explain that action is in hand to the squatters (see point 1 above)
  • iii. That Noise Nuisance are looking at the email from Ian and will reply forthwith.
  • iv. I have sent an email to Planning, with reference to the problems and making clear that we wish (with the Police) to see demolition as soon as possible, particularly those areas that are being used by the squatters.
  • v. I have emailed our Regulatory Services department on suspicion that the premises is selling alcohol and they will be liaising with Police to undertake use of powers in this respect where possible.

I hope that Lidl will now be able to quickly deal with matters and will return to this when I get back: I will not be back in the officer until next Tuesday. In the meantime can I ask all to please address all correspondence to Sgt. Smith on:
andrew.smith4@met.police.uk on this matter."

2005-03-29, Tuesday 29th March, 2005

Dominic Busby wrote to Guy Russ:

Thank you for your email dated 1st March 2005. We are pleased that action has taken place with regard to the disconnection of electricity at site of 189 Clapham Road, however, we are still concerned that the prevention measures that your company has implemented are not adequate to deal with the problem that has, at times, re-occurred.

In your email you asked: ‘could the police not cease the party for noise disruption or breach of the peace’. A breach of the peace would occur if there were an element of violence to a person, or their property in their presence, which has not occurred in this case. There is no doubt that the residents were subject to rave music intrusion from the site last year that was
not at such a level to be a statutory noise nuisance actionable under the criminal law when enforcement officers visited residents and heard the noise on a number of occasions. Circumstances may be different now. Enforcement Officers will respond to any complaints from residents and take the appropriate action if a statutory noise nuisance is substantiated. From a police perspective, should allegations of a criminal nature be made, they will be prioritized and investigated. Further, if electricity is being abstracted and there is evidence of
this, the police will investigate.

If Lidl are committed to the abatement of the disruption we would strongly advise they re-eviction of squatters and the investment in full security measures (metal grills) as previously advised in November 2004.

We would also bring to your attention that supportive residents groups and local Council Members have been diligent in reporting incidents through our Noise Nuisance team, through the police and Community Safety Officer. We are therefore copying them into this letter so that they may contact you directly if they so wish.

To help matters could you inform us, by return, on the following:
i. What is the timeline for works to begin and demolition?
ii. Could areas of the building that are not listed be demolished as a matter of
urgency?
The community in the area are attentive to the work that you are hoping to undertake and I hope that you will respond to their concerns in kind. As I’m sure you’re aware, word will spread from the squatters and the problem may escalate.

I look forward to your response at your earliest convenience and would add that the Police and Council officers are willing to offer their help to see the rapid conclusion to this problem.

2005-03-29

Dominic Busby has been contacting various bodies who are concerned about the squat/rave at 189 Clapham Road, with a view to dealing with the noise problem that local residents are complaining about. Dominic and Sgt. Smith sent a joint letter to LIDL. Dominic will report back next week following the Case Review Team meeting. Dominic also mentioned the possiblity of involving the council's ASBO unit.

2005-03-27

Charles Anglin (councillor@anglin.org.uk) wrote to Jill Meyer:

Thank you for raising this issue.

I am quite happy to take this up on your behalf, please feel free to contact me on the number below. I have passed your note on to Dominic Busby, who is the Council's Community Safety Officer for Stockwell & Clapham and Christopher D'Souza, the Council's Community Safety Manager.

My successor as Lambeth's Lead Member for Community Safety is Cllr Darren Sanders

Cllr Charles Anglin
Liberal Democrat
020 7733 5497

 
2005-03-26 09:26

Jill Meyer wrote to Marcus Mayers:

You probably won't remember me but we met last year during the Unite attempt to build on the above site. Of course you'll know that the site has now been bought by Lidl, the pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap German supermarket chain. Since they've owned it, despite endless complaints from residents, well-organised Raves have been allowed to take place. One story we were given a while ago was that the loud music, played incessantly over entire weekends, was due to squatters. This line seems a little suspect. If squatters are responsible, do they all go home to Mum during the week? Are they so exhausted by the weekend bacchanals that they need a quiet week in-between to recuperate? Or perhaps it's a display of delayed gratification and they're inactive, inaudible and invisible during the week because they're saving their eardrum-shattering treat for weekends. It doesn't wash. The events are highly-organised and one senses that drug-dealing is the motor and that somebody's making a lot of cash.

At the moment, one has just about recovered from one sleepless night before the prospect of another in a few hours time looms. Do you know anything about these things? Is there anything you can tell us, that is the desperate local residents who are so badly affected by them, that could help us to get these events stopped?

With kind regards,

Jill Meyer.

PS - This particular Rave started last night, Friday 26th March, and went on till midday to day. It will begin again at around 6pm and, since this is a Bank Holiday weekend, will probably go on in this way till Tuesday morning.

2005-03-26 09:26

Marc Ennals wrote:

I've been sitting here in rage - at the squatters for their unbelieveable arrogance and selfishness, at the local authority, at Lidl at the police etc etc...

Do you think we could get enough local folk to back some peaceful direct action? Seems to me if enough of us turned out next time it started and just blocked the gate it would a) make it clear to the council and police that something had to be done, b) to the squatters that they were really pissing off their neighbours.

I will also send an email to the noise people.

2005-03-26 08:36

Jill Meyer wrote:

Morning, Ian - you may be away for Easter, in which case lucky you to have missed last night's bacchanal (which continues as I write). It's hard to understand how a regular event like this gets under the net. It is so obviously a public nuisance and so contrary to what we can expect in terms of civic order and consideration. Utterly baffling that it can go on. One assumes drugs are being dealt and therefore that somebody's getting backhanders...

2005-03-26 07:15

Tim Forster wrote to the Noise Nuisance Team:

It is 7.00 am on Saturday morning (26 April). We have tried to phone you but your no. is unattended. There has been loud music coming from the old Scotts Garage site again all night and it is still going on. When are you going to take action to deal with this? We live immediately opposite at 252 Clapham Road.

Although this is the first time I have contacted you, I know many other residents have and there is still no action. The noise at our house is well above background noise level at night time and is keeping us awake, despite secondary glazing.

2005-03-26 04:15

Ian Sweeney wrote:

Members of the Noise Nuisance Team have been and gone. They say they'll talk to their manager about the problem!

2005-03-26 03:50

Ian Sweeney wrote:

The Noise Nuisance Team have telephoned me to tell me that can be here in half an hour.

They also say that they have had another complaint about 189 Clapham Road tonight, but that when they attended the complainant's address they could not record a noise nuisance. The noise level varies, depending on wind conditions, the music that is being played, etc. If it takes fourty minutes for the noise team to call me back and half an hour for them to get here I won't be surprised if there is a lull in the noise level. Nonetheless, the nuisance that caused me to call them in the first place means that I'll be awake at least until 04:20.

2005-03-26 03:10

Ian Sweeney wrote:

It's the middle of the night and I've called the Noise Nuisance Team because it's impossible for me to get to sleep with the noise coming from 189 Clapham Road.

I have also emailed the Noise Nuisance team [ noise@lambeth.gov.uk ] complaining about the ongoing situation.

Hopes that LIDL would solve the problem for local residents have not been fruitful. Squatters occupy the building and gleefully continue to upset the peace week after week.

I know that the Noise Nuisance Team have had regular complaints about the problem and yet it happens again and again. Can anybody tell me why they have not followed through with legal sanctions to prevent re-occurrence?

I know that local councillors are aware of the problem. Can anybody tell me why nothing else is being done for local residents other than politely requesting that LIDL secure the premises?

I know that Dominic Busby, the local Community Safety Officer, is aware of the weekly parties. Surely the safety of the hundreds of attendees at 189 Clapham Road is an issue. The premises are not safe for such an event. Why has effective action not been taken?

I know that local police are aware of the problem. The party is funded somehow. I assume through illegal alcohol sales or perhaps an entrance fee. The squatters have no licence for this activity. Why have the police not taken pro-active steps to keep the peace?

Principally, I just want the noise to stop. As an aside I am frustrated and angry that all the relevant bodies who are fully aware of the problem, and how long it has been going on, are not doing anything to stop it, other than hoping that LIDL evict the squatters and re-secure the site.

2005-03-17

David Tomlinson wrote:

Following local residents' reports that the problems of squatters and 'raves' were returning, our Neighbourhood Watch Co-Ordinator contacted Lambeth's Clapham and Stockwell Community Safety Officer, and also informed our local Police Sergeant.

The Community Safety Officer responded immediately on 17 March to say that he and the Police will be writing a joint letter to LIDL's representative asking them to:

  1. Either demolish the non-listed buildings on the site as soon as possible or make them properly secure with steel shuttering as recommended by the Police
  2. Give a timeline for their re-development, in view of the fact that they have not yet even applied for planning permission.

The Community Safety Officer will also consult Lambeth's Environment Department about any routes open to Lambeth to apply for enforcement orders against LIDL.

2005-03-13

Marc Ennals wrote:

Here I am again at 3.30 in the morning listening to the joyous thump thump from across the way - have called Lambeth (they will call back within the hour - great - then everyone in the house will be awake!) and the police who are less than interested.

Not sure it isn't time for a bit of direct local action - if all the neighbours piled out and stood outside the gate we might get some action - perhaps we have to wait till its's warmer!

2005-03-01

Tim Foster wrote:

I can tell you definitely that there has been music (or at least a loud thumping noise) coming from the Lidl site on both of the last 2 weekends (we live immediately opposite). It starts on Saturday night and goes on without a break till mid-morning on Sunday. If the Police can't find anything they are either coming at the wrong time or deaf. As I write I can see lights inside on the ground floor. Does anyone know why there is still no planning application forthcoming for this important site?

2004-11-12

Dominic Busby wrote:

"I have spoken to Sgt. Andrew Smith this afternoon and he has confirmed the following:

He assisted Lidl this afternoon with the eviction at 189 Clapham Road, however, the building was deserted when they arrived.

Lidl have boarded up the premises and disconnected the electricity supply.

I am waiting to hear from Lidl, and will update when I do.

If there is any repeat can I ask that you contact the Noise Nuisance Team.

I will update one further time on this, unless there is a repeat of this problem, in the meantime can I thank everybody for their support and help in this matter."

2004-11-09

William Coales wrote to Pete Bowyer:

"Many thanks for this; your proactive involvement is much appreciated.

I do feel that noise officers have been negligent in discharging their statutory duty to properly investigate whether the noise from the rave constituted a statutory nuisance. This is important because, if a nuisance exists, they effectively have the power to close such a rave almost immediately; had they done so weeks ago a lot of people would have been spared a lot of trouble.

The law states that a statutory nuisance exists if "noise emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance;"

Many of us have been deprived of sleep for prolonged periods over several weekends. This is clearly prejudicial to health-especially for those recovering from an operation or expecting a baby (which is the case in my Stockwell Park Road). There is no doubt in my mind, or my neighbours minds that a nuisance existed. It is not good enough to call on people and decide that the noise is not very loud. It is the effect of the noise that is relevant not the level of it. Officials have not properly investigated this problem. They have failed to ascertain the true extent of the problem and in particular the extent to which the noise has been keeping people awake. In my opinion they have been wilfully negligent and an investigation into their behaviour is warranted.
I have in my personal capacity served notice to Lidl that I intend to apply to a magistrate for a noise abatement order as is my right under the same legislation that empowers (and requires) local authorities to act. This unfortunately can take up to eight weeks.

It is extremely good news that Lidl seem to be being successful but, given that the organisers are making a great deal of money from their venture and are clever and well resourced, there must remain a residual risk that the raves will start up again even if closed down in the short run. Given this I would urge you to urge noise officials to issue an abatement order so that they may take immediate action if the situation reoccurs.

Thank you once again for your involvement."

2004-11-08

Pete Bowyer wrote to Andrew Sawyer, Executive Member for Community Safety:

"Dear Andrew,

I'm not sure if you are aware at all of the problems being caused to local residents in Stockwell of a weekly Rave that is happening at 187-189 Clapham Road.

This has been going on for the last 6 weekends or so (with the sole exception of last weekend) and is making residents lives a misery. Basically, it appears that rave organisers have taken over and squatted the old Scotts Garage building at 187-189 Clapham Road (now owned by the Lidl Supermarket chain) and are organising raves on the site which last for 24 hours from Saturday evening until the following Sunday evening. I have been inundated with complaints about it from local residents, and I'm sure Anthony has too.

What appears to be causing the most irritation is the lack of power that various bodies have over closing it down quickly. The Police appear constrained as the legislation relating to Raves define them as being outdoors, but this is happening in doors. Noise officers from the Council have been called out on numerous ocassions but although it is clear that residents can hear loud thumping bass that keeps them awake all night, it is not loud enought to qualify for a Statutory Noise Abatement Notice to close the thing down immediately. Lidl have also promised to secure the site and switch off electricity etc, but that seems not to have happenend too.

Basically, it appears to local residents that the organisers are able to put 2 fingers up to the law and can get away with it. They feel that Council Officers, in particular, are not pursuing this as vigorously as they could, and I am sure you would not want them to have that impression.

It would seem to me that if we cannot use one piece of legislation, there must be others available. For instance, I understand that there is legislation that stops people from causing a statutory nuisance to others, and this must clearly be seen as such given what local residents have had to put up with. Likewise, I cannot believe that the orgainsers have appropriate entertainment/liquor licenses. Also, it would strike me that there must be health and safety legisaltion that can be invoked.

I know that you understand the sort of distress that such behaviour is casuing to local residents and I hope you are able to use all your powers to stop this happening next weekend. I would be grateful if you would let me know, as soon as you possibly can, what further measures the Council will be taking against the organisers."

2004-11-04

Andrew Smith wrote:

"In relation to the premises at 189 Clapham Road owned by LIDL and currently being resided in by numerous squatters. I can confirm the following for you: -

  • The Owners (Lidl) have a first hearing in front of Lambeth County Court on Monday 08th November '04 applying for an eviction / repossession order. Their representatives will be present as will I.
  • The premises and circumstances of the "Rave" do not, unfortunately fall within the definition of a gathering enabling police powers to be exercised under the criminal Justice and Public Order act of 1994 as amended by the Anti Social Behaviour Act Act 2003. I have looked extremely closely at this and sought legal advise from the Met Police Legal Services on this issue.
  • Several of my officers will be in the area until late this Friday (5th) and Saturday (6th) monitoring what is going on (hopefully - nothing).
  • The owners of the site are, I'm assured placing security officers at the site again this weekend.
  • We (the police) have offered Lidl all suitable assistance where an eviction takes place.

I hope that this weekend is a peaceful one. (fireworks excepted that incidentally should not be used after 11pm - except the 05th when they should not be used after 12 midnight!!!!!)"

2004-10-29

Graham McKerrow wrote:

"And finally, we have received a phone call from Guy Russ at Lidl saying he had visited the site with the police and Lidl have employed security guards who will be in attendance from 6pm tonight until Monday morning.

Further, an email from a council officer to local councillors quotes the rave organisers as saying they don't plan to have a rave this weekend.

That council email also says the matter has been referred to the Empty Homes Officer to put the property on the register and look at compulsory purchase possibilities. Does anyone know anything about the Empty Homes Officer?

Let's hope we all get decent sleep this weekend, although ... we'll see!"

2004-10-27

Pete Bowyer wrote:

"I understand the problem continued this weekend - this is clearly not good enough. Below is an e-mail I received from Dominic Busby, the Community Safety Officer, after I took up the issue with him.

I know Dominic is doing his best, but I am not particularly happy with the response as it sounds absurd that the Police have virtually no powers to close down this activity if it is happening indoors. I have asked them to explore all other powers that they have at their disposal. In the meantime, I hope Lidl will close down power to the site which should help curb this behaviour."

2004-10-26

Anthony Bottrall wrote:

"Dominic Busby, our local community safety officer, has been working with the police and others to find effective ways of bringing this menace to a halt. I have asked him to keep you updated on what is happening, both for your own benefit and (if you feel it appropriate) for the benefit of other residents through your emailed RA newsletter. "

2004-10-25

Dominic Busby wrote:

"To: Bottrall,Anthony; Mayers,Marcus; Bowyer,Peter

Dear Councillors,

Thank you for your emails with regard to this problem. I would like to update you on the current situation and action that has already taken place and what can be done now.

The venue for the raves is a disused private property that used to be a VW car showroom, it is now owned by Lidl. As a private property this makes it difficult for statutory agencies to close this. However, I have asked the following to help co-ordinate a response and deal with the situation, and I have put their responses in for your information:

Sgt. Andrew Smith, Lambeth MET Police

Officers have been to the venue and Sgt. Smith has been in touch with Lidl. The Police have offered assistance to Lidl when visiting the property and asked that Lidl contact LEB in an attempt to cut off electrical power.

I had an email over the weekend that asked why the Police were not able to implement Sections 63, 64 & 65 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) targeting rave music, defining it as 'wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats.'

To quote: 'These sections give powers of arrest to Police if they suspect people are preparing to hold a rave (2 or more people); waiting for a rave to start (10+); actually attending a rave (10+). Section 65 lets any uniformed constable who believes a person is on their way to a rave within a 5-mile radius to stop them and direct them away from the area - failure to comply can lead to a maximum fine of 1,000 GBP'

This is completely correct, however, the law relates to 'Gatherings'/ 'Raves' wholly or predominately in the open air.

The 'rave' at 189 Clapham Road is, as far as we are told by officers who have attended to the scene, within the building.

Geoff Scott, Senior Enforcement Officer, Regulatory Services

Regulatory Services Enforcement Officers have responded to noise complaints from residents in Stockwell Park Road regarding raves held in the squatted premises. Matthew Onakoya is the case officer. There is a bass frequency noise that is just audible in these homes but not at such a level that warrants action under the criminal law of The Environmental Protection Act 1990. If Enforcement Officers do witness a statutory noise nuisance then a noise abatement notice will be served. Regulatory Services will continue to respond to complainants.

The Council's Noise Service is available to receive complaints of noise nuisance occurring between 10.00pm to 03.00am Sundays to Thursdays, and between 10.00pm to 5.00am on Friday and Saturday nights. The telephone number for that service is 020 7926 5999. You will speak first to an operator who will note basic details of your complaint and pass these to the two Regulatory Services officers on duty. One of those officers will then phone you back as soon as possible, with a view to visiting you in order to witness the noise.

They have also made calls to Lidl in co-ordination with the Police.

I've also asked the Empty Homes Officer to put this on the register and look at compulsory purchase possibilities. Maxine Wilson has also left a message with Lidl.

I sent an email to Lidl this morning, and have just this moment received a call from them. They will be visiting the site with Sgt. Smith on Wednesday, upon inspection they will either have contractors seal up the property or go for a court injunction and have the squatters (who have claimed squatters rights) lawfully removed

I'm away tomorrow (Tuesday) but will update you on Wednesday when I've heard back from Lidl following the visit. From an email I just received from Sgt. Smith Lidl are very keen to get a grip of this (as they are hoping to build there soon and receive the okay from Lambeth Planning)."

2004-10-25

Graham McKerrow wrote to Ingo Elbs, Lidl's Regional Property Director:

"Unfortunately the 'raves' at 187-192 have now gone beyond being a hassle to being a nightmare and we have to ask you to address the issue as a matter of urgency. The enclosed photograph, taken at 9.30 on Sunday morning, makes it clear that your Project Manager's success in respect of securing the site has been minimal. In fact they started setting up on Friday evening and the music started about 11pm on Saturday and carried on for almost 24 hours finally ending just before 11pm on Sunday. In reality it is not the actual volume which we personally find intolerable but the thud, thud, thud...pause...thud, thud, thud etc etc ad infinitum.

In addition to the photograph we also enclose a copy of a recent exchange with another local resident. I think it is self explanatory. Since the property belongs to Lidl it would seem appropriate for you to contact the local police in advance of next weekend with a view to taking action in advance of any event in order to pre-empt the arrival of 600 people whom the police clearly have difficulty dealing with. Perhaps in view of the seriousness of the problem you would consider employing a security firm from Friday evening to Sunday morning to ensure that people do not enter the property.

We would also like to further express our concern at the damage the Victorian villa is likely to sustain as a result of these events. As you can see the building is left open to the elements (and remains so after the people have left) and this can only have a deleterious effect on it.

Finally perhaps you could contact the electricity supplier from whom you ceased service in August because presumably they have either since provided service to a named person or the electricity is being stolen."

2004-10-24

Ian Sweeney wrote:

"Once again I'm up in the middle of the night unable to sleep due to the noise from the WEEKLY rave at 189 Clapham Road, SW9 0QE.

Sections 63, 64 & 65 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) target rave music, defining it as 'wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats'. These sections give powers of arrest to police if they suspect people are preparing to hold a rave (2 or more people); waiting for a rave to start (10+); actually attending a rave (10+). Section 65 lets any uniformed constable who believes a person is on their way to a rave within a 5-mile radius to stop them and direct them away from the area - failure to comply can lead to a maximum fine of £1,000.

I am unable to understand why the local police have not been more proactive in dealing with the nuisance caused to those of us living in the vicinity."

2004-10-19

Pete Bowyer wrote:

"I'm sorry to hear about the raves continuing - clearly something needs to be done to stop this from happening. I will bring the issue up again with the local police and council community safety officers to see if they can sort the situation out.

On a related issue, I received an e-mail from Lidl saying they would welcome a meeting about their plans for the site. Unfortunately, the number they left was inoperable. I am chasing this up and will let you know what they say once I have spoken to them."

2004-10-17

William Coales wrote:

"I went round to Kennington Police station at around 4.30pm today (pointless phoning). I spoke to the inspector on duty who was sympathetic to our lack of sleep. However he was not briefed as to the scale of the problem; he had been told that it was just a bunch of squatters having a party. I told him that it was a much more serious situation and that it was a commercial operation with admission being charged and drinks being sold. He has sent officers down there today who had been assured that they would close up at 9pm. Environmental health have said that nothing can be done till the 11pm deadline (odd giving that the number of H&S regulations being broken must be legion - no fire exits, emergency lighting, etc., etc.). He promised to give a full briefing to the night duty inspector raising all these issues. He has taken my number for the inspector (Hess) to call me this PM with an update.

I am away for 10 days from Tuesday otherwise I would pursue the matter during the week. One suggestion I have is for someone to arrange for Lidl to give the police access to the premises.

I will let you know if and what I hear form Inspector Hess."

2004-10-17

Ian Sweeney wrote:

"The raves continue unabated by the police week after week. This week the Lambeth noise service has been informed as have the police via their Lambeth Control Room - (020) 7326 1212"

2004-10-16

Graham McKerrow wrote:

"We have received two letters today re the Scotts garage site - one from Lidl and one from Lambeth.

Lidl - who this time replied within two days of our last letter - apologise for the "hassle of the last few weeks" and say they disconnected the electricity in August. They are "looking in detail with regards to security of the site." They have contacted the "ward councils" - councilors? - and the head of Lambeth Planning to arrange a meeting to to discuss Lidl's ideas for the site. They will let us know the date.

Lambeth Planning writes concerning the "large parties, which they describe as "alleged breach of planning control" and say they are "investigating the case".

Well, it's all a step forward. If Lidl want planning approval for their project, alleged breaches of planning control are not a good start."

2004-10-03

Pete Bowyer wrote:

"For information, I too have been in touch with Lidl asking for a meeting and more information about their plans, but have yet to hear anything back. I am also concerned to hear what has been happening to the site in the interim. As a member of the Council's Licensing Committee, I have certainly not aware of any license having been granted for this type of activity and I will investigate further and report back."

2004-10-03

Ian Sweeney wrote:

"The situation at 189 Clapham Road is going from bad to worse. The old Scott's garage has been sold by Unite to the Lidl supermarket group. Graham McKerrow and others have been keeping an eye on things and are very proactive in communicating with Lidl about their intentions for the site. Tonight however the site is being used for a rave. I'm fairly certain that it does not have a licence and I'd guess that Lidl have not given permission for the event to take place on their premises. I know that the Lambeth noise service has received complaints and that the police have been in attendance outside the event. One consequence is that there are various 'dodgy' types wandering up and down Stockwell Park Road in the middle of the night."

2004-09-29

Graham McKerrow wrote:

"Lidl have replied. They say: "Lidl are presently in discussions with our architects with regards to the site. Please be assured that we will be in contact with yourselves when we have any further developments."

We will reply asking for a meeting before, rather than after, they draw up plans."

2004-08-13

Graham McKerrow wrote:

"Ever on the case, I find out that 187-191 Clapham Road has been sold by Unite and bought by the supermarket chain Lidl."

Contact | Legal