Leo Chesterton
Active Member
So don't build any new housing, deliberately keep the ugliest buildings in London, keep under developed land locked behind arches or fenced off with rusty chainlink as a bulwark against the advance of cupcakes into LJ?
Higgs Triangle Loughborough Junction redevelopment
- Thread starter andrewdroid
- Start date
editor
hiraethified
Nope, not what I said at all. I'm been very supportive of some of the community initiatives around LJ, but this looks like another landgrab to me. How much social housing will there be? Do you care?So don't build any new housing, deliberately keep the ugliest buildings in London, keep under developed land locked behind arches or fenced off with rusty chainlink as a bulwark against the advance of cupcakes into LJ?
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
It's more a case of preserving traditional "works" where workers who do real work on material objects in existing viable businesses can survive.So don't build any new housing, deliberately keep the ugliest buildings in London, keep under developed land locked behind arches or fenced off with rusty chainlink as a bulwark against the advance of cupcakes into LJ?
Putting high price housing in industrial locations is a double whammy -
1. you lose real employment and industry
2. you con naive house purchasers into a life of mortgage slavery in an unsuitable location.
Leo Chesterton
Active Member
Yes I care and, as stated earlier in the thread, they are aiming at 160 units of assorted sizes 1,2 & 3 beds, they didn't know the mix but said more 3 beds than usual (developers like more smaller units, council demand is for bigger stuff for families). Ratio 60/40 private/affordable housing with 10% net shared ownership, set by the council, averaging out at 64 affordable units if they split by straight numbers, ~16 shared ownership so ~48 at affordable rent. The new definitions of "affordable" are not necessarily affordable (e.g. 80% of market rent) but they don't have a housing association lined up yet, and so I don't have any more detail than that.
I also like living in an area with a mix of employment (I wouldn't call the industry in the Higgs yard traditional, more late-20 century picaresque perhaps?) but that shouldn't stop development in an area that has been "traditionally" underdeveloped. A lot of the industry I've seen is actually filling a vacuum- e.g. the space being used to park vans rather than producing or repairing anything. I found it interesting the flagship for creative industry in the Higgs triangle, MDM are outgrowing the site anyway. Does anyone have any numbers on the current site use / employment?
Community initiatives are great and LJ has some brilliant organisers and artists: http://www.loughboroughjunction.org...d-launch-of-ww1-app-sat-6-september-12-30-6pm. I am very glad that you have been "very supportive of some of the community initiatives around LJ" Ed
But as the poor cousin to Brixton and Camberwell, falling in both Lambeth and Southwark council's blind spots LJ will have to whore itself out to private development to get any money spent on it at all.
I think LJ needs to make the most of its arches, bridges and oddly shaped yards. I'd rather try and nudge things towards good development (e.g. making the spec of the proposed B1 units fit for purpose, making sure opened up arches can be properly serviced and accessed) than discourage development altogether.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I'd be a wee bit cautious about this claim given that it comes from the developer in whose interest it is for MDM to clear off (unless you know it to be true from other sources?).
It would certainly be interesting to know what MDM and the other companies really think about the proposals, and to what extent they see their location here as helpful/necessary for their business.
Bobzillard
New Member
Shuttle bus: very good idea and with so little chance of Overground platforms at either LJ or Brixton it could be useful for years to come even if East Brixton was reopened.
Upping the frequency of loop line trains: I understand an extra 8 trains per hour will be run through LJ from December this year until January 2018 while London Bridge is remodelled under the Thameslink programme. They would be mainline trains passing through without stopping but it might indicate the line has the required capacity (the same changes were applied for 10 days a week ago and seemed to go smoothly enough).
Stopping loop line trains at Blackfriars: would that not be possible in a future timetable to change this in order to provide extra capacity whatever has been fought over?
I agree the proposed scheme looks pretty good although the proposed commercial units do look small for the businesses presently on that site.
Upping the frequency of loop line trains: I understand an extra 8 trains per hour will be run through LJ from December this year until January 2018 while London Bridge is remodelled under the Thameslink programme. They would be mainline trains passing through without stopping but it might indicate the line has the required capacity (the same changes were applied for 10 days a week ago and seemed to go smoothly enough).
Stopping loop line trains at Blackfriars: would that not be possible in a future timetable to change this in order to provide extra capacity whatever has been fought over?
I agree the proposed scheme looks pretty good although the proposed commercial units do look small for the businesses presently on that site.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Actually I'm not entirely clear about that. They introduced the presentation saying the church building would not be demolished and initially I thought this meant the older (late victorianish?) halfway along the herne hill rd edge of the site. Looks like that would be demolished though, and they meant the building on the corner as you describe, seemingly re-wrapped to some extent and with a couple of additional storeys on top.
Seems to me there's a big missed opportunity to improve that corner. Odd to knock down the older building yet keep the one on the corner that turns a blank face to Coldharbour Lane. I presume it's to do with land ownership but I think lambeth should put some pressure on for sureways church to allow things on the corner to be made better. I should think sureways (assumimg they own that bit of the site) will do quite nicely if the development goes ahead.
Seems to me there's a big missed opportunity to improve that corner. Odd to knock down the older building yet keep the one on the corner that turns a blank face to Coldharbour Lane. I presume it's to do with land ownership but I think lambeth should put some pressure on for sureways church to allow things on the corner to be made better. I should think sureways (assumimg they own that bit of the site) will do quite nicely if the development goes ahead.
mizfick
New Member
Well, anyone who lives in the refurb's gonna hear some pretty loud worship. Sureway is not currently in a listed looking building, so strange they the church is the only business that's not gonna move. I wonder why.
I like the look of Loughborough House, that's a great looking building which wouldn't be out of place in a spaghetti western / Coldharbour lane at the end of Herne Hill Rd (no doubt being refurbed again) but Sureway is in an old industrial estate. They must have put their foot down to stay.
I like the look of Loughborough House, that's a great looking building which wouldn't be out of place in a spaghetti western / Coldharbour lane at the end of Herne Hill Rd (no doubt being refurbed again) but Sureway is in an old industrial estate. They must have put their foot down to stay.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
The applications are now on the Lambeth planning database.
The main one here:
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NBQK7LBO03I00
The one relating to the "Sureways" church part of the site is here:
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NBQPOYBO03I00
I plan to have a proper look at them in the next few days.
edited to add - can't actually see any drawings under "documents" yet, though.
The main one here:
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NBQK7LBO03I00
The one relating to the "Sureways" church part of the site is here:
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NBQPOYBO03I00
I plan to have a proper look at them in the next few days.
edited to add - can't actually see any drawings under "documents" yet, though.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
It's on page 68:
Objectives
• Consolidate existing identity of the yard and
promote local manufacture and employmentwithin
the centre of the junction.
• Create a more positive aspect onto Coldharbour
Lane, opposite the station.
• Increase permeability.
• Enhance highways and public realm through
improved lighting, greening and paving.
• Establish desired use of future development sites
to protect neighbouring amenity and identity.
There is also to investigate providing an Overground station mentioned elsewhere.
Objectives
• Consolidate existing identity of the yard and
promote local manufacture and employmentwithin
the centre of the junction.
• Create a more positive aspect onto Coldharbour
Lane, opposite the station.
• Increase permeability.
• Enhance highways and public realm through
improved lighting, greening and paving.
• Establish desired use of future development sites
to protect neighbouring amenity and identity.
There is also to investigate providing an Overground station mentioned elsewhere.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
At least they haven't put drawing for a completely different application up - that has been known to happen.
andrewdroid
Born before the internet
fyi
Loughborough Junction Action Group are having two open evenings on Tuesday 23 September and Tuesday 30 September from 7pm to 9pm at Sunshine International Arts, 209a Coldharbour Lane, SW9 8RU.
Loughborough Junction Action Group are having two open evenings on Tuesday 23 September and Tuesday 30 September from 7pm to 9pm at Sunshine International Arts, 209a Coldharbour Lane, SW9 8RU.
Thanks Andrewdroid. Yes, LJAG is holding two further consultation events on Tuesday 23 and Tuesday 30 September from 7pm to 9pm at Sunshine International Arts, 209a Coldharbour Lane, SW9 8RU (opposite LJ station at end of the alleyway under the colourful bunting). Developers Parritt Leng will be there.
ChrisSouth
Well-Known Member
Tuesday 22 or Wednesday 23?
ChrisSouth
Well-Known Member
teuchter
je suis teuchter
As the application documents are now (eventually) available on the planning database I've started to look through them.
Firstly, regarding the employment issues, and what is proposed to replace the existing light industrial units.
Here's what they say in the Design Statement
In other words they seem to be suggesting that they are replacing like with like, but looking closer at the figures reveals this not really to be the case.
B1 use is general business use. This means offices, or industrial processes which can be carried out in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit
B2 use is general industrial use - anything that doesn't satisfy the restrictions listed under B1.
So, B1 and B2 are quite different.
Here's the existing and proposed usages, again from their design statement:
The tables are set out to suggest that the total floorspace and usage remains fairly unchanged, but the reality is that in the proposals nearly all commercial space is B1 usage, and hardly any B2, which there is at present.
Existing
About 1900sqm classed as B1, 1300sqm of this with ground level access
About 1800sqm classed as available for B2, and about 1400sqm of this with ground level access
Proposed
About 3450sqm classed as B1, 650sqm of this at ground level, about 1850sqm at first to ninth floor level in the corner "tower block"
Only 336sqm (less than 10% of the total commercial space) classes as available for B2, and all of this at basement level.
So existing 1800sqm of B2 usage is reduced to just 336sqm in a basement.
Existing 1300sqm of B1 usage (industrial with noise/dust/etc restrictions) at ground level is reduced to 650sqm at ground level.
(note - their figures for existing usage show units 7, 8, and 9 as B1, even though they are the same sort of units as the ones classed B1/B2. I don't know if they are going on current usage or permitted usage. If their existing B1 numbers include units which have permission for B2, but are currently used as B1 only, then the reduction in B2 usage is even greater)
Seems obvious to me that effectively there will be no industrial usage (of the type currently on site) in the proposed scheme. All of the employment will essentially be office based.
here are the block plans which go with the tables above -
Firstly, regarding the employment issues, and what is proposed to replace the existing light industrial units.
Here's what they say in the Design Statement
In other words they seem to be suggesting that they are replacing like with like, but looking closer at the figures reveals this not really to be the case.
B1 use is general business use. This means offices, or industrial processes which can be carried out in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit
B2 use is general industrial use - anything that doesn't satisfy the restrictions listed under B1.
So, B1 and B2 are quite different.
Here's the existing and proposed usages, again from their design statement:
The tables are set out to suggest that the total floorspace and usage remains fairly unchanged, but the reality is that in the proposals nearly all commercial space is B1 usage, and hardly any B2, which there is at present.
Existing
About 1900sqm classed as B1, 1300sqm of this with ground level access
About 1800sqm classed as available for B2, and about 1400sqm of this with ground level access
Proposed
About 3450sqm classed as B1, 650sqm of this at ground level, about 1850sqm at first to ninth floor level in the corner "tower block"
Only 336sqm (less than 10% of the total commercial space) classes as available for B2, and all of this at basement level.
So existing 1800sqm of B2 usage is reduced to just 336sqm in a basement.
Existing 1300sqm of B1 usage (industrial with noise/dust/etc restrictions) at ground level is reduced to 650sqm at ground level.
(note - their figures for existing usage show units 7, 8, and 9 as B1, even though they are the same sort of units as the ones classed B1/B2. I don't know if they are going on current usage or permitted usage. If their existing B1 numbers include units which have permission for B2, but are currently used as B1 only, then the reduction in B2 usage is even greater)
Seems obvious to me that effectively there will be no industrial usage (of the type currently on site) in the proposed scheme. All of the employment will essentially be office based.
here are the block plans which go with the tables above -
teuchter
je suis teuchter
And the housing types breakdown (also from the Design Statement):
And location of the types - affordable rented in block F at the back adjacent to the Thameslink line, shared ownership in the lower part of block D facing the other railway line, and private in the upper part of Block D and in the blocks fronting onto Herne Hill Rd.
And location of the types - affordable rented in block F at the back adjacent to the Thameslink line, shared ownership in the lower part of block D facing the other railway line, and private in the upper part of Block D and in the blocks fronting onto Herne Hill Rd.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Elevations -
^ This shows the elevation to Herne Hill Road as existing (top) and as proposed (bottom).
Again this drawing shows the Sureways site on the corner (ie at the far RH end) undeveloped as that is a separate application.
^ Elevation to Coldharbour Lane. The outlines in th background show the heights of the blocks at the back of the site relative to the existing buildings along CHL.
^This is the south elevation, ie. facing onto the main railway line (the railway viaduct sits directly opposite the lowest 3 storeys)
^ This is the West elevation ie facing the Thameslink railway line. Railway viaduct sits directly opposite the lowest two storeys.
^ This shows the elevation to Herne Hill Road as existing (top) and as proposed (bottom).
Again this drawing shows the Sureways site on the corner (ie at the far RH end) undeveloped as that is a separate application.
^ Elevation to Coldharbour Lane. The outlines in th background show the heights of the blocks at the back of the site relative to the existing buildings along CHL.
^This is the south elevation, ie. facing onto the main railway line (the railway viaduct sits directly opposite the lowest 3 storeys)
^ This is the West elevation ie facing the Thameslink railway line. Railway viaduct sits directly opposite the lowest two storeys.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I'm assuming they are providing what Lambeth has told them they have to provide. It's an argument to have with Lambeth rather than the developers, really.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
A reminder that the final one of these is happening tonight. I'll try to go along if I can.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I went to the consultation session (had to leave early though, unfortunately).
Quite a lot of people there - around 30 perhaps.
The Perrit Lang representation had obviously been caught off guard. They said themselves they hadn't expected so many people. As a result it was hard for them to explain the scheme (holding up a file of small drawings that people at the back couldn't really see).
In addition they seemed a bit ill prepared for questions, many of which I (having looked through the planning application) could have answered better than they did. I think the people they sent along (a technical director and a junior architect) weren't the ones most knowledgeable about the scheme.
Their planning consultant was there too, and I thinking he was being a bit dishonest about the massive reduction in B2 industrial space I describe upthread. Answers to questions about the amount of industrial space retained were fudged somewhat. Because I had to leave early, I didn't get a chance to question this, but maybe it was dealt with later on (can anyone else report back?)
I think they've messed up their community relations somewhat. What with the very short notice for the previous sessions, and their evident lack of adequate preparation for this one, I think they may have left a lot of people feeling that they have not made enough effort to listen to the views of people locally.
In any case - surely a meaningful consultation should take place at an earlier stage - not after they've submitted their application.
The deadline for comments on the application is Thurs/Friday this week. However the Lambeth councillor present suggested that this would be extended (partly due to the mess-up with drawings not being available on the website to start with).
Quite a lot of people there - around 30 perhaps.
The Perrit Lang representation had obviously been caught off guard. They said themselves they hadn't expected so many people. As a result it was hard for them to explain the scheme (holding up a file of small drawings that people at the back couldn't really see).
In addition they seemed a bit ill prepared for questions, many of which I (having looked through the planning application) could have answered better than they did. I think the people they sent along (a technical director and a junior architect) weren't the ones most knowledgeable about the scheme.
Their planning consultant was there too, and I thinking he was being a bit dishonest about the massive reduction in B2 industrial space I describe upthread. Answers to questions about the amount of industrial space retained were fudged somewhat. Because I had to leave early, I didn't get a chance to question this, but maybe it was dealt with later on (can anyone else report back?)
I think they've messed up their community relations somewhat. What with the very short notice for the previous sessions, and their evident lack of adequate preparation for this one, I think they may have left a lot of people feeling that they have not made enough effort to listen to the views of people locally.
In any case - surely a meaningful consultation should take place at an earlier stage - not after they've submitted their application.
The deadline for comments on the application is Thurs/Friday this week. However the Lambeth councillor present suggested that this would be extended (partly due to the mess-up with drawings not being available on the website to start with).
Last edited:
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I went too.
The bottom line for local residents seemed to be fear of their parking spaces (in surrounding streets) being nicked. They were very vocal in expressing that this was already taking place with Sureway International Ministries who own the most prominent part of the site "AND ARE NOT LOCAL ARE NOT PART OF THE COMMUNITY"
I live on the Brixton side of the seven bridges, and don't have a car or drive, so this is a bit peripheral to me, though I could understand why they were getting territorial.
My own view is that the major problems are:
1. there is insufficient attention to servicing either the industrial or residential parts of the site. The industrial units are expected to function without vehicles, and the issue of delivery access to the residential bits was not addressed (including the fact that Herne Hill Road has double yellow lines in that zone).
2. They have added a speculative 10 storey office tower - not included in earleir drawing we were shown at the same meeting. No explanation as to what happens if it cannot be let.
3. It seems likely that the church part of the site may not be "upgraded" at the same time as the main development, which would leave a disjunctive sub-optimum result, unlikely ever to be improved.
BTW Cllr James Dickson gave the developers a little lecturette on their poor public consultation at the very end of the proceedings.
Similar threads
