29 and 20 storey tower blocks proposed for Hardess Street /Wellfit St, Loughborough Junction.

[editor]

Great to see more people getting involved and adding their comments on the LJ mega tower proposals:

• Total Consulted: 150
• Comments Received: 91
• Objections: 87
• Supporting: 3

19/04280/FUL | Demolition of existing retail and industrial buildings and erection of a car free, part 3, part 20, part 29-storey mixed-use podium building comprising 2073m2 of employment floorspace (Use Class B1 a) and c)) with ancillary sandwich bar/cafe(Use Classes A1/A3) and site caretakers accommodation, an industrial yard of 55m2 and 170 dwellings with associated disabled car parking, cycle and bin stores, and hard and soft landscaping. | 1, 3-11 Wellfit Street, 7-9 Hinton Road & Units 1-4 Hardess Street London SE24 0HN

planning.lambeth.gov.uk

 

[Gramsci]

It could be that Metaphorm are pushing ahead with planning application as they expect it to go to appeal.

That is the Planning dept wil tun the application down. Or if it goes to Planning Committee it will be turned down.

Herne Hill Cllrs are going to oppose it as far as I know.

Metaphorm , Ive heard , have got financial backing for the scheme.

If it goes to appeal its out of the Councils hands.

 

[DJWrongspeed]

i agree that'd you need more Thameslink trains to cope with the demand there. Aren't they just going for 29 floors to get eventually 20. It ticks the boxes in terms of building where transport links are and London needs houses but I just don't think the Herne Hill nimbys will allow it. It's a flat cycle commute into the city and walking distance to the tube. So long as it only has disable parking i'm broadly in favour.

 

[Gramsci]

Started reading the "design and access statement" on the planning website.

This is the easiest way to learn more about the application. The applicants justification and reasoning.

Annoyingly its spread over 19 separate pdfs of 10 pages each. Most irritating.

At end is detail on the consultation and pre application work the developer has done.

On public consultation they put what they say were the findings of the public consultation. That out of the three alternative ideas for the site the towers were the ones that people went for.

They leave out the findings of the second public consultation. I can't find them so far. Could be when faced with the results they decided not to use that in the planning application.

I went to both. At seond I heard a lot of people raise concerns of the height of the towers. I dont think at first meeting the heights were given.

The pre application process with GLA and Lambeth Planning has bee extensive.

Im getting concerned about pre application process. As I saw with the Hero of Switzerland application by the time it went to committee officers were supporting the application more than the developers.

Pre application process has limited requirements for public consultation.

Metaphorm say they have consulted local community groups like Herne Hill Society and LJAG. But only in a limited way at start of process.

 

[DJWrongspeed]

With the exception of the provision of 5 on-site blue badge parking bays located on Wellfit Street, the development is proposed to be car-free, encompassing both the future residents and employees, justified by the site’s public transport accessibility and accessibility to social infrastructure.

Well this is to be welcomed. So no basement of mass parking thankfully.

 

[Gramsci]

Well this is to be welcomed. So no basement of mass parking thankfully.

This is standard for new developments. Its part of the planning guidelines that developers cant get out of. So not down to the architects. Its to discourage car use and ownership. Residents wont be able to get onstreet parking permits either.

 

[teuchter]

It would have quite considerable impact on the short row of terraced houses on hinton rd, as well as the ones along the north side of wanless rd. As far as I know, those flats along wanless rd are social housing. All those properties and their gardens will suddenly have a large number of flats looking down upon them. And I imagine will cut a significant part of their daylight out (that is, the amount of sky they see, not direct sunlight, although that would also be affected in the evenings).

But it seems that this kind of thing is no longer as big a deal as it would have been considered 10-20 years ago. I'm pretty sure that 10-20 years ago 4 or 5 storeys would have been the max for this site. Likewise any consideration of density. The new london plan effectively says anything goes, based only on a subjective assessment of impact on local amenity. The council will say they've assessed it to be acceptable, and it's harder to make an argument against that than it is if there are guideline densities to be adhered to. We've seen on the hero of Switzerland and higgs sites that the london plan "density matrix" which gives figures can basically be completely ignored.

 

[editor]

Well this is to be welcomed. So no basement of mass parking thankfully.

I'm not sure it's going to be welcomed by rush hour commuters at Loughborough Junction who already regularly face overcrowded trains. And it won't get rid of cars on the road either as I imagine many of the well-off incomers will be Uber/taxi users.

 

[DJWrongspeed]

I'm not sure it's going to be welcomed by rush hour commuters at Loughborough Junction who already regularly face overcrowded trains. And it won't get rid of cars on the road either as I imagine many of the well-off incomers will be Uber/taxi users.

But these are things that can be resolved in the long term surely? London is very low density housing. Previously the plan was to build out until we had the madness of creating huge housing estates on top of the North Downs. Welcome to New Addington.....now we actually value the downland landscape as being unique and precious.

 

[editor]

But these are things that can be resolved in the long term surely? London is very low density housing. Previously the plan was to build out until we had the madness of creating huge housing estates on top of the North Downs. Welcome to New Addington.....now we actually value the downland landscape as being unique and precious.

I'm certainly no expert but I'm not sure how you might easily resolve serious overcrowding issues on a two platform station on a massively busy London commuter line that is already at capacity.

 

[Crispy]

More trains is realistic; the track itself is quite underused. But the station itself would badly need an upgrade to cope. One flight of narrow steep stairs and 4 ticket gates does not go very far.

 

[Big Bertha]

More trains is realistic; the track itself is quite underused. But the station itself would badly need an upgrade to cope. One flight of narrow steep stairs and 4 ticket gates does not go very far.

Bit of optimism!

Makes a refreshing change, something you rarely see in the Brixton forum!

 

[ChrisSouth]

It would have quite considerable impact on the short row of terraced houses on hinton rd, as well as the ones along the north side of wanless rd. As far as I know, those flats along wanless rd are social housing. All those properties and their gardens will suddenly have a large number of flats looking down upon them. And I imagine will cut a significant part of their daylight out (that is, the amount of sky they see, not direct sunlight, although that would also be affected in the evenings).

But it seems that this kind of thing is no longer as big a deal as it would have been considered 10-20 years ago. I'm pretty sure that 10-20 years ago 4 or 5 storeys would have been the max for this site. Likewise any consideration of density. The new london plan effectively says anything goes, based only on a subjective assessment of impact on local amenity. The council will say they've assessed it to be acceptable, and it's harder to make an argument against that than it is if there are guideline densities to be adhered to. We've seen on the hero of Switzerland and higgs sites that the london plan "density matrix" which gives figures can basically be completely ignored.

I agree with you, and in all the comments about the development there have been very few comments about these properties on the north side of Wanless. These towers are going to have a tremendous impact on these houses. Looking at the application I can't see anything about a light impact report, but it may be there. Do you know if this can be requested?

 

[ChrisSouth]

More trains is realistic; the track itself is quite underused. But the station itself would badly need an upgrade to cope. One flight of narrow steep stairs and 4 ticket gates does not go very far.

3 ticket gates. One in. One out. And an erratic disabled access gate.

 

[teuchter]

I agree with you, and in all the comments about the development there have been very few comments about these properties on the north side of Wanless. These towers are going to have a tremendous impact on these houses. Looking at the application I can't see anything about a light impact report, but it may be there. Do you know if this can be requested?

There ought to be a daylight assessment in there somewhere. If not, the planning officers should pick up on it. I don't think you can request extra info as a member of the public but you can mention it in any objection if you think it's missing. I'm travelling at the moment so can't easily check for myself.

 

[teuchter]

But these are things that can be resolved in the long term surely? London is very low density housing. Previously the plan was to build out until we had the madness of creating huge housing estates on top of the North Downs. Welcome to New Addington.....now we actually value the downland landscape as being unique and precious.

I agree we shouldn't be building more low density sprawl. But inserting very high density developments into areas with existing housing has to be done sensitively.

 

[Gramsci]

But these are things that can be resolved in the long term surely? London is very low density housing. Previously the plan was to build out until we had the madness of creating huge housing estates on top of the North Downs. Welcome to New Addington.....now we actually value the downland landscape as being unique and precious.

I would like to understand what you mean by high density.

Tall buildings don't necessarily mean high density.

Take the Loughborough Estate. Post war estate of high blocks. But these blocks are set out with large amount of space between them. Streets in the sky. Not necessarily any more high density than low level development. The architects who designed estate made sure that the blocks were spaced so all had light and did not feel crammed together.

Or is what you are saying is that space / density that was considered ok post war should be dropped?

 

[Gramsci]

Ive been having a look at part 19 of the design and access doc on the planning website.

This last part is mainly about the Pre Application process and community consultation.

Personally what gets me is how little say local people have.

Metaphorm have selectively used the pre app community meetings to support there plans.

Then there was long process of pre application meetings with GLA/ Lambeth officers/ GLA Assembly members.

These have been extensive. Clearly Metaphorm saw the way to go was from the top. GLA members ( the top politicians) as well as the important planners in Lambeth / GLA

Kind of gets to me this.

At the public meetings the architects presented themselves as not like property developers but as community orientated cutting edge architects.

That didnt last long.

Like the Hero of Switzerland property developers they have gone down the route of getting agreement from the top- senior Lambeth and GLA officers.

The section I read goes into detail about the pre application meetings.

This is how planning works. Even from supposedly commmunity minded architects.

Its top down with little real say for local community.

From reading that section of the report its clear the middle class professionals know what is best. I should really feel grateful.

After reading that section of the report Im now put off the whole scheme.

I did have some time for Metaphorm. They were the most friendly of recent developers.

But I now feel they have ended up behaving like the Council when they consult people.

Ignore it when it does not fit your plan.

On a more cynical level they saw the real people to influence are those in power not the plebs.

 

[Gramsci]

I agree with you, and in all the comments about the development there have been very few comments about these properties on the north side of Wanless. These towers are going to have a tremendous impact on these houses. Looking at the application I can't see anything about a light impact report, but it may be there. Do you know if this can be requested?

There is one. Summary is similar to Hero of Switzerland. It will affect nearby properties but after discussion with planning its considered acceptable.

 

[Gramsci]

So very brief summary of the pre application meetings with Lambeth planning and GLA is that two "slender" buildings have been agreed. Rather than more "canyon" like block of buildings.

That Council planning support this level of density on this site. ( as teuchter pointed out Lambeth planner have very flexible take on density.)

Also , and this is why this application waited for Higgs application approval, that the massing proposed on this site complements Higgs site which was agreed.

The combination of workspace and housing meets officers approval.

I think that Metaphorm have done such a good job on pre application that officers might send this application to committee with planning officer recomend to approve.

Im increasingly thinking that planning process is top down.

 

[BusLanes]

More trains is realistic; the track itself is quite underused. But the station itself would badly need an upgrade to cope. One flight of narrow steep stairs and 4 ticket gates does not go very far.

I may be misremembering but isn't there a study or two about improving Loughborough Junction commissioned. Will have a google

 

[LuffPark]

Sorry to be slow on the uptake - just joined the thread & area. Could someone point me to where I could find the most recent update with where things have got to with the Higgs development? Ty

 

[teuchter]

Sorry to be slow on the uptake - just joined the thread & area. Could someone point me to where I could find the most recent update with where things have got to with the Higgs development? Ty

Higgs Development, Loughborough Junction (2019 design)

This follows on from this thread, which related to the planning application that was given permission in 2015. Shortly after gaining consent, the developers went bust, leaving a half-demolished site which could have provided the previously evicted businesses with space for another 5 years or so...

www.urban75.net

 

[teuchter]

There's now a large number of objections to this. For anyone who missed the original deadline (yesterday) to comment by - it has now been extended to the 12th March.

19/04280/FUL | Demolition of existing retail and industrial buildings and erection of a car free, part 3, part 20, part 29-storey mixed-use podium building comprising 2073m2 of employment floorspace (Use Class B1 a) and c)) with ancillary sandwich bar/cafe(Use Classes A1/A3) and site caretakers accommodation, an industrial yard of 55m2 and 170 dwellings with associated disabled car parking, cycle and bin stores, and hard and soft landscaping. | 1, 3-11 Wellfit Street, 7-9 Hinton Road & Units 1-4 Hardess Street London SE24 0HN

planning.lambeth.gov.uk

 

[CH1]

SLP did an article on 28th Feb

 

[teuchter]

I have had a chance now to look through the application documents in some detail.

Something that anyone living in Wanless Rd, or the adjacent part of Hinton Rd needs to understand:

Planning policy generally states that new developments shouldn't have a significant negative effect on the amount of daylight that is blocked out from nearby residential properties.

This is generally done with reference to some standard BRE (Building Research Establishment) guidelines on how the loss is to be measured and assessed.

A daylight assessment is included in the application documents - and it shows that tested against those BRE guidelines, there is a very significant loss of daylight to the back of the houses on Hinton Rd, the back of the houses along the N side of Wanless Rd (which includes the housing association ones) and to the front of the houses along the S side of Wanless Rd (including some of Lord Stanley Court). There are a large number of windows that fail the BRE test - the loss of daylight is not acceptable. This would normally be strong grounds for the refusal of an application.

In this case, the developers try to make an argument to get around this. They say that the normal standards for loss of daylight to residential properties should not apply here. This is based on a claim that this is not the kind of "suburban residential" area that the BRE guidelines are intended for. The BRE guidelines are commonly used for developments on streets with terraced or semi detached houses, exactly the kind of streets that Wanless Rd and Hinton Rd are - and have been historically. The developers here are trying to claim that this is a kind of central urban, high rise area. They mention the now-to-be-built Higgs development - but that is on the other side of the railway viaduct. That one development should not now give developers free reign to claim that surrounding residential streets are part of a high rise zone where the expectations for daylight levels can be lowered from the norm. The argument they are making is disingenuous and needs to be challenged. I certainly hope that the planning officers are paying proper attention to it.

Separately from planning policy, there are laws about Rights to Light that can be used by owners of properties that might be affected. If I lived in any of the nearby houses I would be looking at these if it appeared there was a possibility this was going to be given permission.

 

[editor]

Any updates on this?

I've been told that it should have been decided on yesterday, but there appears to be no information on the councils website as to what is happening in terms of progressing the application.

 

[teuchter]

The mega-tower application has come back to life. The Lambeth website now says consultation expiry at the end of this month.

19/04280/FUL | Demolition of existing retail and industrial buildings and erection of a part 3, part 20, part 29-storey mixed-use podium building comprising 2073m2 of employment floorspace (Use Class E (g) (i) and (iii)) with ancilla

planning.lambeth.gov.uk

It's noted as a "departure application" because it departs from policy Q26, which is the one about tall buildings. I can't remember if it was previously noted as such. It suggests that it has been decided that it doesn't comply with policy, but whether that means Lambeth will necessarily reject it, who knows.

 

[CH1]

editor teuchter The latest Brixton Society newsletter says that this has been called in by the Mayor, as has the Hondo scheme.
I don't know what delaying effect this has - but it seems the process might be more thorough than a two hour Lambeth Planning meeting.

 

[Gramsci]

The mega-tower application has come back to life. The Lambeth website now says consultation expiry at the end of this month.

19/04280/FUL | Demolition of existing retail and industrial buildings and erection of a part 3, part 20, part 29-storey mixed-use podium building comprising 2073m2 of employment floorspace (Use Class E (g) (i) and (iii)) with ancilla

planning.lambeth.gov.uk

It's noted as a "departure application" because it departs from policy Q26, which is the one about tall buildings. I can't remember if it was previously noted as such. It suggests that it has been decided that it doesn't comply with policy, but whether that means Lambeth will necessarily reject it, who knows.

I've had quick look. They say they have extensive pre application discussions with Lambeth and GLA officers.

The Statement of community involvement is arguing that whilst concerns were raised at the public meetings about height the positive comments on community benefit outweighed concerns.

This is starting to sound like the argument Hondo/planning officers were using on Hondo popes Road site.

Until officers report comes out we won't know if officers will support application. But imo its looking like that.