Higgs Triangle Loughborough Junction redevelopment
- Thread starter andrewdroid
- Start date
prunus
Tick tock.
Protest against the developer's intransigence tomorrow:
http://www.loughboroughjunction.org/higgs-triangle-protest-saturday-22-november-10am-12pm
http://www.loughboroughjunction.org/higgs-triangle-protest-saturday-22-november-10am-12pm
editor
hiraethified
I've just posted on B Buzz about this and will tweet widely. This really feels like it's been pushed through.
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/11/...gs-triangle-proposals-sat-22-november-9-45am/
Twattor
Well-Known Member
It is sad that you or anyone should feel like that.
Planning consultants and architects are engaged with the specific objective of developing proposals that are in line with planning policy, local development plans, sustainable development plans etc. set out by supposedly independent experts and legislators that hopefully know far more than you or I do.
The whole idea of the system is that developments should be beneficial to society and shouldn't even get as far as public consultation without direction from the planners that they are broadly in line with policy (it has been noted on other threads occasions where submissions have been withdrawn suddenly, and in those cases I strongly suspect this would be the explanationbehind the withdrawal). Members of the public usually can only object on the basis of planning law, and while it may be upsetting to some people, planning guidance is intended to be benefical to the greater populace. Across great swathes of the country objectors are generally branded as NIMBYs - one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist, as they say.
There is a massive housing shortage in London. I don't really care about churches, but as long as there is no loss of employment space then i don't see the problem with these proposals.
Last edited:
editor
hiraethified
Not even when the process is seen as so badly done that Tessa Jowell MP writes to Lambeth Council with objections to ‘premature and ill-advised’ Higgs Triangle development?
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
The main redeeming feature of the application is a higher than normal (for Lambeth) amount of "affordable" housing. However this affordabe housing is not affordable in terms of the majority population who have lived in Lambeth for the last 50 years. Ergo what you have here is yet more social cleansing, although the planning process does not allow that as an objection. But I object to social cleansing.
Twattor
Well-Known Member
If i understand th equotesd passages in your article correctly her objection is on the basis that it may not fit in with a possible future masterplan for the area. Don't hold your breath...
editor
hiraethified
Ergo, it's being pushed through, like I said. LJAG think the same too.If i understand th equotesd passages in your article correctly her objection is on the basis that it may not fit in with a possible future masterplan for the area. Don't hold your breath...
Twattor
Well-Known Member
Pushed through by who? A conspiracy by the developers and plannners? The planners are (quasi-autonomous) tools of the council. I'm sure if there really was a masterplan floating around then the application wouldn't have got this far but would have been quietly killed off at pre-app consultation.
This smacks of a bit of politicking by TJ.
editor
hiraethified
And how about the Loughborough Junction Action Group? Are they at it too? What for?
Twattor
Well-Known Member
I don't recall mentioning LJAG. I quite like them, and think they perform a valuable service looking out for the interests of the LJ community. I may have completely misread the situation, but the impression I got from your article was that TJ appeared to be hanging on their coat tails as a convenient vehicle to show a bit of solidarity with the locals, whilst actually doing nothing whatsoever.
You haven't expanded on who you think is pushing this through.
editor
hiraethified
Not being able to point to a specific person/group does not negate the feelings felt by some locals, LJAG - and Tessa Jowell - that this being pushed through. It seems to me you're choosing to ignore those voices. Why is that?
Twattor
Well-Known Member
I'm not the one suggesting anything other than a pretty procedural planning appplication. With every application there will always be those who object or feel disenfranchised, but that will always be the case.
I just can't see anything out of the ordinary here, and sought clarification from you of what you know that makes you believe otherwise. What is it that makes you think that there's something underhand going on?
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I think it is the applicant Parritt Leng who is pushing this through. They seem to be very efficient and determined. They have two similar developments on the go in Southwark only about a mile away. They project themselves as expert in producing basic commercial housing out of brown field sites. Unfortunately that happens to be exactly what Lambeth Council wants right now.
If this application had happened 15 years ago it would not have had a chance of being approved. The employment generating nature of the site would have been paramount. Mixed development was not countenanced in Lambeth at that time.
The developers have cleverly dealt with all current requirements of Lambeth Planning - from full compliance on affordable housing, to replacing all the employment space (albeit changing this from manufacturing/storage to offices - but unfortunately Lambeth does not have a policy to prevent this).
There is a site visit in the morning and apparently residents will be demonstrating, but it seems likely that the planning committee will wave this one through and we will be stuck with Parritt Leng's design.
If this application had happened 15 years ago it would not have had a chance of being approved. The employment generating nature of the site would have been paramount. Mixed development was not countenanced in Lambeth at that time.
The developers have cleverly dealt with all current requirements of Lambeth Planning - from full compliance on affordable housing, to replacing all the employment space (albeit changing this from manufacturing/storage to offices - but unfortunately Lambeth does not have a policy to prevent this).
There is a site visit in the morning and apparently residents will be demonstrating, but it seems likely that the planning committee will wave this one through and we will be stuck with Parritt Leng's design.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I agree with you that the role of the planning process is to allow decisions to be made for the greater good and that certain local objections should be ignored to that end.
But my main problems with this application are:
1) The consultation process (which should be part of the proceedure) hasn't been done properly. People weren't informed about it.
2) The existing employment types on the site will be lost completely (although the developers have deliberately tried to imply otherwise)
3) They have ignored real issues with the capacity of local transport (their transport assessment makes statements thatare simply false)
4) A masterplan for the area *was* produced a little while ago, with the cooperation of Lambeth, and this proposal runs contrary to it
All this has been covered earlier in the thread.
Read the several pages of objections on the planning database. Some are just NIMBYism, but many valid points are also made.
editor
hiraethified
Fancy writing a report for B Buzz?
Tricky Skills
Well-Known Member
Blimey.
Application rejected by Planning Committee.
Application rejected by Planning Committee.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I was slightly surprised by the result. The Planning Committee were swayed by residents and the Herne Hill Society and LJAG speakers objecting at the planning meeting - and the ward councillor likewise.
It is possible of course that the developer might come back for another try with less affordable housing as a quid pro quo for a less intensive scheme, which is what the councillors were asking for. Family Mosaic were on board for the scheme as presented - they provide 2,000 units of social housing in Lambeth currently they said.
It is possible of course that the developer might come back for another try with less affordable housing as a quid pro quo for a less intensive scheme, which is what the councillors were asking for. Family Mosaic were on board for the scheme as presented - they provide 2,000 units of social housing in Lambeth currently they said.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I do have a page of scribbly notes but after sitting in the stuffy committee room I've not really the energy to condense 2 hours of meandering discussion into some concise and coherent.
If you want to put something on Brixton Buzz I think it would be fair to say that the main gist of the reasons for refusal was essentially that it would be an overdevelopment of the site. Plus concerns about the narrowness of the pavement on Coldharbour Lane and the extra demands being put on it.
There was a lot (disproportionate?) amount of discussion about play space.
The fact that the existing employment types would be removed was touched on very briefly in a comment (a mention of ceiling heights etc) but not really discussed at all.
Lambeth officers claimed that transport assessments had identified that there wouldn't be an excessive demand on the train station (really?) and that the pavements as they are would be fine (really?). They say TfL had identified no problems.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
There was some discussion about density...various figures being mentioned in the context of the London Plan and Lambeth policies.
I might have misunderstood but it seemed that the London Plan designation of the site had changed during the pre-application process - from "urban" to "central" (on account of being less than 800m from Brixton centre), the "central" designation being used to justify the more intensive development and building heights. (CH1 if you were there too maybe you can confirm whether I got that right)
I might have misunderstood but it seemed that the London Plan designation of the site had changed during the pre-application process - from "urban" to "central" (on account of being less than 800m from Brixton centre), the "central" designation being used to justify the more intensive development and building heights. (CH1 if you were there too maybe you can confirm whether I got that right)
Twattor
Well-Known Member
That sounds plausible. It would be very unusual for a developer probably spending about £150k getting a scheme to planning stage if they weren't absolutely convinced that it was in line with policy and had the support of the case officer. Not least of all because planners are hugely overworked and want to avoid doing any unnecessary work preparing reports on a scheme that won't stand a chance, so tend to tell the developers to forget it if they're barking up the wrong tree.
Possible grounds for appeal?
Tricky Skills
Well-Known Member
editor
hiraethified
Excellent work!
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Perhaps a bit of a technical point - but this is not quite accurate. Certainly Cllr Dickson and others argued that a masterplan should be produced first but the chair of the committee did note, I think, that the possible future existence of a masterplan isn't a valid reason to refuse an application.
I do agree that a proper masterplan for LJ (what extactly is the status of the current LJAG/Lambeth one??
) would be very beneficial if there are going to be several largish developments happening in the near future.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Maybe. I reckon the developer will be well pissed off at the moment; however, planners tend to make sure that any advice given pre-application is just "advice" and they can't be held to it in the event of a refusal. Maybe they would have a case at appeal, but my feeling (just a gut feeling based on the incomplete picture I've got from attending consultations and tonight's hearing) is they've been pushing it a bit with this and maybe Lambeth haven't scrutinised some of their claims quite as well as they should have.
I think it's more likely that they'll resubmit with something a couple of storeys lower (despite theior claims that they've already shaved it down to the smallest scheme that it's viable to invest in).
editor
hiraethified
I'll never forgive or forget the devious bullshit that Barratt Homes came up with to get their affordable housing obligations reduced at Brixton Square.
Similar threads
