Higgs Development, Loughborough Junction (2019 design)

[Gramsci]

Not really my patch and was just passing but have you tried the direct link in the opening post...

18/05425/FUL | Clearance of site and mixed use redevelopment to provide a building ranging in height from 2 to 16 storeys with 134 residential units and 4,032 sqm of flexible commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, B1, D1 and/or D2) along with disabled parking, servicing, cycle parking, public realm and amenity space. | Higgs Industrial Estate Herne Hill Road London SE24 0AU

28 comments from the public so far of which 25 objected and 1 supported. Presumably the other 2 didn't press a yes/no button.

Thanks. Problem I have mainly on weekends is that I can't log in with my planning account to make a comment..Really infuriating. I've emailed planning about this before and received no reply.

 

[teuchter]

I went to the meeting.

In end was well attended.

Mainly the people there were those who had objected to the first scheme. Before Peabody took over.

Only one Cllr bothered to come along. Cllr Becca Thackeray the Green Cllr for Herne Hill.

If a Labour Cllrs was there I didn't see them.

Issues people brought up were:

• Pressure on transport with increase in population. Trains in morning are already full. Peabody claim that there are adequate transport links to cope. Such as buses. Buses take long time to get to West End in morning. Making proximity to central London not a selling point for the scheme.
• Playspace for young children is in scheme. Peabody assume older children can use existing public spaces nearby. So are fulfilling there obligations for outdoor space in the scheme. Peabody are putting in the hard minimum.
• The affordable housing element is not defined. No idea what the tenancies and rents will be. Private flats will be located at top of the highest tower with the proles at the bottom.
• No on-site parking and residents will not be able to get residents parking on street. Families need cars and this should be part of scheme. ( note this is Lambeth planning requirement and not the fault of Peabody. Shows that making London car ownership free is not popular)
• The housing density in the plans is at the higher end of the scale allowed by planning guidelines.
• The revised plans mean the development is not "permeable". That is there will not be any public thoroughfares or public space. Peabody tried to do land swap with Sureways church but they refused.
• Height of main tower was an issue with many people. Would create a precedent. Someone pointed out that this is distracting from the impact the other smaller towers will have on the streetscape. As they are right next to the road whilst the highest tower is set back.
• Height is also due to building the office/ workshop space above ground. The last scheme was going to do it in a basement. This would cost more.
• design was poor. Ugly.

So comments in by tomorrow.

There had been increase in comments on this application.

Good summary; I was there too.

One thing that was also raised was the idea of CPO-ing the Sureways site, as suggested on here by CH1 previously. That to me would completely make sense and prevent what is quite a big missed opportunity to develop that site in a way that has side benefits for the centre of LJ. I'd previously thought it completely unlikely that Lambeth would ever put their neck out to do anything like that and therefore assumed it was a non-starter but a few people at the meeting seemed to think it might be worth putting as a suggestion amongst objection comments. Maybe if enough people mentioned it there'd be a chance of it being considered. Seems unlikely to me but no harm trying I guess.

A bit later I might try and write out an explanation of the technical objection to the density calculation, as that's something that I think is a strong point, relating to a contravention of policy. Unfortunately the previous committee (on previous application) seemed fairly happy to ignore this, setting an unhelpful precedent with the previous approval.

Also some good points against the transport assessment were raised at the meeting. Might try and add those in later too.

 

[teuchter]

Here is the technical bit about density.

The London Plan (produced by Mayor's office) gives allowable densities for housing developments based on the site's PTAL (public transport accessibility level). The relevant table is below:



The rating for the site is a mix of PTAL 3 and 4 (the south part of the site falls into a different category to the north part). Here is the map that shows this. I would say it's actually mostly in the 3 zone.



So looking at the London Plan table it should be somewhere between the PTAL 2-3 figures and the PTAL 4-6 figures.

Then you need to decide whether the site is 'urban' or 'central'. The planning application claims it is 'central'. To me it really does not fit the definition given for 'central':

CENTRAL: areas with very dense development, a mix of different uses, large building footprints and typically buildings of four to six storeys, located within 800 metres walking distance of an International, Metropolitan or Major town centre.

Even if it is 'central' then it should be somewhere around the overlap between the PTAL 2-3 figures and the PTAL 4-6 figures: around 650 hr/ha.

However the proposal is for a development with a density of 1036 hr/ha. (See the extract from their D&A document below)

If it is classified as 'urban' (which seems by far the more appropriate for LJ) then the density should be somewhere around 450 hr/ha (the top end of the PTAL 2-3 range, or around the middle of the PTAL 4-6 range).

On that basis the development (at 1036 hr/ha) is well over twice the density specified in the London Plan.

(below: extract from the planning application. 'Consented scheme' refers to the scheme that was given permission in 2015)

 

[teuchter]

On the transport issues - in the meeting the reasonable point was made that their transport assessment almost certainly underestimates the number of prospective residents who will use the Thameslink trains from LJ station to commute into town, rather than other modes such as buses or Brixton tube. This is because the development will be right next to the train station and inevitably will be marketed to, and appeal to, people who are attracted by this proximity. In other words, people are likely to choose to live in the development exactly because of its location right next to the station (which to anyone not familiar to the reality of the morning rush hour there, will appear the ideal location for easy and fast commute directly into the city).

The transport assessment doesn't take this into account, so the number of people it will add to the demand on morning rush hour trains is very likely to be more than the single-digit numbers they predict.

 

[Crispy]

THAT is how you object to a planning application

 

[Cold Harbour]

• No on-site parking and residents will not be able to get residents parking on street. Families need cars and this should be part of scheme. ( note this is Lambeth planning requirement and not the fault of Peabody. Shows that making London car ownership free is not popular)

It's worth pointing out that this is bollocks and Lambeth don't enforce it - I live in a newish block with no parking and Lambeth have been issuing neighbours with residents' permits for the surrounding streets. It just pushes cars onto streets that are already overcrowded and there is no spare space anywhere near this developmnent.

 

[teuchter]

It's worth pointing out that this is bollocks and Lambeth don't enforce it - I live in a newish block with no parking and Lambeth have been issuing neighbours with residents' permits for the surrounding streets.

Really? Is that for a zero-parking development - that is, one with planning conditions on it that state this should be the case? Because that's something that a fuss should be made about.

 

[snowy_again]

You have to provide evidence of your tenancy / home address when you request a permanent parking permit, so it can't be hard to cross reference that to the list of zero parking developments can it - but then this is LB Lambeth we're talking about.

 

[Cold Harbour]

Really? Is that for a zero-parking development - that is, one with planning conditions on it that state this should be the case? Because that's something that a fuss should be made about.

Not sure of the planning details tbh but the general view is that Lambeth will issue permits if you have a Council Tax bill as proof of address. I guess they don't check against their stated policy of car-free housing developments.

 

[teuchter]

I would be very interested to hear about any specific examples of residents in zero-parking developments being given parking permits and if anyone could give me evidence of it having happened I'd be willing to pursue it with Lambeth because it shouldn't be happening.

 

[Gramsci]

Here is the technical bit about density.

The London Plan (produced by Mayor's office) gives allowable densities for housing developments based on the site's PTAL (public transport accessibility level). The relevant table is below:

View attachment 163523

The rating for the site is a mix of PTAL 3 and 4 (the south part of the site falls into a different category to the north part). Here is the map that shows this. I would say it's actually mostly in the 3 zone.

View attachment 163524

So looking at the London Plan table it should be somewhere between the PTAL 2-3 figures and the PTAL 4-6 figures.

Then you need to decide whether the site is 'urban' or 'central'. The planning application claims it is 'central'. To me it really does not fit the definition given for 'central':



Even if it is 'central' then it should be somewhere around the overlap between the PTAL 2-3 figures and the PTAL 4-6 figures: around 650 hr/ha.

However the proposal is for a development with a density of 1036 hr/ha. (See the extract from their D&A document below)

If it is classified as 'urban' (which seems by far the more appropriate for LJ) then the density should be somewhere around 450 hr/ha (the top end of the PTAL 2-3 range, or around the middle of the PTAL 4-6 range).

On that basis the development (at 1036 hr/ha) is well over twice the density specified in the London Plan.

(below: extract from the planning application. 'Consented scheme' refers to the scheme that was given permission in 2015)

View attachment 163525

This is really interesting but won't Peabody say that the application they are putting in is not much different density to the previous one that was agreed?

 

[Gramsci]

It's worth pointing out that this is bollocks and Lambeth don't enforce it - I live in a newish block with no parking and Lambeth have been issuing neighbours with residents' permits for the surrounding streets. It just pushes cars onto streets that are already overcrowded and there is no spare space anywhere near this developmnent.

Out of interest do you agree in principle with car free developments?

 

[Cold Harbour]

Out of interest do you agree in principle with car free developments?

Yes, I cycle.

 

[teuchter]

This is really interesting but won't Peabody say that the application they are putting in is not much different density to the previous one that was agreed?

Yes, and I'm not fully clear about what the legal implications are from that. I think that even if the 2015 planning committee was, basically, wrong in its interpretation of policy, Peabody will argue that their decision to purchase the site, and so on, was based on this. It seems that it would at least provide them with solid grounds to appeal against a decision that was different from the previous one. Obviously it would be a bit awkward for the planning committee themselves to effectively acknowledge that last time they didn't do their job properly. Maybe that depends a bit on how many of the current committee were also on the 2015 one.


E2A...having just gone back to check what was argued in the previous application, basically it was that the Mayor's office guidance is just guidance, and that there's no obligation to stick to the densities in the relevant table - it all depends on circumstance (but that cuts both ways - the planning committee should be free to decide that there aren't justifying circumstances). Their planning statement is here

https://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onl...icy_Analysis__Planning_statement_-1508606.pdf

One thing (I think) that has changed since then is that the London Plan has been revised. I don't know if there are any changes that would mean things should be assessed differently now. Don't have time at the moment to look into that.

The first application, last time round, was refused on the basis of overdevelopment/density. The second attempt, they passed, even though they'd only reduced the density by a token amount.

 

[Gramsci]

I managed to put a few comments on the planning website.

There are now a lot of comments. Good ones.

 

[Gramsci]

I was in North London today. Saw posters critical of Peabody. Google Search to find out more.

Political campaign grows to stop Peabody selling key-worker housing on Victoria Park Estate

Appear Peabody have been selling off social housing they have acquired.

“Peabody, like the housing association sector generally, has moved away from this model towards being a hard-nosed property developer. These sales are just one example

 

[Gramsci]

And this by Peabody tenant:

Yet Peabody has made a surplus of £175m last year. The charitable aims of their benefactor George Peabody were to house the working poor. Now their new developments for leasehold sale, shared ownership which is not “ownership”, and “Affordable Housing” which is not affordable to most people, are no comparison to the social homes people have for life, to build a community, bring up their children, grow old together. They are steadily being sold off and our communities decimated.

What you can do to stop HAs selling off properties meant for tenants - Peabody Family Voice

 

[Gramsci]

The Peabody plans for Higgs site are like a property developer. Doing what they can get away with in planning.

 

[editor]

Anyone fancy putting together an article for Buzz about this development so more people can be informed and register their objections (or approval)?

 

[CH1]

The Peabody plans for Higgs site are like a property developer. Doing what they can get away with in planning.

Seems to me that Peabody have caught the MUSE disease (ie get a Town Hall extension in exchange for luxury flats).
Mark you Guinness Trust started it in our area with "Electric Quarter".

 

[teuchter]

Does anyone know what's happening with this?

The 'Agreed Expiry Date' on the planning database is the 31st October, which is now only a month away. But no date set for committee at present.

 

[CH1]

Does anyone know what's happening with this?

The 'Agreed Expiry Date' on the planning database is the 31st October, which is now only a month away. But no date set for committee at present.

I got a consultation letter today.
If you check the original reference 18/05425/FUL you will find a load of new layout documents dated 27 September 2019.
Consultation deadline seems to now be 11th October 2019.

 

[teuchter]

Thanks CH1. My ears must have been burning or something. I've just seen the same letter is through my letterbox. I'll try and have a look at the drawings later.

 

[teuchter]

Having now looked through the stuff on the planning database -

The changes from the previous version are all relatively minor. Changes to facing brick colours, the frontage at street level and traffic circulation, access to podium for some units that didn't previously have it, etc.

It's otherwise the same. The same number of units, same size of building. Most of the public comments already on there are do with concerns about overbearing height and mass, and impact on local infrastructure such as transport. The amendments don't go any way to addressing these. I assume that all the comments already made remain valid. But if anyone wants to add further comments I think you can do that until this Saturday (12th Oct).

18/05425/FUL | Clearance of site and mixed use redevelopment to provide a building ranging in height from 2 to 16 storeys with 134 residential units and 4,150sqm of flexible commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, B1, D1 and/or D2) along with disabled parking, servicing, cycle parking, public realm and amenity space (re-consultation due to amended description of development and amendments to proposal to include changes to brick colour and recessed balconies on Block C; revisions to Herne Hill Road elevation; increase in flexible commercial floorspace from 4,032sqm to 4,150sqm; and revised disabled parking, servicing, cycle parking and public realm layout) | Higgs Industrial Estate Herne Hill Road London SE24 0AU

 

[teuchter]

Planning committee on the 17th December. Recommended for approval. I suspect they are just going to wave it through.

 

[CH1]

The officer's report contains this - which I think is highly misleading:

The site (0.5 hectares) is roughly triangular in shape and is currently vacant, with the previous industrial buildings having been demolished in 2016. The site is bounded to the east by Herne Hill Road, to the north by Congregational Church with Coldharbour Lane beyond and to the west and south by railway viaducts with the platforms to Loughborough Junction Station extending along the viaduct to the west as shown in Figure 1 below.

The "Congregational church" actually describes a church which disappeared at least by the 1950s.The Loughborough Junction blog shows this church as here

and located here

Loughborough Park Congregational Church

I'm fed up with these sloppy officers reports.
The Sureway Ministries building is actually a warehouse/office building which has been used by that church for no more than 20 years - and in fact is probably only a church because Lambeth Planning failed to enforce the designated industrial use.
It is a building which is so unprepossessing that I could only find 1 picture on the net (apologies for low resolution)

Now I know that Lambeth Planning officer's are not noted for their aesthetic grasp - but surely anyone can see this is not a church?

Not only that - the officers report admits that the previous developer had obtained permission for some sort of upgrade. What a pity Peabody have simply ignored this blot on the landscape and submitted a scheme which leaves the problems of that corner with Coldharbour Lane undealt with.

 

[bimble]

View attachment 192065

Planning committee on the 17th December. Recommended for approval. I suspect they are just going to wave it through.

That’s now, commitee room b6 in town hall, if anyone thinks they can be swayed.
I’m not there but Ljag email asks anyone who can to attend and help oppose.

 

[Gramsci]

Up to Christmas I'm doing ten hour shifts.

Plus I went and spoke at the Hero of Switzerland application ( see my posts on this on the Hero thread).

I don't like the over cosy relationship that planning officers build with developers. I regard Peabody as a developer.

I think the senior planning officers in Lambeth should be sacked.

They provide a service for developers not the local community.

And they get paid a lot to do it.

 

[teuchter]

I was there. They gave it permission. Local councillor Becca Thackray the only one not to vote in favour.

 

[CH1]

I was there. They gave it permission. Local councillor Becca Thackray the only one not to vote in favour.

I'm glad she withheld support. Do you mean abstained or voted against?
Gramsci looks from Twitter that all the applications were approved this evening. If Lambeth Planning were a company no doubt they'd get a Christmas bonus!