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

[Gramsci]

 

[Gramsci]

 

[Gramsci]

They look tiny to me. And no balcony.

They didn't give any special figures for rent.

 

[JSR]

I went to the Hardess Yard consult too. Some of the things I was told are

• It is going to be 300 homes for single people which are rental only - studios with some communal areas and workspace areas aimed at the 25 - 35 yr olds
• The building runs along the entire stretch parallel to Wanless Rd and is 14 storeys high with a terrace at 12 storeys for all the inhabitants to use, looking South
• The access route being made much of, between Hinton and Herne Hill Roads includes walking through a tunnel like area underneath some of the building
• There is zero parking, so anyone with a car will have to park on a neighbouring street and should be able to get a parking permit
• the building will not affect anyone's light or privacy
• it shouldn't cast a shadow over all the properties below
• the people on the roof terrace or in the studios will be so far away that they won't be able to see into any homes of gardens

...... errr, the sun goes down right behind this building which is like a 14 storey wall.....

 

[GuyBoi]

We are in the studios in the archway which this will directly neighbour with - whirled cinema and miguels boxing gym. We've only been told that day before about the meeting, and no one came to the studio to discuss the plans with us like they did before. It all feels very underhand.

When I tried the VR experience the alleyway had been replaced with a large glass cafe, tables outside. I wonder how this will clash with the boxing gym which already uses that outdoor space, as well as the cinema which frequently runs late nights + music, people coming and going. I can imagine the new residents complaining. I can't see the MOT garages surviving such a redevolpment also. They currently fill the space with junk cars, surely this won't fit.

Most concerning is the 'co-living' aspect. At least if it was proper flats you'd be bringing people to the area who would go to nearby pubs and shops spending money and becoming local, i'm OK with that if there's the room. Co-living is much more temprorary, expensive rentals of a month to a year max typically. More for young professionals and wealthy students who need a base for a short while, I don't think it would bring much of anything to the area except a busier train station. This sort of thing could be justified in central London City where no one really lives anyway, but completely clashes with an area like Loughborough Junction where you want actual residents who reside.

Finally is the more broader concern of what this means for London - older, interesting and quirky rough areas being genericised with identical boxes of unaffordable living, that fails to mesh with what's around. Souless concept-art cafes and co-working spaces that just leave you feeling grey. We'll end up with a very boring city and expensive capital.

 

[teuchter]

The "feedback form" on the website really is a joke, taking the leading questions approach to new levels.

 

[Gramsci]

The "feedback form" on the website really is a joke, taking the leading questions approach to new levels.

Just had a look. I agree. The questions are so framed as to make it difficult to say no to them. I don't really want to answer them.

 

[JSR]

Just had a look. I agree. The questions are so framed as to make it difficult to say no to them. I don't really want to answer them.

I couldn't even look at the feedback form on the table by the door incase I spontaneously combusted - I remember the feedback form from a Higgs Triange consult "would you like to see more employment opportunities in the local area?' tick/yes please "would you like more affordable housing" tick/yes please "would like improved amenities" tick/yes please. Result stated on next flyer "95% of our respondents approve our plans" .... or some such similar thing along these lines

 

[teuchter]

I couldn't even look at the feedback form on the table by the door incase I spontaneously combusted - I remember the feedback form from a Higgs Triange consult "would you like to see more employment opportunities in the local area?' tick/yes please "would you like more affordable housing" tick/yes please "would like improved amenities" tick/yes please. Result stated on next flyer "95% of our respondents approve our plans" .... or some such similar thing along these lines

Yes, many of these "consultations" are like this.

You would hope that when these results are presented to planning officers during pre-application discussions, they ask to see the exact questions asked, take a look at them and throw the whole of the supposed results in the bin.

 

[Gramsci]

Started looking up the planning guidance the architect mentioned. London Plan Policy H16 covers Co Living developments ( not looked at that yet)

Here is doc that came out this year of guidance for planning and architects

Large-scale Purpose-built Shared Living LPG

View the consultation draft of the Large-scale Purpose-built Shared Living London Plan Guidance

www.london.gov.uk

It looks to me that as far as design goes at this point the architects are following this guidance.

However whether this kind of development is suitable for this area and this particular site might be a question for planning committee to decide.

Co Living as defined by GLA is not hostels ( there is minimum three month tenancy) nor does it count as proper housing for single households.

I quote from the guidance :

1.1.6 LSPBSL provides accommodation for single person households who choose
not to live in self-contained houses, flat shares, or HMOs and may use this
product on a transition basis until they find suitable long-term housing. Whilst
LSPBSL provides an additional housing option for some people, due to the
unique offer of this type of accommodation, it does not meet minimum
housing standards and is not therefore considered to meet the ongoing needs
of most single person households in London.

1.1.7 LSPBSL is not an affordable housing product. LSPBSL does not provide
stable, long-term accommodation suitable for most households in need of
genuinely affordable housing, including families. LSPBSL must provide a
financial contribution to the borough towards the provision of conventional
affordable housing as per London Plan Policy H16(A9). Further guidance will
be provided in separate London Plan Guidance.

 

[Gramsci]

This paragraph looks to me that it could indicate that a planning authority could say a site could be better used to provide permanent onsite affordable housing as well as private. With a mixture of house / flat sizes.

ie maybe to oppose this application say the site could be better used.

Also the guidance says the development of Co living should contribute to mixed and inclusive neighbourhoods. As the exhibition was saying the development would only be for young educated professionals I dont see that as contributing to this part of guidance.

2.1.2 Boroughs should seek to ensure that policies and site allocations for LSPBSL
contribute toward creating mixed and inclusive neighbourhoods, as per Policy
H16(A2). To inform this, boroughs should draw on characterisation studies
and their design-led approach to optimising site capacity (see policies D1 and
D3 of the London Plan, and the forthcoming Optimising Site Capacity: A
Design-led Approach LPG). Boroughs should also consider housing size mix
(see Policy H10(A)) and the provision of on-site affordable housing (see
Policy H4(B)), particularly where opportunities to provide a mix of sizes and
tenures within the borough or area are constrained.

 

[Gramsci]

The GLA doc says that this Co Living idea is for temporary housing ( a transition it calls it). Which was not what the exhibition by the architects was saying. The exhibition made it appear the were building a community who would live in the neighbourhood.

What the guidance wants to do is make sure that these developments do not turn into self contained flats. As the space standards etc for self contained flats is much higher than these developments.

So the guidance tries too balance making sure residents have good facilities but to stop developers using this as a loop hole to create de facto flats. Which due to small size means they can cram a lot more in one site.

I can see the problem. Developers can get more people crammed into one site by making it "Co Living" than building proper single person flats.

Comes across to me that Co living by developers is a load of bollox. They aren't really interested in communal living but making more money from one site.

4.10.1 Policy H16 requires that the private units are not self-contained homes or
capable of being used as self-contained homes but provide functional living
space. Hence, units should be accessed through a shared internal area and
not have a separate external access.

 

[Torpid Scorpion]

It’s basically a hotel for people with short term insecure jobs. Is the plan to staff kings hospital with private agency contractors? Probably.

This is Bollox.

 

[teuchter]

Isn't it pretty much for the same market that is traditionally served by the thousands of house-shares that have existed in London for ages? Setting aside the specifics of this building and this location, is it a bad thing that this kind of accommodation can exist alongside flatshares, rooms for lodgers and HMOs?

 

[CH1]

The GLA doc says that this Co Living idea is for temporary housing ( a transition it calls it). Which was not what the exhibition by the architects was saying. The exhibition made it appear the were building a community who would live in the neighbourhood.

What the guidance wants to do is make sure that these developments do not turn into self contained flats. As the space standards etc for self contained flats is much higher than these developments.

So the guidance tries too balance making sure residents have good facilities but to stop developers using this as a loop hole to create de facto flats. Which due to small size means they can cram a lot more in one site.

I can see the problem. Developers can get more people crammed into one site by making it "Co Living" than building proper single person flats.

Comes across to me that Co living by developers is a load of bollox. They aren't really interested in communal living but making more money from one site.

I looked up Co-living on Google and this popped up: Co-Living
This would suggest - if this co-living are behind it - that a primary reason for them choosing this location is proximity to LJ station. Good luck getting on a train at 8.30 am ladies and chaps!
Shouldn't the developer be offering help to upgrade the station?

On a related rant - I have now resumed my duties as a Maudsley governor. People may not be surprised to hear that there is such a thing as psychiatric bed-blocking, and that a major cost to the hospital caused by non-existence of social housing to discharge patients into is BED & BREAKFAST for patents discharged from hospital.

I guess it would be absolutely wonderful if this development were temporary transition accommodation for discharged patients. Apart from the obvious objection to housing a population needing support, and being 100% on benefits I guess that even in Remainer Herne Hill locals would go ballistic.

Back in 1989 I was treasurer of Lambeth MIND and we managed a hostel at 20 Cambria Road. This was for 5 patients in the community. Amazingly (to me) St John Fraser MP Labour for Norwood (covering LJ at the time) had led the charge on behalf of residents in Southwell Rd etc who demanded the original hostel be down-sized from 10 or 12 residents. This parliamentary supported nimbyism did happen - the original building was reconfigured to split the accommodation in two - half for MIND and half for other Solon tenants.

I guess my bright idea of a tower of supervised Maudsley move-on would be the worst nightmare for 1988 Loughborough Junction residents (and their Labour MP - who might be called therefore a "Lapdog of the Bourgeoisie") No wonder he didn't get on with Ted Knight!

 

[teuchter]

Shouldn't the developer be offering help to upgrade the station?

Seems to me a failure that Lambeth or TfL didn't extract anything for this from the Higgs development, especially as it frees up some land adjacent to the station that might have been useful for getting a lift access in somehow.

Maybe when the Sureways site inevitably gets developed...

 

[Torpid Scorpion]

With 23000 people on the waiting list for housing in lambeth, these aren’t the types of projects we should be building.

Isn't it pretty much for the same market that is traditionally served by the thousands of house-shares that have existed in London for ages? Setting aside the specifics of this building and this location, is it a bad thing that this kind of accommodation can exist alongside flatshares, rooms for lodgers and HMOs?

 

[teuchter]

With 23000 people on the waiting list for housing in lambeth, these aren’t the types of projects we should be building.

But whatever we might prefer, the choice is not between this and social housing.

 

[Gramsci]

Isn't it pretty much for the same market that is traditionally served by the thousands of house-shares that have existed in London for ages? Setting aside the specifics of this building and this location, is it a bad thing that this kind of accommodation can exist alongside flatshares, rooms for lodgers and HMOs?

The planning issue is whether this is best use of this site. This co living does not count as being towards permanent housing. So does not address London's. need for extra homes.

The others you mention are normal houses. That could be used in different ways.

This Co living type of housing cannot be altered over time. It's quite inflexible.

I can see the point of GLA guidance. But it just shows this kind of developer led for profit housing is not about building proper homes or communicaties.

 

[teuchter]

The others you mention are normal houses. That could be used in different ways.

This Co living type of housing cannot be altered over time. It's quite inflexible.

If you look at options for a certain group of people: often younger, single, no dependents, not on big salaries, not necessarily in London for the long term, or perhaps simply newly arrived and finding their feet -

House shares (using "normal" houses) can work quite well. Spent many years living in them myself and enjoyed the social aspect. For some people they are a good option, especially at a certain stage of life. And as you can say, yes those houses can often turn back into family homes if the demand in an area changes.

However, there are a lot of people houseshares don't work well for, for various reasons. And the alternatives aren't great - old houses converted into awkward studio flats, bedsits or HMOs. Forms that these older buildings don't actually convert very happily to. Often mazes of narrow corridors, fire lobbies, steep stairs. Kitchens squashed into odd corners. Ropey landlords, badly maintained, cold, damp and energy inefficient.

This is why I can see the case for purpose built "co living" (or whatever you want to call it). Buildings actually designed for the way they'll be used. And it seems to me there will always be a demand for this kind of accommodation somewhere like London. There will always be a number of people who want their own space, but don't need or can't afford to rent a whole flat or house.

Is it right for Loughborough Junction? In terms of use, or the demographic it would house, I'm not sure it's so different from what there's lots of round here anyway, in the form of HMOs or shared houses and flats.

 

[Torpid Scorpion]

As far as I can tell, this is mainly a way to get around

But whatever we might prefer, the choice is not between this and social housing.

The previous proposal (which claimed it would provide 35% affordable housing) was rejected in part because there was no believable way it would deliver the 50% affordable housing called for in the plan. So now the proposal is to sidestep the need for any affordable housing by providing a giant dorm with claims that the residents wont use local services?

This is a scam that puts profits before our community.

I hope that it comes with spacious charcoal grills in the common spaces, to facilitate the ballardian cannabalism.

 

[teuchter]

I think the idea is that if a developer does the co-living thing they have to make a financial contribution to the local authority that pays for affordable housing elsewhere. No doubt that is subject to getting negotiated down, just like the % of affordable housing in a normal development is. I don't know what the amount is, and what it plausibly pays for.

 

[philosophical]

From my distant observations the percentage of affordable housing developers provide is 0%.

 

[Gramsci]

If you look at options for a certain group of people: often younger, single, no dependents, not on big salaries, not necessarily in London for the long term, or perhaps simply newly arrived and finding their feet -

House shares (using "normal" houses) can work quite well. Spent many years living in them myself and enjoyed the social aspect. For some people they are a good option, especially at a certain stage of life. And as you can say, yes those houses can often turn back into family homes if the demand in an area changes.

However, there are a lot of people houseshares don't work well for, for various reasons. And the alternatives aren't great - old houses converted into awkward studio flats, bedsits or HMOs. Forms that these older buildings don't actually convert very happily to. Often mazes of narrow corridors, fire lobbies, steep stairs. Kitchens squashed into odd corners. Ropey landlords, badly maintained, cold, damp and energy inefficient.

This is why I can see the case for purpose built "co living" (or whatever you want to call it). Buildings actually designed for the way they'll be used. And it seems to me there will always be a demand for this kind of accommodation somewhere like London. There will always be a number of people who want their own space, but don't need or can't afford to rent a whole flat or house.

Is it right for Loughborough Junction? In terms of use, or the demographic it would house, I'm not sure it's so different from what there's lots of round here anyway, in the form of HMOs or shared houses and flats.

Most of what your talking about here is due to lack of controls on landlords.

lack of rent controls and lack of ability for local planning authorities/ Councils to make sure rented accomodation is well maintained and at an affordable rent.

The answer isn't to allow developers this new wheeze of building "Co Living" as though they are helping to deal with the problem.

I do think Co Living is a bit of a misnomer. After all some of the best early Council housing estates had Co Living aspects. ie launderettes at base of building and social spaces built in. As well as decent sized flats.

At the consultation event I remember the architect saying that building a Co Living development meant the tower could be lower and still "Viable".

This is all about money in the end. Reading the GLA guidance and I can see GLA are trying to make sure that developers don't use this new emerging market in Co Living to gradually undermine space standards.

In my view a profit driven housing market is about maximising profit first. Planning is there to stop the race to the bottom that would inevitably happen.

 

[DaphneM]

Isn't it pretty much for the same market that is traditionally served by the thousands of house-shares that have existed in London for ages? Setting aside the specifics of this building and this location, is it a bad thing that this kind of accommodation can exist alongside flatshares, rooms for lodgers and HMOs?

Its another option that some people will definitively find useful