Higgs Triangle Loughborough Junction redevelopment

[CH1]

I've always felt we need more Tatlin Towers in Loughborough Junction.
This thread is more like it.
Those were the days (2011) - Higgs scenery with personality.
And sad to see two of the posters have died. RIP.

 

[Twattor]

Higgs Industrial Estate | Peabody

Peabody usually do OK stuff.

Will be interesting to see if they are planning to cram in as much as the previous proposal tried for.

Peabody are Family Mosaic. They just kept the name because of the history associated with it.

 

[editor]

Peabody are Family Mosaic. They just kept the name because of the history associated with it.

There's big money involved too: the merger was a £6,000,000,000 deal and wasn't seen a good thing by many residents
Tenants’ group opposes Peabody and Family Mosaic amalgamation

One of London’s oldest housing associations has completed a merger with a rival to create a group that will be responsible for more than 55,000 homes, 111,000 residents and an annual turnover of £700 million.

Peabody Trust, a housing association set up more than 150 years ago, has completed its £6 billion merger deal with Family Mosaic.

Peabody has revealed a partnership with the mayor of London to build 6,000 affordable homes by 2021. Peabody will use cash and loans to pay for the new homes, together with plus an initial £181 million from the Greater London Authority.

The association has a 10,000-strong development pipeline and an ambitious plan involving a £1.5 billion regeneration project at Thamesmead in southeast London.

 

[teuchter]

Peabody are Family Mosaic. They just kept the name because of the history associated with it.

Oh.

 

[Gramsci]

Got my invite today in post

 

[CH1]

I think we should demand they build a second entrance to the railway station on their side of the road - with a lift and escalators.

 

[teuchter]

Have just had a look at the exhibition. Will post some photos of the boards later.

The info is quite sketchy. There will be another consultation in a few months with more detail.

The scheme is not massively different from the previous one in scale, although the heights of the various blocks have been tweaked somewhat.

 

[CH1]

Have just had a look at the exhibition. Will post some photos of the boards later.
The info is quite sketchy. There will be another consultation in a few months with more detail.
The scheme is not massively different from the previous one in scale, although the heights of the various blocks have been tweaked somewhat.

There seems to be a green platform in the middle of the blocks which I guess would make it look a couple of storeys less high if you were looking out of your kitchen window.

It also implies a considerable area more for industrial/retail or whatever employment uses might be provided.

For me the main drawback is the industrial building fronting Coldharbour Lane (backing onto it actually - the building frontage is actually inside the Higgs site).

In the days when developments were planned and executed by the council CPO powers would have been invoked. It would obviously be good for Loughborough Junction as an expanding town centre if a more generous pavement were provided there, probably with modern retail frontage, with more flats above.

Personally the look of the scheme as presented was rather better than the Parritt Leng one. What would make it a good scheme is if the church was relocated off site and their building redeveloped, or of course they could have one of the industrial or retail units on Herne Hill Road, or a purpose built on Coldharbour Lane.

Seems that Parritt Leng may have screwed this up by somehow suggesting the church get planning permission to extend their roof with a small number of residential units, thereby blocking a more coherent scheme for the whole site.

The church has what planners term a ransom strip.

 

[Gramsci]

I went today. They did try to persuade the church to do a land swap. Build them another church away from the corner. Rebuild the corner with a small public square. The church turned this down. Pity. A missed opportunity to improve that corner.

The affordable element will be 35% of total homes. No different from a private developer.

Was told at exhibition that of that affordable percentage 30% will be shared ownership and the remaining 70% will be rented at the levels set by Mayor Sadiq Khan.

I think they said the rent will be the new "London Affordable Rent". This should be less than the government "Affordable Rent" which was set at up to 80% of market rent.

Tried to look this up.


Homes for Londoners: Affordable Homes Programme 2016-21


London Affordable Rent benchmarks 2018/2019

As set out in the 2016-21 Affordable Homes Programme Funding Guidance, the GLA will update its London Affordable Rent benchmarks on an annual basis, updating each one by the increase in CPI for the previous September plus 1%. The 2017/18 and 2018/19 benchmarks are shown in the table below:





2018/19 benchmark

Bedsit and one bedroom

£150.03

Two bedrooms

£158.84

Three bedrooms

£167.67

Four bedrooms

£176.49

Five bedrooms

£185.31

Six or more bedrooms

£194.13

 

[Gramsci]

Some drawings of how it would look. Notice the high tower. They said this is set back from main road. Building along road is set to much lower height.

 

[Gramsci]

Commercial space will be on lower floors.

 

[Gramsci]

Aerial shot showing green roofs. Communal space will be on second floor level where flats start. Below that is commercial space. The communal space is private to flats not public. Im not clear how this will work. Or whether it will require service charges to maintain.

 

[Gramsci]

They said they have lowered height of development on south side to let in more light.

 

[Gramsci]

The old scheme

 

[Gramsci]

More info on new Peabody/Family Mosiac scheme.

 

[Gramsci]

The new scheme will have an access road for the arches and presumably the commercial space going all way round the site.

Looks to me the way they have designed this is to keep ground floor purely for commercial with the housing sitting separately on top.

 

[CH1]

The new scheme will have an access road for the arches and presumably the commercial space going all way round the site.

Looks to me the way they have designed this is to keep ground floor purely for commercial with the housing sitting separately on top.

Yes. They averred that there would be public access round the scheme, not gated. If so this might recapture what the old LJAG masterplan was after - particularly if there was a through-way under the railway to Hinton Road.

I asked about a view of the tower from the Green Man side, they said this woud obviously be provided for the planning application. Personally I can't imagine if the tower would look intrusive from Hinton Road - but then that site is also presumably under development form a different developer.

 

[teuchter]

There'll be no avoiding the tower being visible from a lot of places - 15 storeys is pretty tall.

 

[teuchter]

The public access would be to the road and pavements running around the perimeter of the site - the green space in the middle for residents only. No less of a "gated development" than Brixton Square or the Loughborough Estate.

 

[bimble]

I wonder what the offer was exactly that was made to the Sureway church. They must be quite a wealthy organisation to remain unmoved. Or maybe just feel that particular spot is best placed to help with their stated mission 'to position itself for the coming waves of the Spirit of God which will usher us into end time harvest and restoration.'

 

[teuchter]

I wonder what the offer was exactly that was made to the Sureway church. They must be quite a wealthy organisation to remain unmoved. Or maybe just feel that particular spot is best placed to help with their stated mission 'to position itself for the coming waves of the Spirit of God which will usher us into end time harvest and restoration.'

I expect the church might well reckon that their site will be worth even more once the higgs site is done and the surroundings are more fully gentrified.

Aside from messing up the corner on the public side, the need to provide them with access to their parking at the back screws up the inner part of the plan too. If the church could be got shot of the whole site I would imagine could be more efficiently used to provide housing, and the centre of LJ much improved. As CH1 says a CPO would be nice.

 

[CH1]

I wonder what the offer was exactly that was made to the Sureway church. They must be quite a wealthy organisation to remain unmoved. Or maybe just feel that particular spot is best placed to help with their stated mission 'to position itself for the coming waves of the Spirit of God which will usher us into end time harvest and restoration.'

Turnover is £250,000 pa and declining Charity overview

They have numerous connected companies - labelled as dormant by Companies House. Stephen Antwi ARMAH - Personal Appointments (free information from Companies House)

I think we should be thinking about sacking our Brexit negotiators and appointing these people. They appear to have been preparing to negotiate a good deal (for the work of the Lord that is)!

 

[editor]

It's such a tiresomely dishonest tactic of developers to render mock ups from a low vantage point in an attempt to disguise their out of scale looming towers.

 

[Gramsci]

I wonder what the offer was exactly that was made to the Sureway church. They must be quite a wealthy organisation to remain unmoved. Or maybe just feel that particular spot is best placed to help with their stated mission 'to position itself for the coming waves of the Spirit of God which will usher us into end time harvest and restoration.'

I think they were offered a land swap nearby. With a new church.

According to what I was told at the exhibition the Sureway church also have six of the arches as well.

There website doesn't say much.

About Us

Other than they believe in the Bible.

From there point of view they are quite happy with the existing church where it is now. I don't think it's a matter of money. There are three African churches in LJ. I don't see them as being interested in the area apart from having there churches here.

 

[Gramsci]

I'm going to email Peabody about the affordable housing. This is development by a social housing provider. But the 35% affordable housing is no better than a private developer scheme. I want to know if Peabody is applying for grants for the affordable element. I also want to know what kind of tenancies will be used and rent levels. Where the social housing will be located on site. Will it be shoved into one corner of site.

One can emal comments to them on.

higgsestate@yourshout.org

At the exhibition they were asking people to comment. So no need to be shy.

Personally I think the tower is high. At exhibition people said this may set a precedent for area. The architect reckon not as it is only applicable to this site. Which I don't understand.

Putting commercial on ground floor was required by planners. So putting green space above for flats makes sense due to that requirement.

I still think 35% affordable is to low. This is high density development. Plus the commercial space will bring in a revenue stream which can cross subsidise affordable housing.

 

[teuchter]

The tower is high. It would be not disimilar to the ones by brockwell park at herne hill.

If it's the case that we have to accept the same density on the site as in the previous application, then to some extent, I go along with reducing the height of the block along the south side of the site in exchange for making the tower bigger. It lets more sunlight into the site generally. And perhaps, if you're going to have a tower, whether it's 10 12 or 15 storeys doesn't make so much difference. What concerns me though is the bulk of it. It looks like it would have a bigger footprint than the one in the previous scheme. They've been quite selective in where it's shown in perspective views. I think you'd find that from certain directions it would have considerable bulk and cast a considerable shadow. We'll have to wait until proper drawings appear but at that point people should ask to see proper perspective views from a good number of locations around the site and at a variety of distances (it would be more visible from a bit further away than it would be from the edges of the development site).

 

[teuchter]

Also their claim that the height along herne hill road is in context with neighbouring streets is a bit questionable. There's no precedent for 6-7 storey buildings there. But as permission was given for that in the previous scheme, it's unlikely that Lambeth will listen to any objections on that basis this time around.

 

[teuchter]

Gramsci I think it's good that you question them on the affordable housing proportion and hopefully you will relay any responses here.

 

[bimble]

It must be a year now that we've had the brand new shopfront on the other side of the junction standing empty, which makes me wonder who will want all these new commercial units, two floors of them too. It looks as though build it and they'll come may be true for flats but not necessarily for commercial property round here.

 

[teuchter]

It must be a year now that we've had the brand new shopfront on the other side of the junction standing empty, which makes me wonder who will want all these new commercial units, two floors of them too. It looks as though build it and they'll come may be true for flats but not necessarily for commercial property round here.

I think you are probably right.

It may be that they are trapped into providing the commercial space as a result of the argument for the previous scheme that there would be no loss of employment space compared to the pre-existing industrial estate. That argument was largely nonsense anyway because there is no way that the re-provided space could be used in the same way as the light industrial units were. The reality is that the only kind of commercial space provided in that scheme or this one would basically be office type space. And if I remember correctly, retail use was ruled out last time.

There was no interest from Lambeth last time in requiring any light industrial space for the kind of businesses (and associated type of employment) that Loughborough Junction currently and previously has provided a home for. And to do that would mean a big compromise on the amount of housing provided so no developer is going to ask for it. So the re-provision of the 'commercial' space is a bit of a charade and as such it seems a bit pointless to me.