Loughborough Junction's railway arches - future use and Network Rail development

[Gramsci]

Seems Loughborough Junction Business Forum is having a meeting about the future of the arches:

REMINDER: the LJ neighbourhood planning forum and the LJ Business Association invite you to a meeting to discuss the future of the railway arches in Loughborough Junction on Thursday 20 August at 6.30pm at Sunshine International Arts, 209a Coldharbour Lane, SW9 8RR.

In case anyone interested wants to attend. I'm a bit worried about this - given the bizarre attitude of Network Rail to viable businesses in Brixton.

I went. Well that was an interesting meeting.

NR were there in force on there best behaviour. Most of the time. There was some passive aggressive backchat from them as well.

On the issue of the car repair business NR are sooo concerned about "fire risk" of industrial use of arches for car related industrial use. They say that they know have policy of no longer leasing out to car repair business.

This all seemed to me very convenient. Asked when the last fire was in LJ and they could not answer. NR said that they had fires elsewhere. But under questioning did not know the details of recent fires and how they started.

NR said that this was start of discussion with public about the future development of the arches in LJ. Under questioning they did not have detail of how much rents would rise. Not even a general figure. Nor could they give indication of what refurbishment of arches would entail. ie would it be a few repairs or totally gutting arch and starting from scratch.

NR did promise that existing car business would be given chance to stay.

I did find this contradictory. If car repair use of arches is such a fire risk in NR opinion why are they saying existing car repair business will be able to return ( if they can afford it)?

However until detail about future rents and what kind of refurbishment they would do this is all in the air imo.

I did think that the public relations fiasco re Brixton arches has meant the NR are now trying different strategy for LJ.

NR did say instead of there first idea of doing refurbishment in one go they will know phase it. ie do one street of arches at a time. It will take longer.

Council officer was there to do the Council line that people want more retail in LJ and more mixed use of arches. ie imo Council are supporting NR.

There was a varied group of people present. Including a lot of LJAG, Warrior Studios, The Whirled cinema, a car repair business, Loughborough EMB and a few locals like me. So pretty good cross section.

I did suggest that NR do an Equalities Impact Assessment. This got support in audience. NR looked uncomfortable about this. Not exactly saying yes or no. I did say the reason I brought it up was that a lot of the business in arches were Afro Caribbean. They had spent the whole meeting doing the we are listening line. With the Regen Council officers as there chorus.

Several people went on about the mix of business and not for profit use of the arches. A person involved in the boxing training charity ( CH1 posted on this) was present. Asking about NR attitude towards having a mix of uses. Some of which were charities/ not for profit that may not afford "market" rent.

It was also pointed out that some arches had been done up a few years ago. It was difficult to get straight answer from NR what they actually thought need to be done to arches to bring them up to standard. The answer at one point being that NR would discuss this with each individual tenant.

It was somewhat disturbing to me that NR kept saying that they wanted to talk to individual tenants about all issues. It was like they do not want arches to band together and lobby.

I also found NR contradictory. At one moment they were saying they wanted to discuss issues with individual business owners. Then they were saying to the meeting that this was only the start of the process and they wanted an ongoing dialogue with the LJ planning forum.

LJAG members were asking all the right questions.

What I took from this was that NR are not in a hurry about LJ arches. They realise the Brixton issue is PR issue.

Agreed there will be follow up meeting in November on this issue.

NR did say they may put in planning application for Rathgar road. But got the impression they are in no rush at this time.

The other impression I got was that Lambeth Councils Regen dept position will be a supine relationship with NR. Anything they can do to help---------NR

 

[CH1]

I went. Well that was an interesting meeting....................................
The other impression I got was that Lambeth Councils Regen dept position will be a supine relationship with NR. Anything they can do to help---------NR

Thank you for this detailed appraisal. Sorry I was unable to attend due to cultural commitments.

I am glad LJAG were asking questions. It would be good to think that the LJAG-led Loughborough Junction Business Forum was acting on behalf of existing businesses as well as the council. The equalities issue is important - this is why Brixton Challenge funded the upgrade of the arches in 1994 (or have Network Rail forgotten?).

The use of fire hazard seems to be the last resort of the scoundrel (to coin a phrase).

 

[teuchter]

Thank you for this detailed appraisal. Sorry I was unable to attend due to cultural commitments.

I am glad LJAG were asking questions. It would be good to think that the LJAG-led Loughborough Junction Business Forum was acting on behalf of existing businesses as well as the council. The equalities issue is important - this is why Brixton Challenge funded the upgrade of the arches in 1994 (or have Network Rail forgotten?).

The use of fire hazard seems to be the last resort of the scoundrel (to coin a phrase).

Fire hazard thing seems suspect to me too. I would ask what the evidence is that it's a greater risk to have a car repair shop rather than, say, a restaurant with kitchen and deep fat fryers etc.

 

[Gramsci]

Thank you for this detailed appraisal. Sorry I was unable to attend due to cultural commitments.

I am glad LJAG were asking questions. It would be good to think that the LJAG-led Loughborough Junction Business Forum was acting on behalf of existing businesses as well as the council. The equalities issue is important - this is why Brixton Challenge funded the upgrade of the arches in 1994 (or have Network Rail forgotten?).

The use of fire hazard seems to be the last resort of the scoundrel (to coin a phrase).

I was glad I went. This LJ regular planning meetings are for not just LJAG members but any interested people who live / work in the area. So I will try to go to the next one. Which will be focusing on the recent masterplan consultations.

Glad u and teuchter also find the use of fire risk argument as suspect.

I was quite vocal about this. As its was something that NR went on about from the start. Its also something I know about as its how Council had a go at my community.

Its good to get feedback as I do wonder if I am on right track. The bigwigs from Lambeth Council and NR can make one feel that one is a bit stupid or difficult. Or in case of NR implying one was not concerned about peoples safety.

Probably good I am not in LJAG as can say what I want. LJAGs problem is that Council regard them as a group they can work with. This is a dangerous situation to be in. And Its something I think LJAG are starting to realise. Lesson number one NEVER TRUST THE COUNCIL. Especially a Nu Labour one like this.Told one of LJAG this.

Did chat to LJAG member and she did not have problem with what I said. She also made the good point that arch business owners may feel inhibited from saying to much or publicly attending meetings as NR may take a hard line with them. So its actually better for concerned local residents to go off on one about what is happening.

The Council officer present also seemed to imply that the car repair workshops in Ridgeway road attracted criminal activity. And that the Council were thinking of putting double yellow lines to stop car parking. Which imo will destroy the business there. I got distinct feeling that Council will do anything to further NR plans. Whilst pretending to be impartial about it. In the same comment the officer also said "consultation" also said that people wanted wider range of retail. So it looks to me that Council will not support the industrial uses in LJ. Which as CH1 pointed out a while back that Council did designate LJ for industrial use.

NR are trying to make distinction between what they say is "Heavy industrial" and "Light Industrial". I was wondering if this is arguable in planning terms. NR are trying to create categories of industrial use?

NR are bringing in "inward investment". The Council look at NR and the little guy who has run a car repair workshop for years and who do the Council back? The little guy will go to the wall.

Which is why I suggested a Equalities Impact Assessment. I did say a lot of existing car repair business were Afro Caribbean.

 

[Gramsci]

Fire hazard thing seems suspect to me too. I would ask what the evidence is that it's a greater risk to have a car repair shop rather than, say, a restaurant with kitchen and deep fat fryers etc.

There was a guy at the meeting who introduced himself as a experienced barrister and part time judge.

He did sum up the arguments about the arches as a judge would do. He pointed out the so far NR had make statements about fire risk but not produced detailed evidence to back it up.

He also picked up on my point when I asked about when the last fire had happened at LJ. A question NR could not answer.

The issue of other uses being potentially risky was brought up by someone else. NR did not show a coherent argument about risky uses.

He also picked up on my and other peoples queries about what improvement of the arches would entail. ie a few improvements or totally gutting arches and starting from scratch.

NR kept saying that nothing is decided yet. That the main thing was to talk to individual business. This is another thing they kept saying. I was concerned about this as it seems to me that the one thing they do not want is business getting together as in Brixton to oppose NR.

NR also said that before talking to meeting like this they wanted to talk / write to individual business first. It all smacked to me of putting pressure on individuals.

 

[teuchter]

NR are trying to make distinction between what they say is "Heavy industrial" and "Light Industrial". I was wondering if this is arguable in planning terms. NR are trying to create categories of industrial use?

.

There are different categories of industrial use for planning purposes. Range from B1 to B7. B1 basically means stuff that wouldn't affect nearby residents. B2 allows a bit more and then the other ones are different kinds of what you might call heavy industry. These classifications were significant in the Higgs application although they tried to pretend they weren't really changing anything. Effectively a load of B2 use will disappear.

I don't know what the arches are classified as at the moment. I guess it will vary from street to street and arch to arch. Something to keep a close eye on with any planning applications. If they change the use classifications to more restrictive ones then it effectively reduces the potential diversity of employment types in LJ. Lambeth seemed uninterested in that argument during the Higgs applications though.

The retention of industrial space is something I've tried to talk about at the recent consultations. Hard to judge how much people really care about it. A lot of people go on about artists studios etc being important to LJs identity but I think the industrial stuff is too. Perhaps more so.

 

[Gramsci]

There are different categories of industrial use for planning purposes. Range from B1 to B7. B1 basically means stuff that wouldn't affect nearby residents. B2 allows a bit more and then the other ones are different kinds of what you might call heavy industry. These classifications were significant in the Higgs application although they tried to pretend they weren't really changing anything. Effectively a load of B2 use will disappear.

I don't know what the arches are classified as at the moment. I guess it will vary from street to street and arch to arch. Something to keep a close eye on with any planning applications. If they change the use classifications to more restrictive ones then it effectively reduces the potential diversity of employment types in LJ. Lambeth seemed uninterested in that argument during the Higgs applications though.

The retention of industrial space is something I've tried to talk about at the recent consultations. Hard to judge how much people really care about it. A lot of people go on about artists studios etc being important to LJs identity but I think the industrial stuff is too. Perhaps more so.

Was thinking of this post today. This is very helpful as makes it more clear to me.

I think the NR plan will be to reduce the more heavy industrial stuff through using the classifications.

I think it might come earlier than planning application as it may be used in the developing masterplan.

The next meeting of the LJ planning forum will discuss the masterplan.

So use of classifications would be a good thing to bring up.

 

[teuchter]

What would be good to bring up is the concept of employment diversity. I'm not too sure how much validity this has as an argument on planning grounds (in other words could it be used as a reason to object to a planning application for change of use classification).

As far as I remember from when I was looking through stuff for the higgs thing it does, somewhere in planning policy, talk about providing a range of local employment. Would have to go and look through it all again to find the actual wording.

There are also certain areas that are protected under policy for industrial/employment usage. Forgotten for now what the proper name for them is (posting from phone just now). I don't think the arches fall within any of these (but there is a map somewhere which shows them).

I don't know what the process is to get an area classified as such. Nor do I know whether it's in any way within the scope of what the masterplan can influence. Like i say i haven't felt there's been a great strength of feeling about protecting the industrial uses, during the masterplan discussions. But, it's something I'd be willing to support.

 

[teuchter]

These maps are nicked from the LJ Masterplan Booklet which you can download here (it's worth having a read through anyway for some background information)

Firstly the land owned by Network Rail (mainly arches but note that they own some other bits of land adjacent to the railways




Secondly a map showing land usage throughout; this gives an idea of how many of the arches currently have "light industrial" use:


(Also shows where the currently empty arches are)

 

[Beasley]

There was a guy at the meeting who introduced himself as a experienced barrister and part time judge.

Sounds like that was Nicholas Padfield QC who had apparently agreed to provide pro-bono legal advice on strategy to LJAG -- he was mentioned in their invitation email for the meeting.

 

[Gramsci]

Sounds like that was Nicholas Padfield QC who had apparently agreed to provide pro-bono legal advice on strategy to LJAG -- he was mentioned in their invitation email for the meeting.

Yes it was him.

Hes also a judge. At one point he summed up the points that everyone had made to the NR representatives. They really did not know how to answer him.

Very much what a Judge would do when getting a load of bull from the barristers in court.

Nice to see NR PR mouthy guy speechless.

Its fucking annoying that one needs someone like Nicholas on board. ( he was very good). The ordinary folk like me they can dismiss. I might have right idea but not always ability to put it forward.

 

[teuchter]

He should sign up to urban75

 

[Gramsci]

Remembered I forgot to add to my report that one business owner turned up to the meeting that starts this thread ( Whirled cinema I think) and said that they were having rent review for the arch they were in. NR started out with a 50% rise on what they had been paying. They are contesting this.

This is for arch now. Not after refurbishment.

Goes to show that NR are seeking to maximise income and fuck the existing business.

Whether this strategy will work in LJ I wonder. Its not like the now trendy Brixton up here in LJ (yet).

 

[Gramsci]

These maps are nicked from the LJ Masterplan Booklet which you can download here (it's worth having a read through anyway for some background information)

Firstly the land owned by Network Rail (mainly arches but note that they own some other bits of land adjacent to the railways


View attachment 75773

Secondly a map showing land usage throughout; this gives an idea of how many of the arches currently have "light industrial" use:

View attachment 75774
(Also shows where the currently empty arches are)

According to LJAG up to 40% of the arches in the area are not used. This does surprise me. NR did not contest this figure at the meeting.

On CHL behind me it looks like on the map the arches are empty. They are very big. In Belinda road the brewery use on the same line so one can see the size.

I do not understand why they are not used.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Thanks for these really good write-ups Gramsci

The Council officer present also seemed to imply that the car repair workshops in Ridgeway road attracted criminal activity. And that the Council were thinking of putting double yellow lines to stop car parking.

This is rubbish imo. People (locals, kids, street drinkers etc) have always hung around on the corner of Ridgway Road, mainly cos it's a convenient place to sit on the wall, and there's a bus stop there. Equating that with "criminal activity" is disgraceful and underhand, just like the council and police did when they "cleaned up" Coldharbour Lane 5(ish) years ago. The car repair workshops are people's livelihoods, they provide jobs and services for local people, and in some cases people have been there for years. If anything, they prevent criminal activity by being there.

Also, there already are double yellow lines on parts of Ridgway Road - which the traffic wardens don't bother to enforce anyway. Cars are parked there because the businesses need them parked there - they repair cars after all! They're not in anyone's way - it's not a through road. It all sounds depressingly familiar: invent a load of reasons why the status quo can't continue - parking, crime, fire risk etc.

 

[Gramsci]

depressingly familiar: invent a load of reasons why the status quo can't continue - parking, crime, fire risk etc.

I was pretty incensed when the Council officer came out with that. As far as I was concerned the comment was borderline racial stereotyping. Without of course saying so explicitly.

To make the comment he did after a business owner on that road had talked very well about the issues.

Thats when I said about doing an EIA Equalities Impact Assessment. It was as much directed at Council as at NR.

I really hate having to deal with the Council.

And you are exactly right - the Council and NR are looking for reasons.

 

[bimble]

Remembered I forgot to add to my report that one business owner turned up to the meeting that starts this thread ( Whirled cinema I think) and said that they were having rent review for the arch they were in. NR started out with a 50% rise on what they had been paying. They are contesting this.

This is for arch now. Not after refurbishment.

Goes to show that NR are seeking to maximise income and fuck the existing business.

Whether this strategy will work in LJ I wonder. Its not like the now trendy Brixton up here in LJ (yet).

Bit of a delayed reaction but ..
EXACTLY!
That's the thing, LJ is not Brixton Village:
Lets say NR were able to sign leases for double / 3 times the rent after refurbishment, and trendy young artesanal organic burger makers or handwoven cupcake bar move in to LJ's arches, they'll go bust within 6 months and we'll be left with nothing, dead empty space

 

[bimble]

Thanks for these really good write-ups Gramsci



This is rubbish imo. People (locals, kids, street drinkers etc) have always hung around on the corner of Ridgway Road, mainly cos it's a convenient place to sit on the wall, and there's a bus stop there. Equating that with "criminal activity" is disgraceful and underhand, just like the council and police did when they "cleaned up" Coldharbour Lane 5(ish) years ago. The car repair workshops are people's livelihoods, they provide jobs and services for local people, and in some cases people have been there for years. If anything, they prevent criminal activity by being there.

Also, there already are double yellow lines on parts of Ridgway Road - which the traffic wardens don't bother to enforce anyway. Cars are parked there because the businesses need them parked there - they repair cars after all! They're not in anyone's way - it's not a through road. It all sounds depressingly familiar: invent a load of reasons why the status quo can't continue - parking, crime, fire risk etc.

The NR man insinuated at one of those meetings a few weeks ago, that many of those businesses are in fact masquerading as car repair shops, they are just dressing up in overalls and pretending to repair cars.. really they are engaged in underpayment of rent, having low profit margins compared to an artesan bakery in Brixton Village and anti-social behaviour like that.

 

[Winot]

The NR man insinuated at one of those meetings a few weeks ago, that many of those businesses are in fact masquerading as car repair shops, they are just dressing up in overalls and pretending to repair cars.. really they are engaged in underpayment of rent, having low profit margins compared to an artesan bakery in Brixton Village and anti-social behaviour like that.

Underpayment of rent isn't a 'business' though, is it. What did he really mean - dealing?

 

[bimble]

He did not say what he really meant but that's the impression he gave yes.
I think he meant to give a general aura of undesirableness to the existing businesses and that was how he did it.

 

[Winot]

He did not say what he really meant but that's the impression he gave yes.
I think he meant to give a general aura of undesirableness to the existing businesses and that was how he did it.

Sounds like a fucking arsehole peddling borderline racist crap.

 

[Gramsci]

He did not say what he really meant but that's the impression he gave yes.
I think he meant to give a general aura of undesirableness to the existing businesses and that was how he did it.

Not sure if it was at the same meeting but I agree this is the line that Council/ NR are using. Apart from the "fire risk" argument. Did post up about this a while back.

Its infuriating.

 

[bimble]

Just had a look at the LJAG website, and am surprised by how apparently pro- NR their take, or at least their tone is.
" NR want to engage meaningfully with their current tenants? " Really?
I'm surprised that LJAG is taking such an amenable tone.
As Gramsci said above, they may be in a tricky situation but this is worryingly spineless I feel.

 

[bimble]

A month of silence here , since that last meeting I suppose, but anyone know if NR has started sending out any notice / eviction letters in LJ yet ?

 

[Aeryn]

Just had a look at the LJAG website, and am surprised by how apparently pro- NR their take, or at least their tone is.
" NR want to engage meaningfully with their current tenants? " Really?
I'm surprised that LJAG is taking such an amenable tone.
As Gramsci said above, they may be in a tricky situation but this is worryingly spineless I feel.
View attachment 76486

"I'm surprised that LJAG is taking such an amenable tone" Are you really? Why? LJAG would absolutely love an artisanal bakery under the arches instead of the existing businesses. This is exactly what they are trying to bring about with the road closures - a nice village square with quirky shops and cafes, not dirty car repair shops.

Go to some LJAG meetings, if you haven't already (vaguely remember you said you live next door to a member? Might have got that wrong). They're very open about wanting to encourage "nicer" shops and bars into the area "instead of all the hairdressers and takeaways". Look at all the promotional pictures for the pedestrianised zone with the "Brewtique" instead of the fried chicken place.

I know that not every member of LJAG is an exclusionary gentrifier (my neighbour is a member too), but that is definitely their current official position.

 

[bimble]

Yes, I think I'm a bit less ignorant and naive now than I was then.
I understand better now that there is a particular prettifying agenda / vision of the future being pushed at LJAG. And that in a vision of 'Brewtiques' it would be a good thing for NR to get rid of all the messy industrial activity in the arches and replace with cupcake shops.

 

[CH1]

Yes, I think I'm a bit less ignorant and naive now than I was then.
I understand better now that there is a particular prettifying agenda / vision of the future being pushed at LJAG. And that in a vision of 'Brewtiques' it would be a good thing for NR to get rid of all the messy industrial activity in the arches and replace with cupcake shops.

I think there is scope for co-existence here. Don't know whether you've been to that Clarkshaws brewery which opens as a "Tap Room" on Saturdays - in the "deep arches" on Belinda Road?

I have been a couple of times. It struck me how diverse the clientèle was - surprisingly. Clarkshaws Brewery moved to LJ because of being priced out of premises in East Dulwich (East Dulwich too is regenerating or gentrifying).

I would be very happy if Clarkshaws were in a formerly derelict shop as per the architectural mock-up you are referring to. But as ever it is all down to finance. I guess for the time being an arch was what they could afford - and if Network Rail get their way this might unfortunately be another transition for them.

Actually a "Brewtique" as cited by you and Aeryn would replace the now lost-to-Tesco Warrior public house, which in the 1980s did indeed brew its own beer (before that became fashionable unfortunately).

I think the problem comes in the Stalinist way improvements to LJ are being "visualised". LJAG and a few architectural consultants do not speak for the people as you say, and as a gradualist liberal I would say there is also a role for organic change.

 

[bimble]

It's true that place is great. Very good beer and when I was there last was at a table shared with some LJAG people and the welders from the metal workshop a few arches down.

 

[Aeryn]

Yes, I think I'm a bit less ignorant and naive now than I was then.
I understand better now that there is a particular prettifying agenda / vision of the future being pushed at LJAG. And that in a vision of 'Brewtiques' it would be a good thing for NR to get rid of all the messy industrial activity in the arches and replace with cupcake shops.

Ah, hadn't noticed the date on that, sorry!

 

[bimble]

This thread over here is getting quiet and dusty presumably just because nobody's got any news re the eviction notices that Network Rail man was saying months ago that he was getting ready to start sending out.. My personal opinion the whole road closure scheme is intimately linked with the coming evictions of the undesirable car repair people - just wonder if anybody has heard anything about the progress of the promised evictions?