Rehab centre asks for four more years

Earlier this month, we reported that a way forward had been found for the proposed drug treatment centre on Shardeloes Road that seemed to suit both supporters and skeptics. The planning committee ruled that the centre should be given a year to prove itself, after which time its licence to operate would be reviewed.

However, the South London Press now reports that the operators of the proposed centre - CRI - have appealed the decision, asking instead for five years:

CRI has now submitted an application to the council to extend the permission to five years and the opening hours until 8pm on Mondays to Fridays.

Rupert King, of the Brockley Cross Action Group said: “CRI have repeatedly claimed there will be no problems once the new treatment centre is open so why is the one-year permission now unacceptable to them?"...

Darren Johnson, Brockley ward councillor, said: “Although I support the drug and alcohol centre [the original decision] gives them a year to prove themselves to local residents that the centre can be a good neighbour.”

As King and Johnson both suggest, if CRI are confident of their original claims that the centre could be run in a residential area without creating any problems, then the one year trial should not cause them any concerns. The only uncertainty it creates for them is directly related to their own performance.

The one year trial should remain.

26 comments:

barryls said...

Should be good news for anyone who thinks local house prices are too high.

Can't wait for the 2013 Brockley crime stats to come out.

Anonymous said...

So they don't really care about the community at all then? Sounds like it's all about finding somewhere and forcing it to stay there rather than seeing what actually would work. Many people didn't want it there at all, but we didn't get what we wanted - I think a year trial period is a good compromise for everyone...

Sally said...

I was at the committee meeting where the one year trial was approved as a compromise on the original application. I can't see why they'd approve a five year application instead. The feeling of the committee was, "valuable service, wrong location - let's see how it goes before committing long-term."

And I thought the original application was for less than five years because the place was to be sold (is it related to the timber yard whose lease will end in the next three years?) - has something changed there?

Anonymous said...

so you have drug dealers on one side of the street and this centre on the other side. the question is, which side do you walk on to get home?!

Anonymous said...

Both; this is London, you'll be alright. Stop NIMBYing.

Pip said...

http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/olympic-torch-wins-its-very-own-medal-7678337.html
... and there's us Hackney folk claiming the torch to be born north of the River!

Mb said...

Competing while not bollock naked is also a modern innovation. Having seen some of the heavy weight lifters I'm glad we're not trying to be TOO authentic *shudders*

Anonymous said...

better than one of those cult african churches as a neighbour, babbee jeeezus!

Anonymous said...

Brockley beggars belief sometimes.

Drugs? Not in my back yard.

People not on drugs? Not in my back yard.

Anonymous said...

Won't the 1 year licence just add additional costs and doubt on the service?

Would the people of Brockley prefer addicts continuing to wander the streets of Brockley or being rehabed?

There are all sorts of crime related to drugs, isn't it better to reduce the numbers in the area who are dependent on them?

Anonymous said...

"Brockley" reflects any other part of London. Some people fly into a panic at any suggestion of THE DRUG MENACE. Some are suportive of a treatment center, but somewhere else so they don't have to think about it. Some are OK with it there, some think that they should have there balls cut off (seems to be a default punishment for everything from litter & skateboarding to murder).

Brockley covers the full range and the comments section here covers those who feel compeled to comment.

People use drugs, some people have a problem, some with a problem recognise that and want help to get off. It has to go somewhere, sticking it in surrey and giving adicts a travel card is stupid.

Brockley Nick said...

"Won't the 1 year licence just add additional costs and doubt on the service?"

Why? If the centre is being run well, the renewal should be straightforward - certainly no more costly than this appeal.

"Would the people of Brockley prefer addicts continuing to wander the streets of Brockley or being rehabed?"

I guess they'd prefer them to be rehabed properly. Part of people's concern is that won't be and that there will be an increase in people - as you say - wandering the streets.

"There are all sorts of crime related to drugs, isn't it better to reduce the numbers in the area who are dependent on them?"

Yes, of course. If the centre's being run properly, then everyone's happy. If it's a poor location, poorly run, then it might lead to the opposite of what you want to see.

That's what the argument in favour of a one year trial is.

Anonymous said...

After a year the rehab centre may decide it is being well run but others may not....who decides independent adjudicators or vote seeking councillors?

How can the centre invest or set up long term projects if there's the possiblity for whatever reason the council decide it should close?

If they have projects that need to run 18months they'd have to contingency plans or should they they just tell anyone on a course...sorry but you'll have to go else well.

Anonymous said...

I guess they'd prefer them to be rehabed properly. Part of people's concern is that won't be.

Based on what their own bigoted viewpoint, ie it will never work?

Residents could have ensured measures were put in place if they had concerns without the 12 month ruling which will ensure the centre won't work.

Brockley Nick said...

"Based on what their own bigoted viewpoint, ie it will never work?"

No, read the well-considered comments of groups like the BXAG. Nothing to do with bigotry.

Brockley Nick said...

"After a year the rehab centre may decide it is being well run but others may not....who decides independent adjudicators or vote seeking councillors?"

The same people who are making the decision now. Do these vote-seeking councillors who are incapable of making a fair decision include Cllr Johnson, who very publicly came out in support of it or Cllr Foxcroft, who has - as far as I am aware - pretty neutral on the subject?

The accusation that they will not be given a fair hearing is groundless.

Anonymous said...

If Cllr Jonson was seeking cores he wouldn't be voting yes! He's showing leadership and representing those on the margins and possibly loosing support in the process. Good on him. Representatives represent all sectors, not just "respectable" types.

Brockley Nick said...

Yes, he's taking what he believes is the right stance, rather than what is necessarily the "popular" stance. But that gives a lie to the idea that the centre will not be given a fair hearing by populist politicians.

Anonymous said...

Planning committees are made up of a number of councillors not just one or two.

Joan Ruddock is a fine example of a politician who could look both ways at the same time...takes to the streets to protest at closure of local post office while voting for the bill that would close it.

Anonymous said...

Let's say the centre takes 3-6 months to to establish itself, with 6 -9 months possibly remaining what is it supposed to do?

Reduce what it spends on its rehab programmes to fund a possible months a few months later or not allow for a move and risk the programmes being terminated till another site is negotiated?

To imply the 12 month rule won't affect the work of the unit or staffing is naive.

Brockley Nick said...

@Anon

"Let's say the centre takes 3-6 months to to establish itself, with 6 -9 months possibly remaining what is it supposed to do?"

Carry on as though it will get an extended licence. They don't need to change any of their plans.

"To imply the 12 month rule won't affect the work of the unit or staffing is naive."

I hope it will affect their work, making sure that they take their responsibility to local residents seriously.

Anonymous said...

Carry on as though it will get an extended licence. They don't need to change any of their plans.

To say it won't affect their plans is naive.

The unit could have excellent outcomes but a group of curtain twitches could note every minor incident blow it up out of propotion and lay it at the feet of the unit to get it out the area.

Leeds football ground isn't held respomsible for what happens outside its ground the risk here is one or two bad apples could put a much needed health scheme at risk.

They can't blindly spend their budget as if there is no 12 month rule are they to conjure up the money to move location for reasons beyond their control?

Brockley Nick said...

"The unit could have excellent outcomes but a group of curtain twitches could note every minor incident blow it up out of propotion and lay it at the feet of the unit to get it out the area."

No, I don't think that is what would happen at all. The system is being run by sensible people. Local people are sensible. That is, after all, why it was located here in the first place - because it was hounded out of New Cross to somewhere where the people are more tolerant.

"Leeds football ground isn't held respomsible for what happens outside its ground the risk here is one or two bad apples could put a much needed health scheme at risk."

You sound like you are anticipating that it will cause an increase in problems. If that is the case, then it should be located in a non-residential area. But I don't necessarily think that it will. Hence a one year trial being sensible.

"They can't blindly spend their budget as if there is no 12 month rule are they to conjure up the money to move location for reasons beyond their control?"

A business like this can lose its licence to operate any time. All this does is put in a guaranteed date for a review. If there are no major problems, it continues. If there are major problems, it doesn't - but in those circumstances, it should lose its licence anyway. All this means is that no-one can turn a blind eye to it.

It may cause them some extra inconvenience, but I think you are grossly overstating how much. And better that the admins are a bit inconvenienced, than local residents are.

Danja said...

That is, after all, why it was located here in the first place - because it was hounded out of New Cross to somewhere where the people are more tolerant.

I missed that, give us a link or something?

Anonymous said...

usual problems in lewisham.

Anonymous said...

It's time we legalised fare

Brockley Central Label Cloud

Click one of the labels below to see all posts on that subject. The bigger the label, the more posts there are!