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

[teuchter]

I have to say, I need to remind myself how the mayor's 'calling in' process works exactly.

 

[Gramsci]

I was wondering on implications of Mayor calling in this application now. If that is the case. Does it mean it does not go to planning committee?

 

[JSR]

Community please respond to this new application posted on 9th April for two 29 and 20 storey tower blocks at Wellfit St, Loughborough Junction. Deadline for comments 29th April

Comments to be submitted using reference 19/04280/FUL

online www.lambeth.gov.uk/planningdatabase

Please note, this planning application should not to be confused with the proposal to build a 16 storey block on the adjacent site at Higgs Triangle, which I think has just been approved. It is an adjacent and very small site

Thank you for your support

 

[i_hate_beckham]

I fully support this application.

 

[kalidarkone]

Wouldn't this be better in the London and Brixton forum?

 

[JSR]

Wouldn't this be better in the London and Brixton forum?

Thanks - I will look where that is and change it

 

[kalidarkone]

Thanks - I will look where that is and change it

Or ask the mods to move it

 

[editor]

*Thread moved. I'll merge it with the existing thread later.

Update:

 

[JSR]

Thank you - can I take it that my post is in the right place now and I don't need to do anything to move it? Appreciate it

 

[editor]

merged

 

[Gramsci]

*Thread moved. I'll merge it with the existing thread later.

Update:

Cllr Dickson has been against the tower blocks from early on. Ive heard him at local LJ meetings.

He has kept to that.

It is in his Council ward.

So don't see what People's Audit are getting at.

 

[teuchter]

I think their angle is if this is against policy then why aren't other high rise buildings in the area against policy. It's not an entirely unreasonable question because Lambeth have given permission for a lot of tall buildings which you could argue are against their own policies.

 

[Gramsci]

LJAG informed me of this letter from Mayor planning dept to Lambeth.

Its in public domain as view of GLA planning section of the application. Its still up to Lambeth to decide.

Application is high so this letter is view of GLA planning dept. Once Lambeth make a decision they refer it to GLA /Mayor. They decide then to agree or call it in.

Unfortunately for objectors the GLA planning dept are saying that plans would cause less than substantial harm to local Conservation areas. Ruskin and Loughborough Park. That the plans are positive in bringing new housing and increasing workspace on site. So saying height of towers can be outweighed by community benefits.

GLA has reservations on plans.

Due to height of towers design has to be high standard. They aren't happy with appearance and how it fits in with the local environment.

Entrance to flats should be moved and made more attractive to residents.

Children's play space is limited to infants. Older children are expected to use parks. The play area is near railway lines and not particularly attractive space.

Not enough cycle parking spaces.

The railway arches nearby are not owned by applicant. There use for car business etc needs to be not affected by this development. This needs clarification. Also flats above need to be ensured to not have noise issues from the workspace and arches.

 

[Gramsci]

From here,

pr

gla.force.com

 

[Gramsci]

Instead of reading whole letter (I did) one can go to conclusion as that summarises well GLA view.

 

[Gramsci]

This will be on agenda of next Loughborough junction neighbourhood meeting.

LJ Neighbourhood Forum Wednesday 28 April at 7pm

And this info on the towers. Comments to planning need to be in by end of week.

Fight the Loughborough Junction Twin Towers - 20 & 29 soreys tall

 

[editor]

So Lambeth have refused planning permission

Lambeth Council refuses planning permission for the Loughborough Junction Twin Towers, but the fight goes on

Lambeth Council has refused planning permission for the 20 story and 29 storey ‘twin towers’ development in Hardess Street, Loughborough Junction but have warned that the fight is over…

www.brixtonbuzz.com

 

[JSR]

LJAG flyer - please circulate this round and get objections sent out - it is the Mayor who will be considering it now

 

[teuchter]

Lambeth's reasons for refusal now issued -

Refuse Permission

The following conditions for permission or reasons for refusal apply:


1 The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development cannot viably deliver a 50% affordable housing provision in line with Local Plan policy requirements. The applicant's supporting viability information does not adequately justify the development's inability to
support the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing in respect to a policy compliant tenure mix. As such, the proposal would not be in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) Chapter 5; Policy H4 and H5 of the London Plan (2021); and Policy H2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (20150 and Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan (Submission Version January 2020).

2 The proposed layout, height and massing relate poorly to the site itself and are alsoonsidered out of keeping with the site, its context and townscape and is symptomatic of over-development. The scheme does not successfully integrate the proposed uses on site or with the surrounding area, creates illegible pedestrian routes and residential communal entrances and forms an overbearing relationship to adjacent sites which in turn would causeharm to amenity. The scheme fails to achieve a high quality of architectural design in terms of its form, materials, and finished appearance and therefore does not make an overall positive contribution to the area. The proposal is therefore considered not to be of the highest quality and would be contrary to National Planning Policy Framework (2019) Chapters 12 and 16 and development plan policies, including Policies D3, D4, D6, D8, D9 of the London Plan (2021); Policies Q1, Q2, Q3, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q14, and Q26 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and Policies Q1, Q2, Q3, Q5, Q6, Q7 and Q26 of the Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan (Submission Version January 2020).

3 The proposed bulk, scale and massing of development would cause less than substantial harm to adjacent heritage assets which has not been justified and is not outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme. In particular, the 20 and 29-storey elements by reason of their size, architectural design and choice of materials creates dominant building forms that amplifies their incongruousness with designated heritage assets. The heritage issues that arise as a result of the unsuitable development design are symptomatic of overdevelopment. As such the proposals would be contrary to National Planning Policy Framework (2019) Chapters 12 and 16 and development plan policies, including Policies D9, HC1 and HC3 of the London Plan (2021); Policies Q5 (b), Q7 (ii), Q20 (ii), Q21(iv) Q22 (ii), Q25 and Q26 (iii) and (iv) of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan Policies Q5 (b), Q7 (ii), Q20 (ii), Q21(iv) Q22 (ii), Q25 and Q26 (iii) and (iv) (Submission Version January 2020).

4 Insufficient information has been submitted at present to demonstrate that appropriate sound insulation and noise mitigation measures would be incorporated to protect future residents from undue noise and disturbance. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and Policy Q2 of the Draft Review Lambeth Local Plan (Submission Version January 2020).

5 The proposed layout and design of communal amenity and playspace is inadequate in terms of its quality, safety and usability which in turn would result in a poor-quality residential environment for future occupiers of the development. As such, the proposal would not be in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019) Chapters 2 and 12; Policies D4 and D6 of the London Plan (2021); THE Mayor's Play and Informal Recreation SPG; and Policies H5 and Q1 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015 ) and Policies H5 and Q1 of the Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan (Submission Version January 2020).

6 The proposed development, by reason of its height, scale and massing and proximity to neighbouring residential properties would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers in Wanless Road (Nos. 9 and 11) and Hinton Road (Nos. 11, 13, 15 and 17) to the south and south-east in terms of loss of daylight; would appear overly dominant when viewed from the back gardens of residential properties particularly along Wanless Road and Hinton Road resulting in an increased sense of enclosure and loss of outlook; and would lead to a significant loss of daylight to the identified windows within Blocks B, C and D and overshadowing and loss of light to the central communal courtyard of the approved Higgs Industrial Estate scheme (ref. 18/05425/FUL) currently under construction to the north to the detriment of its future occupiers. As such, the proposal would be contrary to National Planning Policy Framework (2019) Chapter 12 and development plan policies, including Policy D9 (3) (a) of the London Plan (2021) and Policies Q2 and Q26 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan (Submission Version January 2020).

7 The proposed cycle parking design would fail to provide satisfactory provision for the future occupiers of the development contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) Chapters 2, 8, 9 and 12; Policies D5 and T5 of the London Plan (2021); Chapter 8 of the London Cycle Design Guide (2014); and Policies Q1, Q13 and T1 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan (Submission Version January 2020).

8 The proposal would fail to make appropriate arrangements for servicing, deliveries and refuse collection; would render 3 of the disabled bays unusable when loading/servicing occurs; and would be prejudicial to pedestrian and highway safety. As such, the proposal would be contrary to National Planning Policy Framework (2019) Chapter 12 and development plan policies, including Policy T7 of the London Plan (2021); Policies T6 and T8 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and Policy T8 of the Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan (Submission Version January 2020).

9 The proposed design of the covered pedestrian passageway between the two towers would create a hostile environment that would produce a fear of crime and lead to opportunities for crime and anti-social behaviour. As such, the proposal would be unacceptable on community safety grounds and contrary to National Planning Policy Framework (2019) Chapter 12 and development plan policies, including Policy Q3 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and Policy T8 of the Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan (Submission Version January 2020).

10 The proposal fails to demonstrate that the highest standards of fire safety would be achieved. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policy D12 of the London Plan (2021).

11 In the absence of agreed heads of terms and a legal agreement to secure agreed policy compliant financial and non-financial contributions including securing affordable housing, employment, skills, training and enterprise and transport and sustainable design matters the development fails to mitigate its impact on local services, amenities, infrastructure and the environment contrary to the requirements of Chapter 4 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019); Policy DF1 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy D4 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan (Submission Version January 2020).

 

[JSR]

Lambeth's reasons for refusal now issued -

Thank you for posting this! That is a relief

 

[teuchter]

Thank you for posting this! That is a relief

Now we wait for a resubmission and see how many storeys they have reduced it by.

 

[teuchter]

Here we go with a new scheme; expect it to be pushed hard as "much lower than the previous extremely tall scheme" but it's still nearly as tall as the Higgs one and bulkier than the "twin towers". Haven't had a chance to look at it properly yet.

Hardess Yard

hardessyard.co.uk

 

[Gramsci]

Hardess Yard

hardessyard.co.uk

I see they have exhibition of new ideas for the site today at Hardess yard

 

[Torpid Scorpion]

Am I correct in thinking that ‘coliving’ means insecure tenancies at market rates aimed at a transient population of students and technology consultants?

 

[teuchter]

exhibition of new ideas for the site today at Hardess yard

Which appears only to have been announced yesterday, or at least that was the first I heard about it, via LJAG email.

 

[BusLanes]

Am I correct in thinking that ‘coliving’ means insecure tenancies at market rates aimed at a transient population of students and technology consultants?

Like the ones they advertise on the tube for Wembley area, Triangle or something?

 

[philosophical]

Lewisham is being turned into Dallas with huge tall ghettos of matchboxes costing a fortune, where the basic services in the buildings are reportedly already going to chite.
I went to a meeting with the building company that want to develop Leegate (which is about as shitty a place as you could ever find) and asked how much ‘affordable homes’ would cost, and related it to the pay of a staff nurse at Lewisham hospital with ten years work under the belt.
The response was to take my details with a promise to get back to me with an answer, which hasn’t happened, but also a comment about having to make a profit.
I am preaching to the converted on Urban, but the concept of affordable homes is as disingenuous as the concept of Brexit, or 40 new hospitals.
Yes develop inner city wastelands, but for the community not for fucking huge profit for property developers.

 

[Gramsci]

Which appears only to have been announced yesterday, or at least that was the first I heard about it, via LJAG email.

I only heard yesterday as well.

 

[Gramsci]

I went.

Unlike last time not given different options. This is partly worked up plan. Height of the building will be less than Higgs. But high. Architects have been talking to Lambeth planners about height. So I expect this time when it goes to planning it will be recommended for approval. This isn't a radical blue skys thinking design. More plodding and possibly boring. Building looks average non controversial look.

Workspaces will be in building next to it.

The housing will be a Co Living space. Looking at the rough plan this is rabbit hutches for " young professionals". As this appears to be there target renters.

Flats will have a cooking facilities/ bathroom. But it is very small.

I suppose from an investors point of view building rabbit hutches maximises the rental stream from the land.

The architect said there is "emerging policy" on rabbit hutch building in the GLA/ Lambeth. So these living spaces are bit bigger than a HMO for example.

I was not that impressed. Asked architect about affordable housing element. Architect said they have been talking to Lambeth about that and will give a payment instead of an affordable housing element on site. Architect said that for a "Co Living" development Lambeth have already given that the ok. Im not happy with this. It is like Lambeth planning is making policy on the hoof.

On climate change:

BREEAM excellent, electricity only, heat pumps, solar panels.

All in all this scheme is likely to get thumbs up from planners. This time around they are discussing scheme with planners as it is developed.

This short notice public pre application consultation is part of that. So I will comment on the affordable housing element.

 

[Gramsci]

I did find the board on why Co Living is such a great idea vaguely off.

As the people who will use the new housing will be "young professionals" they will not put strain on services in the area. Unlike the rest of us. The board on reasons why came across as the only people to be living there will be youthful Übermensch. This is when the consultation exhibition started to get a bit Ballardian. Yes this will be a community of the best specimens of humanity living in a new new experiment - Co- Living. A community of "like minded people"

With a sign on front saying working class / old / sick/ poor need not apply.

One of the many benefits of this carefully selected prize specimens is that they are educated so wont commit crime/ ASB and will be better qualified to help in the community.

A whole load of class based prejudice/ assumptions here.

BTW are landlords able to specify who they want in their property?