Higgs Triangle Loughborough Junction redevelopment
- Thread starter andrewdroid
- Start date
editor
hiraethified
Interesting report.
Do you want me to post this up as a report on B Buzz? It would seem that the more people who get to hear about this thing, the better.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I don't mind you using it on B Buzz, along with andrewdroid 's one from earlier, obviously it's no more than an informal report though!
Rushy
basically a scrotum
I was wondering why someone paid 1,900,000 for the photography studio with permission for 6 flats. Now it makes sense!
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Hmm
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Setting aside the specifics of the currently proposed scheme, by the way, I think it would be good to discuss a bit the whole issue of whether the "light industrial" current usage is something we should try to (or can) keep.
One of the things I like about LJ (and which makes it what it is) is the fact that during the day there's a lot of stuff happening. The prop makers and other businesses in the Higgs estate, the steel fabricators and pizza factry the other side of the railway line, the VW van repair emporium, the metal scrapyard, the other scrap/waste processing place, Mickalos fast food factory, numerous car washes and of course all the car mechanics including the enclave on Padfield Rd where they fix black cabs. There's constantly stuff going on, stuff being made and a lot of visible activity.
So, I feel like resisiting anything that threatens this (and building a lot of residential will - not just by displacing the stuff immediately in the Higgs estate but in the follow-on process where an increased residential population means an increasing lack of tolerance of things that generate noise and all the rest of it).
But it could be argued this is a kind of aesthetic motivation, and I should be careful to bear that in mind.
The other arguments for keeping the light industry are related to employment. All of these businesses provide employment at various skill levels, of a different kind to office work. It keeps a good range of employment available, locally, to people who live nearby.
The arguments against: firstly, housing, for which there's an obvious need. Local people also need affordable housing (of course, we can argue about whether or not what will be provided really will be affordable). The other point, mentioned by a couple of people at teh thing this evening, was that the industrial usage makes for an unfriendly street atmosphere especially at night. It's true that that stretch of road can feel deserted at night and to some people unsafe. So it makes the central part of LJ unwelcoming.
Is the employment argument strong enough to negate these other points - the need for housing, and the idea of making the area feel safer and more inhabited?
If we want to keep the light industry then the whole scheme should be opposed in principle, because it will effectively eradicate it. (In which case the argument really is about Lambeth planning policy rather than the design of this scheme)
If it's either justifiable or inevitable that the light industry will go, then we should concentrate on judging the scheme on the basis of the quality of housing it will provide, and it's impact on the street and central part of LJ.
One of the things I like about LJ (and which makes it what it is) is the fact that during the day there's a lot of stuff happening. The prop makers and other businesses in the Higgs estate, the steel fabricators and pizza factry the other side of the railway line, the VW van repair emporium, the metal scrapyard, the other scrap/waste processing place, Mickalos fast food factory, numerous car washes and of course all the car mechanics including the enclave on Padfield Rd where they fix black cabs. There's constantly stuff going on, stuff being made and a lot of visible activity.
So, I feel like resisiting anything that threatens this (and building a lot of residential will - not just by displacing the stuff immediately in the Higgs estate but in the follow-on process where an increased residential population means an increasing lack of tolerance of things that generate noise and all the rest of it).
But it could be argued this is a kind of aesthetic motivation, and I should be careful to bear that in mind.
The other arguments for keeping the light industry are related to employment. All of these businesses provide employment at various skill levels, of a different kind to office work. It keeps a good range of employment available, locally, to people who live nearby.
The arguments against: firstly, housing, for which there's an obvious need. Local people also need affordable housing (of course, we can argue about whether or not what will be provided really will be affordable). The other point, mentioned by a couple of people at teh thing this evening, was that the industrial usage makes for an unfriendly street atmosphere especially at night. It's true that that stretch of road can feel deserted at night and to some people unsafe. So it makes the central part of LJ unwelcoming.
Is the employment argument strong enough to negate these other points - the need for housing, and the idea of making the area feel safer and more inhabited?
If we want to keep the light industry then the whole scheme should be opposed in principle, because it will effectively eradicate it. (In which case the argument really is about Lambeth planning policy rather than the design of this scheme)
If it's either justifiable or inevitable that the light industry will go, then we should concentrate on judging the scheme on the basis of the quality of housing it will provide, and it's impact on the street and central part of LJ.
Last edited:
A good summary - just to clarify the point below, by "official Lambeth-led" consultation, I think he meant the statutory consultation period once the planning app is registered (usually 21 days I think), when you can respond with comments on the Lambeth Planning Portal.
editor
hiraethified
There's a summary on B Buzz: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/09/...ugh-junction-reveals-10-storey-housing-block/
goldengraham
Well-Known Member
I was at the same consultation as teuchter - thanks for the comprehensive report/notes
Not much more to add really, except that the opening up of the road past the arches seems a dead sure sign that the units on the other side of the railway line facing onto Hinton Road (carpet shop, garage, Islamic school etc) won't be long for redevelopment too. The arches could offer some nice retail sites, assuming Network Rail renovates them properly and doesn't charge the earth for the rental.
Of the existing 'light industrial' tenants, I could see it being viable for the clay footprints people and the antiques shop, and possibly the portuguese church, to stay, but none of the others (the architect claimed some of the tenants had willingly offered to sell up)
While I also think the Sureways church has every right to keep its place in the new scheme, I was disappointed with the dullness of its redevelopment plans, basically to maintain the same curved building (with a few access/window modifications) right on the corner of Herne Hill Road/Coldharbour Rd. It must be one of the ugliest buildings in the entire area and they have missed a chance to do something more creative on a prime bit of high street.
It also struck me that there was no provision to widen pavements on Herne Hill Road/Coldharbour Lane - with c500 new residents, that would surely need to be done as they are already uninvitingly narrow especially on CH lane.
Not much more to add really, except that the opening up of the road past the arches seems a dead sure sign that the units on the other side of the railway line facing onto Hinton Road (carpet shop, garage, Islamic school etc) won't be long for redevelopment too. The arches could offer some nice retail sites, assuming Network Rail renovates them properly and doesn't charge the earth for the rental.
Of the existing 'light industrial' tenants, I could see it being viable for the clay footprints people and the antiques shop, and possibly the portuguese church, to stay, but none of the others (the architect claimed some of the tenants had willingly offered to sell up)
While I also think the Sureways church has every right to keep its place in the new scheme, I was disappointed with the dullness of its redevelopment plans, basically to maintain the same curved building (with a few access/window modifications) right on the corner of Herne Hill Road/Coldharbour Rd. It must be one of the ugliest buildings in the entire area and they have missed a chance to do something more creative on a prime bit of high street.
It also struck me that there was no provision to widen pavements on Herne Hill Road/Coldharbour Lane - with c500 new residents, that would surely need to be done as they are already uninvitingly narrow especially on CH lane.
Leo Chesterton
Active Member
I must have been at the same thing at the same time as teuchter and goldengraham. They have covered things very well. I surprised myself by coming out rather more positive about this development than I thought I would.
In the hour or so I was there 20-25 different people must have come through which means it was not the worst attended planning event I've seen. Jim Dickson was there which gave me some reassurance that a sensible council eye would be kept on things.
The developers were basically playing lip service to a Lambeth Council requirement that they consult locally before submitting to Planning, but they are also now in a council process where they have to submit by the end of this week which is why they're in a rush. Sounds like a bit of disorganisation due to bureaucratic whirl but not like the combination of slap-dash incompetence and cynical stealth that characterised the EDF proposals for the Bengeworth Road site a couple of years ago, which I vehemently oppposed.
Parrit Leng are much more professional than the EDF lot, perhaps because they encompass architecture, development etc. I forgave Chris the Architect for the hipster ZZ-top beard after listening to him speak intelligently and take questions for nearly an hour. They have considered many of the issues I had such as permeability.
I don't think they'll replace the current industry at the site like-for-like- but I also don't think it is possible. Some of the industry there is just there because it is unchoosy and the low-grade light industrial units with parking for rusting vehicles are cheap rather than unique in the area. It was interesting that MDM, the props company, are outgrowing the site and moving on anyway. In fact I think Parrit Leng are working on some other site options for them. I don't know if any of the other businesses will move back in but the developers and council have given thought to spec'ing out the industrial units in the proposal including 4m ceiling heights so it is not just a matter of keeping the floor area.
I don't think these B1 industrial units will ever be redesignated as residential because they are too close to the existing railway arches to pass light and sound planning requirements. They may slip from light-industrial/office mix to generic office-space in a couple of years time but they also will not turn into straight retail for two reasons: firstly (in my opinion) because it would a less attractive site than the existing under-used "high-street" sites on Coldharbour Lane but also, explicitly, because under current planning rules Loughborough Junction does not count as a "Town Centre" (vs Brixton & Camberwell) so Lambeth will not allow these units to have change of use to retail.
i think realistically they are already at a reasonable point of compromise between residential, B1 industrial and public space.
I'm also in favour for the following reasons:
* The 160 housing units are a sensible mix, arrived at in agreement with council including a larger proportion of 3-beds than many developments.
* Opening up the rear of the arches could unlock interesting opportunities for those arches e.g. for Whirled, the boxing gym, Austin's Garage and potentially for opening up one or more arches to the west to make the site foot/bike permeable.
* The development did not look quite as ugly on the sci-fi pictures on display as they appear in teuchter's admirable photos but there is really no way that anything they do would not be an improvement on the hideous blight in the centre of LJ. I'm not a fan of power-churches but I'd rather have one with windows than a windowless diarrhea coloured brick wall.
* The landscaping, public space and partial permeability is in line with LJAG's redevelopment framework, quite close in fact to the idea of developing around existing "yards" and will make the area more pleasant but also more interesting.
* The impact on existing housing would seem to be minimal.
When the plan is submitted I will make the following broadly supportive points:
* There needs to be a covenant about parking permits.
* The industrial units might need more temporary parking and turning space to be viable e.g. for deliveries etc. They say they've considered this and that the gaps between units and arches are 7m but it did not look adequate to my untrained eye on the plans.
* There should be something in the contract about permanent public right of way and something to make increasing permeability an objective/obligation for whichever housing association takes this on.
* There should be some commitment to provide lighting by the arches.
* There should be something about road crossings and pavement improvements. Maybe more council's dept.
* They should consider any impact on the potential development of a LJ / Brixton East station on the London Overground.
* They should consider getting a commitment from Thameslink for increased services to LJ at peak hours / spending money to do this. No idea how that could work though.
* They should include bike frames for the industrial units and enclosed bike sheds for the residential units.
What are other people going to say? If there are a few similar points made they might have more impact on the council's response.
Cheers,
Leo
In the hour or so I was there 20-25 different people must have come through which means it was not the worst attended planning event I've seen. Jim Dickson was there which gave me some reassurance that a sensible council eye would be kept on things.
The developers were basically playing lip service to a Lambeth Council requirement that they consult locally before submitting to Planning, but they are also now in a council process where they have to submit by the end of this week which is why they're in a rush. Sounds like a bit of disorganisation due to bureaucratic whirl but not like the combination of slap-dash incompetence and cynical stealth that characterised the EDF proposals for the Bengeworth Road site a couple of years ago, which I vehemently oppposed.
Parrit Leng are much more professional than the EDF lot, perhaps because they encompass architecture, development etc. I forgave Chris the Architect for the hipster ZZ-top beard after listening to him speak intelligently and take questions for nearly an hour. They have considered many of the issues I had such as permeability.
I don't think they'll replace the current industry at the site like-for-like- but I also don't think it is possible. Some of the industry there is just there because it is unchoosy and the low-grade light industrial units with parking for rusting vehicles are cheap rather than unique in the area. It was interesting that MDM, the props company, are outgrowing the site and moving on anyway. In fact I think Parrit Leng are working on some other site options for them. I don't know if any of the other businesses will move back in but the developers and council have given thought to spec'ing out the industrial units in the proposal including 4m ceiling heights so it is not just a matter of keeping the floor area.
I don't think these B1 industrial units will ever be redesignated as residential because they are too close to the existing railway arches to pass light and sound planning requirements. They may slip from light-industrial/office mix to generic office-space in a couple of years time but they also will not turn into straight retail for two reasons: firstly (in my opinion) because it would a less attractive site than the existing under-used "high-street" sites on Coldharbour Lane but also, explicitly, because under current planning rules Loughborough Junction does not count as a "Town Centre" (vs Brixton & Camberwell) so Lambeth will not allow these units to have change of use to retail.
i think realistically they are already at a reasonable point of compromise between residential, B1 industrial and public space.
I'm also in favour for the following reasons:
* The 160 housing units are a sensible mix, arrived at in agreement with council including a larger proportion of 3-beds than many developments.
* Opening up the rear of the arches could unlock interesting opportunities for those arches e.g. for Whirled, the boxing gym, Austin's Garage and potentially for opening up one or more arches to the west to make the site foot/bike permeable.
* The development did not look quite as ugly on the sci-fi pictures on display as they appear in teuchter's admirable photos but there is really no way that anything they do would not be an improvement on the hideous blight in the centre of LJ. I'm not a fan of power-churches but I'd rather have one with windows than a windowless diarrhea coloured brick wall.
* The landscaping, public space and partial permeability is in line with LJAG's redevelopment framework, quite close in fact to the idea of developing around existing "yards" and will make the area more pleasant but also more interesting.
* The impact on existing housing would seem to be minimal.
When the plan is submitted I will make the following broadly supportive points:
* There needs to be a covenant about parking permits.
* The industrial units might need more temporary parking and turning space to be viable e.g. for deliveries etc. They say they've considered this and that the gaps between units and arches are 7m but it did not look adequate to my untrained eye on the plans.
* There should be something in the contract about permanent public right of way and something to make increasing permeability an objective/obligation for whichever housing association takes this on.
* There should be some commitment to provide lighting by the arches.
* There should be something about road crossings and pavement improvements. Maybe more council's dept.
* They should consider any impact on the potential development of a LJ / Brixton East station on the London Overground.
* They should consider getting a commitment from Thameslink for increased services to LJ at peak hours / spending money to do this. No idea how that could work though.
* They should include bike frames for the industrial units and enclosed bike sheds for the residential units.
What are other people going to say? If there are a few similar points made they might have more impact on the council's response.
Cheers,
Leo
teuchter
je suis teuchter
As far as I understood it, the 4m ceiling heights are only in the basement, and only under one block. We don't know how much m2 there will be until the full plans are submitted. The units that are there at the moment have double height shutter entrances at ground level, must be about 20-30m from front to back and have generous loading space outside. The commercial units proposed at ground level are tiny in comparison - the ones opposite the railway arches look like they are about 5m from front to back.
Even if the basement units were put into extra-light industrial use, the scheme as drawn doesn't seem to have adequate loading space at all. Basically just one standard width access, with one turning point for lorries, which I would guess is there because that's what has to be allowed for a bin lorry/fire engine. I can't see it working at all for any business actually *making* anything, with requirements for deliveries and loading, waste disposal and so on.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
To put this into perspective - here's a diagram from a standard design handbook showing the minimum space requirements for loading bays in tight sites -
(dimensions are in mm so 25000=25m, etc)
I think I want to see the full set of drawings actually submitted before coming to any conclusions.
Leo Chesterton
Active Member
Nice diagram! 20m? I don't see them fitting in much in the way of big lorries.
I must have got the wrong end of the stick with 4m heights - I look forward to seeing some plans.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
They should dedicate a whole block to business use - but won't for financial reasons.
Leo Chesterton
Active Member
Yes - I don't know the formula they use but the commercial stuff does not make the developer money - the council are requiring it and they are pragmatically using it to get above the height of the railway lines at which point they can make money from the residential stuff. The amount of residential they can pile on is capped by height restrictions they've reached working with the council. The architect said that within those parameters it was at the edge of viability.
Bobzillard
New Member
Would an Overground station at Loughborough Junction ever be possible if this development went ahead?
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
The Overground tracks are on the South side of the viaduct, so this development to the North wouldn't make much physical difference.
However, such a station would be an expensive project and would probably have to be part-funded by surrounding redevelopment. Without a station plan in place, and S106 payments towards it, developing the site now makes a future station less likely, as it removes a potential source of funding.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I was wondering if taking a slice off the south edge of the Higgs site would allow the 3 northernmost tracks to be realigned further north and leave a space for an island platform in between the two tracks used by the overground.
It would be an expensive and very disruptive project though, on a heavily used bit of line.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Why slew 3 lines north when you could slew one line south?
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Your proposal would also avoid the demolition of the three houses on the corner of Wanless Road...
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I must thank High Definition teuchter goldengraham Leo Chesterton and anybody else I have failed to mention for giving a very detailed account of the consultation so far.
When I went on Monday afternoon - 3.45 or so I was in a rush, and still almost missed it completely because the only sign with a map was on the door of the rooms being used for the consultation - as far from the public highway as possible to get.
I am still mulling over my reaction to the scheme, but wanted to point out that there is a further consultation tomorrow (which I cannot make unfortunately) http://www.loughboroughjunction.org...-higgs-triangle-thursday-4-september-6-8-30pm
My immediate reaction for the very few minutes I was there was this:
The developer seemed to be telling people with objections/preferences exactly what he thought they wanted to hear.
There were some people there in discussion with him about housing issues, and he was promising that social housing would be provided in conjunction with a housing association. One of the participants in that discussion, who I know, pointed out that there were no subsidies around for that these days - how was he then going to do it? The developer simply insisted it was no problem, but provided no details or further information.
Another couple were there and had a connection with the boxing gym on the other (south) side of the rail tracks and were concerned about boundary issues. "Oh we will do a party wall agreement!" declared the developer.
My impression in a few minutes (and I myself did not engage with the developer of architect, nor they with me) was that this was an opportunistic proposal and the developer appears to be a hustler.
What is revolving round in my head is the film "The Producers" where Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom sweet-talk the old ladies to get the "checkies" - and the pleasant young lady who was taking the names and addresses of consultees morphed into the Swedish disco-dancing au pair who was engaged to answer the phone "Bialystock and Bloom.."
Sorry
When I went on Monday afternoon - 3.45 or so I was in a rush, and still almost missed it completely because the only sign with a map was on the door of the rooms being used for the consultation - as far from the public highway as possible to get.
I am still mulling over my reaction to the scheme, but wanted to point out that there is a further consultation tomorrow (which I cannot make unfortunately) http://www.loughboroughjunction.org...-higgs-triangle-thursday-4-september-6-8-30pm
My immediate reaction for the very few minutes I was there was this:
The developer seemed to be telling people with objections/preferences exactly what he thought they wanted to hear.
There were some people there in discussion with him about housing issues, and he was promising that social housing would be provided in conjunction with a housing association. One of the participants in that discussion, who I know, pointed out that there were no subsidies around for that these days - how was he then going to do it? The developer simply insisted it was no problem, but provided no details or further information.
Another couple were there and had a connection with the boxing gym on the other (south) side of the rail tracks and were concerned about boundary issues. "Oh we will do a party wall agreement!" declared the developer.
My impression in a few minutes (and I myself did not engage with the developer of architect, nor they with me) was that this was an opportunistic proposal and the developer appears to be a hustler.
What is revolving round in my head is the film "The Producers" where Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom sweet-talk the old ladies to get the "checkies" - and the pleasant young lady who was taking the names and addresses of consultees morphed into the Swedish disco-dancing au pair who was engaged to answer the phone "Bialystock and Bloom.."
Sorry
goldengraham
Well-Known Member
Re the Overground Line, they'd have to build separate freestanding platform structures on either side of the viaduct as the existing structure would not be able to withstand the extra load. That would involve separate land purchases for building and platform access. Can't ever see it happening unfortunately.
A simple and cheap fix would be a regular bus connecting Denmark Hill station to Brixton station via LJ. I'm amazed there isn't one already.
A simple and cheap fix would be a regular bus connecting Denmark Hill station to Brixton station via LJ. I'm amazed there isn't one already.
tripleseis
New Member
Surely this makes re-opening Brixton East for LO the most viable (read: easiest and affordable) option now. As you say, an LJ interchange would be too costly now, and the LU seem to want to avoid anything else interchanging to an already at capacity Victoria Line (until Crossrail 2 opens at least) so no LO interchange at Brixton for the time being also. Thameslink service frequency definitely needs increasing (an interchange with LO would just add strain to the existing peak trains) but because some loop users were so adamant they wanted to keep the through service and not have to change trains at Blackfriars, we may be stuck with what we've got for the time being (Herne Hill junction also has it's issues). I'm open to the idea of more buses serving the area linking it with Denmark Hill. Perhaps extend the 201 from Herne Hill along Milkwood Road, through LJ and then along Coldharbour Lane to Denmark Hill.
Anyway, my thoughts on the scheme (I live just down the road) are overall it seems pretty good and if anything I'm not surprised they're finally planning to redevelop that part of LJ. I like the permeable aspects of the scheme but hopefully the some of the creative businesses in the area will get to use parts of the new units planned. It's at least nice to see LJ now becoming a more pleasant place to be.
Anyway, my thoughts on the scheme (I live just down the road) are overall it seems pretty good and if anything I'm not surprised they're finally planning to redevelop that part of LJ. I like the permeable aspects of the scheme but hopefully the some of the creative businesses in the area will get to use parts of the new units planned. It's at least nice to see LJ now becoming a more pleasant place to be.
editor
hiraethified
I'd be careful for what you wish for. I know quite a few people who were happy to see Brixton being improved but they've since been priced out/evicted.
