Higgs Triangle Loughborough Junction redevelopment

[teuchter]

Ho-hum, a bit depressing if all people are really bothered about is their precious parking spaces.

The ten-story office tower has been in there all along - in the drawings at the previous consultation and the ones submitted for the planning application (you can see it in the elevations I posted above).

 

[Leo Chesterton]

I was last night there too.

Bit of a shame about the poorly organised presentation but it was people who don't understand how a meeting works who wasted a lot of time angrily retreading the same trivial issues with ad-hoc out of context questions or monologues about parking and height.

Parking is always a whinge, as are school places etc. Since it is a Car Free development I think that was adequately addressed. The services arguments are non-issues for me - the council just has to provide services to meet demand and you cannot entirely halt building of new housing in an area of acute housing shortage just because of school places etc. Planning is needed of course. Schools and LJ train capacity in particular. Since there is no chance of this site housing a new school though that is not really pertinent to the planning application. More for councillors and TFL. I've asked about the impact of development on a potential Overground Station.

A lot of people I know who live south of the development towards Herne Hill have a more suburban outlook on things than me and there was a lot of "Yuck, a tower? But we nearly live in Dulwich Village" type objection to the height. I'd overlook it myself and am in favour of denser development where it doesn't directly abut existing housing. To me it just seems like natural back-fill of an underdeveloped part of Zone 2 transition zone. If you look at the existing buildings over 25m on a map http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Lambeth Tall Building study 2014 FINAL.pdf it is in keeping - Kings is mostly that high, Loughborough Estate is higher and there is plenty over 25m in Brixton which has been deemed appropriate for "tall buildings".

In the right place I like taller buildings. ( This argument applies to San Francisco but of course LJ has comparable qualities
http://www.dbarchitect.com/words/press/15/It's the Ceiling Heights, for One Thing.html )

The issues of commercial viability and permeability that I was more interested were barely touched. Ceiling heights for the ground floor commercial units were stated as 4m. I think they should be a bit higher.

I don't think the existing commercial sites there are as economically important as I had thought. MDM have half the space and are leaving anyway. There are two churches besides Sureways which do not have permitted use, a temporary 2nd hand shop, a removals company (just somewhere to park vans overnight and a bit of storage as far as I've been able to make out) and the only business I think it might be a shame to displace is a printing company. It would be terrible though if they under-spec the replacement commercial space and it was left empty.

I was interested to learn that the Sureways church is actually the headquarters of the "International Church" of something. Lots of talk of local roads filled with cars on Sundays, hence the "not our community" digs. The church has the freehold though so they get to decide what happens to their building- this makes more sense of their ambitions for office space.

I'm a little conflicted with the Church planning application as ideally they'd leave and free up the space for something relevant to LJ, but I don't want that hideous frontage left undeveloped!

 

[teuchter]

Parking is a non-issue for me too, but the capacity of the Thameslink line seems a valid concern. It's already overcrowded. Yet this is from the "Transport Assessment" in the application:



"There are no known capacity issues on any of the bus or rail routes in the area"

That's clearly nonsense! Sometimes it's inpossible to get on the train in the morning peak.

 

[Leo Chesterton]

Parking is a non-issue for me too, but the capacity of the Thameslink line seems a valid concern. It's already overcrowded. Yet this is from the "Transport Assessment" in the application:

View attachment 61883

"There are no known capacity issues on any of the bus or rail routes in the area"

That's clearly nonsense! Sometimes it's inpossible to get on the train in the morning peak.

I agree - it's not a reason not to develop housing though. Need to kick the train providers up the arse. Make express trains stop etc.

 

[teuchter]

The problem is that it's not that simple. Recasting the timetable is complicated and would have knock-on effects on other routes. And it takes longer than a couple of years to order new trains etc.

When there was all the stuff a litle while back about the stopping the through services at Blackfriars, I and others were saying we should be pressing for increases in capacity and frequency instead of retention of through services (the removal of conflicting paths at Blackfriars would have made it easier to retime services on the Wimbledon loop and probably would have given us a more reliable service too). That was an opportunity to get things improved but unfortunately the vocal campaign to keep the through services won out.

 

[teuchter]

(Of course, it goes without saying that I would support pressing for whatever improvements to the train service are possible, in conjunction with this site being developed)

 

[CH1]

The ten-story office tower has been in there all along - in the drawings at the previous consultation and the ones submitted for the planning application (you can see it in the elevations I posted above).

The drawing placed right before me seemed to be of the "green" aspect of the development. This had no tower - merely an even longer residential block at the back (south) end of the site.

Maybe this was a preliminary plan, and the changes were "not material" in the view of the architect/deveopers.
Maybe it was an old drawing and should have been updated but hadn't been.

In any case I stick to my guns on what I saw at the meeting.

 

[CH1]

I was interested to learn that the Sureways church is actually the headquarters of the "International Church" of something. Lots of talk of local roads filled with cars on Sundays, hence the "not our community" digs. The church has the freehold though so they get to decide what happens to their building- this makes more sense of their ambitions for office space.

I'm a little conflicted with the Church planning application as ideally they'd leave and free up the space for something relevant to LJ, but I don't want that hideous frontage left undeveloped!

Seemed to me there was a hint of racism about the remarks at the meeting - and I expect they not from churchgoers anyway.

Looking at the accounts of the church on the Charity Commission website it looks like they have a turnover of about £1/3 million p.a. consistently from 2008 - 2012 (the year of the last available accounts).
The freehold is held in the accounts at approx £1 million.
There seem to be branches in Malta, Nottingham and Ghana.
Charitable funds have been deployed in Ghana for the relief and education of orphaned girls and also similar in Uganda.
A loan was made for the establishment of the church in Malta.

I can quite see why residents last night consider themselves not part of Sureway International church - but that is not to say the church may not be doing good worthwhile work.

They certainly have every right to enjoy their property in my view - notwithstanding that the present building is aesthetically unpleasing.

 

[Leo Chesterton]

Seemed to me there was a hint of racism about the remarks at the meeting - and I expect they not from churchgoers anyway.

Definitely some culturism. Though it is not necessarily racist to want something other than a large church building at the exact centre of LJ. Specialist churches that people travel in for are "exclusive" rather than inclusive and do not contribute much positive to most people's experience of the area. For laughs think about how much people whinge about Brixton Village and the comparative inclusiveness of somewhere just trying to sell a bit of food.

Sureways is a particularly crap dead, bleak and ugly sight to greet you as you arrive and I think a large white Mormon or Southern Baptist church would generate exactly the same reaction.

 

[teuchter]

I think maybe the comments were also partly as a result of the fact that on a lot of the drawings that space is labelled as "community space". I think they are trying a bit to make the overall scheme look more friendly by implying a public space on the corner (of course, permission for the main site would still allow it to be developed without any changes to the Sureways bit).

I think that permission for the Sureways application should certainly be on the condition that the appearance of the building at ground level is improved, ideally with a widened pavement and a route through to the main site behind.

 

[goldengraham]

Regarding schools, there's Jessop, a huge and quite well-regarded primary school just up the road. Until recently it was the overspill school for much of Lambeth - I know people who bring their kids up from West Norwood to Jessop. Based on catchment, I'd have thought everyone in Higgs would get offered places there. Secondary would be Evelyn Grace on Shakespeare Road, or possibly Charter in North Dulwich as the catchment area for that will expand when the new school in East Dulwich opens.

 

[LJandproud]

Yep, the 10 storey office block (which will clearly do nothing to ease the housing shortage in Lambeth and is speculative - developers have no buyers/ renters in mind) looks like a "before picture", ie a 1960s multi-storey car park to be knocked down for an exciting new development but sadly, no. It IS the new development.

As for the rest of it, the architecture's so unimaginative it makes Brixton Square look like a contender for the Stirling Prize. The developers are confident they'll get the plans through and, as others have commented, they've done a great job of hiding them from the community so far.

Local councillors agree the consultation's been a sham and most residents still have no idea this is happening! Somebody went round and cut all the planning notices down and the developers only leafleted streets within about 3 streets of the site but everyone using LJ station and other services will be affected! (The flats will house more than 500 new residents plus there'll be hundreds more office workers.)

Many residents are pro-development as recognise huge need for regeneration but this is purely profit-driven - totally wrong development for this site. Includes no retail and no thought's been given to need for extra school and GP places or community space or already dangerously over-full train services etc.

There's a meeting of the Loughborough Jn Action Group 7-9 pm tmrw (07.10.14) at the Sunshine Intl Arts Cafe, 209a Coldharbour Lane and it's really important that anyone who wants to comment does it now on the Lambeth planning website (keyword Higgs).

 

[LJandproud]

Regarding schools, there's Jessop, a huge and quite well-regarded primary school just up the road. Until recently it was the overspill school for much of Lambeth - I know people who bring their kids up from West Norwood to Jessop. Based on catchment, I'd have thought everyone in Higgs would get offered places there. Secondary would be Evelyn Grace on Shakespeare Road, or possibly Charter in North Dulwich as the catchment area for that will expand when the new school in East Dulwich opens.

Jessop was oversubscribed when St Saviours went into special measures, though. No way it could take potentially hundreds more kids. Already built over much of its outdoor space during last expansion. Cllr Jim Dickson agrees with this. So sad the council can't compulsorily purchase the site for a new school and affordable housing.

 

[editor]

There's a meeting of the Loughborough Jn Action Group 7-9 pm tmrw (07.10.14) at the Sunshine Intl Arts Cafe, 209a Coldharbour Lane and it's really important that anyone who wants to comment does it now on the Lambeth planning website (keyword Higgs).

Feel free to add it to the Brixton Buzz calendar!
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/add-your-event/

 

[LJandproud]

Feel free to add it to the Brixton Buzz calendar!
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/add-your-event/

Done! Also worth noting that if using Lambeth's planning portal to comment on the Higgs plans, you need to register first. Registration takes 30 seconds. Not onerous. You just need to ignore the bit on the site that says "Comments can't be submitted at this time". It's said that since the start of the consultation. Lambeth accept it's a problem and have asked their IT dept to remove the wording. Clearly no joy yet. Deadline for comments open for another 4 wks apparently.

 

[teuchter]

Worth pointing out that there are two applications - people should try and comment accordingly.

I saw quite a few comments which related to issues with one of the sites, entered as comments for the other site. I would hope that Lambeth would recognise where this has happened and make sure they were considered along with the relevant application, but then again, it's Lambeth we are dealing with.

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

 

[editor]

Worth pointing out that there are two applications - people should try and comment accordingly.

I saw quite a few comments which related to issues with one of the sites, entered as comments for the other site. I would hope that Lambeth would recognise where this has happened and make sure they were considered along with the relevant application, but then again, it's Lambeth we are dealing with.

Thanks for clarifying that. And you're right, it is confusing. I've updated the B Buzz piece accordingly.

 

[teuchter]

I've updated the B Buzz piece accordingly.

The curved ‘community centre’ as they label it will actually be a big expansion of the existing Pentecostal Sureaways Intl Ministries Church. It won’t be open to the community at all. Parritt Leng are wilfully misleading people on this point.

To be a bit more specific about what is actually proposed for the Sureways church:
I'm not sure it's quite right to say it's an expansion of the church.
As far as I can see the church itself (on the ground floor level, with gallery seating above) remains about the same size.
A "conference centre" is added at 2nd floor level. Whether this is intended for church activities or to rent out or for both I don't know.
Then flats on 3rd floor and 4th floor.



Here is the 1st floor plan. I note there's a triangular room labelled "new community space". As you can see it's not very big. Not sure if this is just there so they can say the building contains "community space". The CGI showing the main elevation with "community centre" signs on it seems deliberately misleading to me.

I think they probably deserve the steadily growing list of "objection" comments on the planning database. Even if some of the reasons given for objections are a bit questionable, this scheme really hasn't been communicated to local folk clearly or, arguably, honestly.

 

[editor]

To be a bit more specific about what is actually proposed for the Sureways church:
I'm not sure it's quite right to say it's an expansion of the church.
As far as I can see the church itself (on the ground floor level, with gallery seating above) remains about the same size.
A "conference centre" is added at 2nd floor level. Whether this is intended for church activities or to rent out or for both I don't know.
Then flats on 3rd floor and 4th floor.


View attachment 62101
Here is the 1st floor plan. I note there's a triangular room labelled "new community space". As you can see it's not very big. Not sure if this is just there so they can say the building contains "community space". The CGI showing the main elevation with "community centre" signs on it seems deliberately misleading to me.

I think they probably deserve the steadily growing list of "objection" comments on the planning database. Even if some of the reasons given for objections are a bit questionable, this scheme really hasn't been communicated to local folk clearly or, arguably, honestly.

I'm going to keep on adding a link back to this thread with every B Buzz feature because it's increasingly difficult to get a clear picture of what is proposed.

Have to say that I'm pleased to see new posters contributing to this thread. The more people who know about this scheme, the better.

 

[LJandproud]

I'm going to keep on adding a link back to this thread with every B Buzz feature because it's increasingly difficult to get a clear picture of what is proposed.

Have to say that I'm pleased to see new posters contributing to this thread. The more people who know about this scheme, the better.

It is a significant expansion of the church. Here's how Mark Pender put it at a recent LJAG meeting. (He's the Planning Consultant employed by Parritt Leng): "The church building is currently 918sqm of church + 140sqm of B1 office space. The church will become 1384sqm of church + 192sqm B1 office space for the church. Plus there'll be an extra 2 floors above that, housing 5 flats. So it's 2 storeys now and will go up to 5. The church will own the flats."

 

[nagapie]

Jessop was oversubscribed when St Saviours went into special measures, though. No way it could take potentially hundreds more kids. Already built over much of its outdoor space during last expansion. Cllr Jim Dickson agrees with this. So sad the council can't compulsorily purchase the site for a new school and affordable housing.

There are other schools nearby that are not oversubscribed. However I think primary places would become an issue with that much housing.

 

[LJandproud]

Just seen this submission to the Lambeth planning site. I hadn't thought of using Site 2 to house lifts or a new entrance for LJ station but it's an interesting idea:

"This scheme does nothing but window dress a building which turns its back on the streets cape. all it will do is increase the bulk of the building but not improve the blank facade it presents to a key corner in Loughborough Junction. This site is crying out to be redeveloped together with the Higgs site immediately to the south of it with pedestrian connectivity from Coldharbour Lane through the site, together with retail to the street with ideally a widened pavement. Loughborough Junction Station is very congested and it would be wise as part of the redevelopment to consider whether an entrance and or lift be best placed in this vicinity. The schemes reference to a community centre is dishonest and the level of expansion to the church which serves a regional community will only exacerbate parking problems on a Sunday, yet add nothing to the vibrancy of Loughborough Junction during the working day. We would be pleased if this scheme were withdrawn and a revised application made once a Masterplan of the area has determined a way forward in conjunction with the community."

 

[goldengraham]

[QUOTE="This scheme does nothing but window dress a building which turns its back on the streets cape. all it will do is increase the bulk of the building but not improve the blank facade it presents to a key corner in Loughborough Junction. This site is crying out to be redeveloped together with the Higgs site immediately to the south of it with pedestrian connectivity from Coldharbour Lane through the site, together with retail to the street with ideally a widened pavement. Loughborough Junction Station is very congested and it would be wise as part of the redevelopment to consider whether an entrance and or lift be best placed in this vicinity. The schemes reference to a community centre is dishonest and the level of expansion to the church which serves a regional community will only exacerbate parking problems on a Sunday, yet add nothing to the vibrancy of Loughborough Junction during the working day. We would be pleased if this scheme were withdrawn and a revised application made once a Masterplan of the area has determined a way forward in conjunction with the community."[/QUOTE]

A brilliant summary of everything that's wrong with the Sureways site proposal - if only I'd been able to put it so well myself.

 

[LJandproud]

According to the LJ Action Group (LJAG)'s website, they've written to Lambeth Cllr Lib Peck asking for the two applications to be withdrawn and a Masterplan for the whole area developed. Let's see what she says...

 

[Leo Chesterton]

A Masterplan could involve larger scale infrastructure development (e.g. tie ins with the London Plan or TFL projects) and crucially could give the Local Authority compulsory purchase powers for example to provide permeability through arches or get key central sites (such as the Sureways scatolith) used properly.

 

[Tragedy Of Life]

I am against the whole proposal. I only found out by seeing a poster on the board outside LJ station this evening 17 October 2014. I think it is crimminal that sure church get to keep their ugly building and get paid to develop on top of the existing horrid structure. and yes they contribute nothing to the area and I hate Sundays when they block the roads with their expensive 4x4 horrid petrol guzzling monsters. plus the devlopment will do nothing for the area. apart from create another ugly block ruining the sunset from my balcony. As a loughbourough Junction resident for 16 years I appose it completly and I agree with LJ and Proud. Its just another money grabbing incentive with no consultation with the community on any level. No social housing. No community centre. No plans for any thing creative apart from piling people on top of each other to make more money. Something fishy is going on, and Sure church are part of it. They have dug their heels in and kept their ugly building and also got control of the flats above. more money for them. The developers dont care they just want to cram in as many flats as possible with no concern of local business or residents.

 

[LJandproud]

I am against the whole proposal. I only found out by seeing a poster on the board outside LJ station this evening 17 October 2014. I think it is crimminal that sure church get to keep their ugly building and get paid to develop on top of the existing horrid structure. and yes they contribute nothing to the area and I hate Sundays when they block the roads with their expensive 4x4 horrid petrol guzzling monsters. plus the devlopment will do nothing for the area. apart from create another ugly block ruining the sunset from my balcony. As a loughbourough Junction resident for 16 years I appose it completly and I agree with LJ and Proud. Its just another money grabbing incentive with no consultation with the community on any level. No social housing. No community centre. No plans for any thing creative apart from piling people on top of each other to make more money. Something fishy is going on, and Sure church are part of it. They have dug their heels in and kept their ugly building and also got control of the flats above. more money for them. The developers dont care they just want to cram in as many flats as possible with no concern of local business or residents.

You're not alone in just learning about this development. Our councillors have been horrified by the lack of consultation. Please let your neighbours/ local friends know the deadline for comments on the Lambeth website is next Friday (24th) and numbers matter! On the affordable housing issue, all developers have to abide by regs requiring 40% of the flats to be affordable. Parritt Leng have included the minimum (40%) of affordable housing in their plans, though several local architects suspect they intend to convert the office block to housing and if so, I'm not sure whether that would need to be split in same way or could be sold at market rate.

 

[teuchter]

I've (finally) recieved through the mail a formal notification from Lambethof the applications. On these letters it says comments can be made up until 11th November.

There is now an impressive number of public comments on the Lambeth database (75 for site 1 and 108 for site 2), some quite detailed. They seem almost universally to be objections rather than support.

 

[goldengraham]

I got an email today from Lambeth relating to the Sureways church redevelopment part of the plans (which I objected to). It says the recommendation is to grant permission.

The application will be considered at an open planning meeting at the town hall on 25 November. Got a feeling it will be a lively meeting ...

 

[goldengraham]

Here's the letter ...