Higgs Triangle Loughborough Junction redevelopment

[teuchter]

goldengraham 's post sums up the changes pretty well.

Height/size of buildings has been reduced a bit, but not hugely. If, as per the planning committee judgement, the previous scheme had a feel that it's an overdevelopment of the site, then these fairly small changes don't really address that in my opinion.

It's good that they are now proposing to widen the pavement on the corner. It's hard to tell exactly what the nature of the facade at street level is though.

In photos, model on the left is old scheme, on the right is new scheme.

 

[teuchter]

My own concern is over the de-industrialisation of Brixton, which is bad for jobs and turning the area into a dormitory with attendant infrastructure issues - as noted with overcrowding on the Thameslink service from Loughborough Junction.

This is the main issue for me too really - and the tweaked scheme changes nothing in this regard really.

There's not been much discussion on the thread about the loss of the industrial units. Does that mean that CH1 and I are the only ones really bothered about this?

 

[leanderman]

This is the main issue for me too really - and the tweaked scheme changes nothing in this regard really.

There's not been much discussion on the thread about the loss of the industrial units. Does that mean that CH1 and I are the only ones really bothered about this?

Probably. Post-industrial country ... with a housing crisis

 

[editor]

This is the main issue for me too really - and the tweaked scheme changes nothing in this regard really.

There's not been much discussion on the thread about the loss of the industrial units. Does that mean that CH1 and I are the only ones really bothered about this?

I'm not pleased with any of the proposals. I think it would be great if those people closer to this could publicise their concerns wider via a Brixton Buzz article. Anyone want to write it?

 

[Boudicca]

This is the main issue for me too really - and the tweaked scheme changes nothing in this regard really.

There's not been much discussion on the thread about the loss of the industrial units. Does that mean that CH1 and I are the only ones really bothered about this?

My friend is a cabinet maker and his workshop is being compulsory purchased by Southwark council as part of the Renewal project. Setting aside the derisory sum of money on offer, there just isn't anywhere else he can find to buy, there's nothing suitable for sale inside the M25.

So, when inner London loses the industrial units, it also loses the skills being practiced inside them. There will be no-one left to build you a fancy kitchen leanderman !

 

[leanderman]

My friend is a cabinet maker and his workshop is being compulsory purchased by Southwark council as part of the Renewal project. Setting aside the derisory sum of money on offer, there just isn't anywhere else he can find to buy, there's nothing suitable for sale inside the M25.

So, when inner London loses the industrial units, it also loses the skills being practiced inside them. There will be no-one left to build you a fancy kitchen leanderman !

Very true - even though we've just bought an Ikea kitchen!

Hard to house a record population and, at the same time, preserve commercial space.

With the population growing at a bonkers 1 per cent a year, it's only going to get more difficult.

 

[Winot]

Hard to house a record population and, at the same time, preserve commercial space.

And that's just *your* house.

 

[goldengraham]

Surely the thing about LJ is that there are literally dozens of disused railway arches that would make perfect light industrial space, if only they could be opened up and restored for purpose, as LJAG is advocating? You could create some amazing maker spaces by linking the arches in a thoughtful and unified way, letting them out at affordable rates and develop a whole new identity for the area based on that.

I'm not against there being industrial units around the area but if someone was proposing to build an industrial estate where the Higgs site is today, let's be honest there's no way anyone would consider it an appropriate use of the space (I wouldn't want a massive church plonking on the corner either to be honest).

I also question whether there is really the demand to sustain those larger units for light industry, as evidenced by the way power churches seem to be the only ones interested in occupying them.

The current proposal is an improvement on the last and will make for a nicer environment, although as everyone seems to agree, still way too big.

 

[Crispy]

Some of the arches round there are absolutely cavernous

But they're only accessible off dank alleyways that run down the back of peoples' gardens.

 

[teuchter]

Yeah, the railway arches can't replace the units that are in the Higgs estate, because of access issues amongst others. And maker spaces are all very well but that's not the kind of commercial industrial use that provides jobs.

Indeed permission probably wouldn't be given for a new industrial estate in that kind of location now. But I don't see that as an argument against keeping what's there - the opposite in fact. Once that usage is gone it's effectively gone for ever for that exact reason. A bit like pubs closing down.

That there is a need for industrial areas like this in inner London is recognised in planning policy. Some are specifically identified as to be protected. Unfortunately this one isn't at present.

And if the argument is that the need for housing trumps the need for local employment, then why bother providing all the office space that Lambeth have determined this development must offer? Again, a diversity of employment locally (ie not just all office jobs) is stated as an aim within planning policy.

 

[teuchter]

Plus - even if the railway arches could be suitable for light industrial - as soon as this site is developed as housing, good luck persuading the new residents that a bit of light industry is what they want as neighbours.

 

[Lizzy Mac]

There is now a fence up with locked gates. It's so sad.

 

[teuchter]

 

[teuchter]

Through the letterbox

 

[CH1]

Through the letterbox
View attachment 67260

I got it too - along with the latest "Lambeth Talk"
In terms of clarity and "in yer face" the leaflet wins hands down I thought.

 

[teuchter]

"Comments received: Impact on local transport infrastructure"

"Response to comments: Developer will make financial contributions (S106/CIL)"

I'd like a bit more clarity on that. Do they mean this has been renegotiated, or just that it was always the requirement that they'd make these contributions? In any case I'm not sure that financial contributions (unless on a very large scale) are what's needed to deal with the overcrowding on the trains. It's an operational issue (and made all the more difficult thanks to the success of the misguided campaign to retain through services on the Wimbledon Loop).

 

[CH1]

It's an operational issue (and made all the more difficult thanks to the success of the misguided campaign to retain through services on the Wimbledon Loop).

Slight diversion - did you know there was a brief period where trains ran from Luton to Guildford through Loughborough Junction?

I'd forgotten, but I turned up this old report from Lambeth Public Transport Group which goes on at great length about everything to do with public transport in Loughborough Junction in 1991/2.
The report - written by John Stewart (now Hacan) - was precipitated by British Rail's decision to axe all off-peak services at Loughborough Junction in May 1992.

How things change!

 

[teuchter]

Slight diversion - did you know there was a brief period where trains ran from Luton to Guildford through Loughborough Junction?

Nope - shame that didn't continue as it would be very handy for a journey I make quite frequently.

 

[CH1]

Can't resist putting up a short extract from the report - public transport archaeology like

 

[teuchter]

Things could be greatly improved by reopening the eastern platforms so that trains from Denmark Hill could stop, giving more connections and a more frequent service. If money were available then I'd vote for spending it on that. Someone said it's not possible because the curve is too steep, but I don't know if that's really true.

 

[Beasley]

the overcrowding on the trains. It's an operational issue (and made all the more difficult thanks to the success of the misguided campaign to retain through services on the Wimbledon Loop).

I wonder if trains could be added on the Wimbledon Loop line in place of mainline Thameslink trains that are being rerouted through Loughborough Junction until Jan 2018 because of works at London Bridge?

When the work there is finished there could be capacity on this line for trains that would run to and from the terminating platforms of Blackfriars station.

 

[teuchter]

I wonder if trains could be added on the Wimbledon Loop line in place of mainline Thameslink trains that are being rerouted through Loughborough Junction until Jan 2018 because of works at London Bridge?

When the work there is finished there could be capacity on this line for trains that would run to and from the terminating platforms of Blackfriars station.

The diverted mainline Thameslinks only follow the Wimbledon Loop route as far as Tulse Hill, then they diverge, so the "extra" capacity might not apply beyond that point. And the terminating platforms at Blackfriars are used by the sevenoaks services via Denmarkl Hill. Not sure if they have spare capacity to take more termoniating trains.

 

[CH1]

The diverted mainline Thameslinks only follow the Wimbledon Loop route as far as Tulse Hill, then they diverge, so the "extra" capacity might not apply beyond that point. And the terminating platforms at Blackfriars are used by the sevenoaks services via Denmarkl Hill. Not sure if they have spare capacity to take more termoniating trains.

Surely the Sevenoaks trains terminate at Kentish Town these days?
Not tried them out mind, but that is what it always says on the indicator boards.

 

[teuchter]

Surely the Sevenoaks trains terminate at Kentish Town these days?
Not tried them out mind, but that is what it always says on the indicator boards.

Yes you're right...looking at the timetable it's mainly the Kent trains that terminate at Blackfriars. Mostly just in the peak hours. So maybe there is some capacity there.

 

[Gramsci]

This is the main issue for me too really - and the tweaked scheme changes nothing in this regard really.

There's not been much discussion on the thread about the loss of the industrial units. Does that mean that CH1 and I are the only ones really bothered about this?

Now that I am up LJ way I have been seeing more of it. I like the fact that there is light industry in the arches and in industrial units. Its something Brixton has gradually lost.

It makes LJ a more interesting area imo.

 

[Chris Boyle]

Now that I am up LJ way I have been seeing more of it. I like the fact that there is light industry in the arches and in industrial units. Its something Brixton has gradually lost.

It makes LJ a more interesting area imo.

Hi Everyone,

I'm Chris Boyle, the architect for the Higgs re-development working with Parritt Leng. As you will have seen from the leaflet that we sent out , we have made considerable amendments to the previously submitted scheme that we very much hope have addressed any concerns that individuals may have had. Since our last Public Consultation event on Feb 5th, we have made additional mass and scale reductions which has further decreased the physical mass on the site.

If anyone is available to come to our next Public Consultation this Saturday (as stipulated on the leaflet) to review the final scheme you will be most welcome. The leaflet was delivered to approx 5,800 addresses (every property in the Loughborough Junction area) so we hope that there will be a good turn out. I'd also like to thank LJAG for their assistance in obtaining access to the Loughborough Estate for the leaflet distribution.

Just to be clear with the point that some of you have raised on the industrial units; there is no loss of this space with our proposal. The council made it very clear to us during the pre-planning process that we had to re-provide the same floor area of employment space that the site currently provides with the same use classification. They will not support a change of use. Our revised scheme actually proposes approx 3,000sq/ft more than the existing Higgs units.

If anyone has any other queries on the development then please come along on Saturday and we can discuss in more detail, I hope to see you there.

 

[teuchter]

Hi Everyone,

I'm Chris Boyle, the architect for the Higgs re-development working with Parritt Leng. As you will have seen from the leaflet that we sent out , we have made considerable amendments to the previously submitted scheme that we very much hope have addressed any concerns that individuals may have had. Since our last Public Consultation event on Feb 5th, we have made additional mass and scale reductions which has further decreased the physical mass on the site.

If anyone is available to come to our next Public Consultation this Saturday (as stipulated on the leaflet) to review the final scheme you will be most welcome. The leaflet was delivered to approx 5,800 addresses (every property in the Loughborough Junction area) so we hope that there will be a good turn out. I'd also like to thank LJAG for their assistance in obtaining access to the Loughborough Estate for the leaflet distribution.

Just to be clear with the point that some of you have raised on the industrial units; there is no loss of this space with our proposal. The council made it very clear to us during the pre-planning process that we had to re-provide the same floor area of employment space that the site currently provides with the same use classification. They will not support a change of use. Our revised scheme actually proposes approx 3,000sq/ft more than the existing Higgs units.

If anyone has any other queries on the development then please come along on Saturday and we can discuss in more detail, I hope to see you there.

Hi.

Thanks for being brave enough to post on here. I don't know whether you are going to read any replies or whether you've read this thread through, but I don't feel the statement about the usage change is accurate/honest, based on my understanding. I explained why earlier in the thread, in the post quoted below:

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

View attachment 61393

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:

View attachment 61394
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 -

View attachment 61398

These figures will be slightly different with the "redesign" but I think the central point remains. There is a significant difference between B1 and B2 usage. Is it not the case that the amount of B2 usage will be massively reduced compared to what's there now? Or have I somehow misunderstood things?

 

[Chris Boyle]

Hi.

Thanks for being brave enough to post on here. I don't know whether you are going to read any replies or whether you've read this thread through, but I don't feel the statement about the usage change is accurate/honest, based on my understanding. I explained why earlier in the thread, in the post quoted below:




These figures will be slightly different with the "redesign" but I think the central point remains. There is a significant difference between B1 and B2 usage. Is it not the case that the amount of B2 usage will be massively reduced compared to what's there now? Or have I somehow misunderstood things?

Thanks for your response. The council's use classification for the whole Higgs estate is B1/B2 (other than the Sureways church which is D1). There is no obligation from the council's perspective to provide a certain quantum of B1 or B2 as long as the proposed commercial space is the same floor area as existing and there is no change of use. Whilst the use classification under council Policy is B1/B2 (which we portrayed in the area schedules), the actual use of the previous tenants was not reflective of this; there was the Imprints building which made plaster casts of babies hands and feet, 2 illegal churches and a furniture removals company. The only one that could realistically be classified as industrial was MDM.

From all the Public Consultations that we've done on this site (including those on the previous application), the topic on what would be a suitable use classification for the proposed commercial units is the one with the biggest divide among local residents. There seems to be those in favour of retaining the B1/B2 use and those who can't see a need for it anymore and would prefer more leisure based facilities such as cafes, food retail, gym etc. The main point people make against keeping the B1/B2 use is that it provides no community based offering; a cafe or gym encourages social interaction and provides a use that local residents can directly engage with which isn't the case with B1/B2 units.

I can see both sides of the argument but a change of use would also be against council policy. The "Town Centre" which effectively ends at the northern point of Herne Hill Road does not extend onto our site, as such we are not able to propose anything other than B1/B2 with our application.

 

[teuchter]

I don't think the nature of the particular businesses that were there at the point in time before they were all evicted is relevant. The point is is that there are a number of units which are available for B2 use. Some of these were being used for B2 activities. Some weren't but could be used by another occupier as such in the future. If the churches were there illegally, that's not an argument for removing B2 usage, it's an argument for Lambeth enforcing pollicy properly.

The fact is that almost all of the commercial space that's in the scheme, even if it's classified as "B1/B2", simply won't be any good for the kind of work being performed in the industrial estate previously. For reasons discussed earlier in this thread. It's not going to be possible for anyone to make theatrical props in a 4th floor office. Nor would it be any good for the furniture removals company that you describe as non-industrial.

I understand your position as architect and the fact that the decisions on usage are driven by planning policy and market forces, neither of which are under your control. And not everyone will agree that keeping the industrial usage is desirable or necessary. But it's a bit irritating to see statements like

Just to be clear with the point that some of you have raised on the industrial units; there is no loss of this space with our proposal.

Which are simply misleading. The majority of the industrial usage will be lost. And building a large housing development will likely kill off other industrial business nearby in the long run. It feels like the proposal is not being represented honestly to those who don't have the time or inclination to read the drawings and planning documents carefully. In one of the consultation meetings (not one you were present at) your planning consultant also claimed that none of the industrial space would be lost.

It's the same with labelling the church as a "community centre" on the drawings. Not honest (as I think was teased out to some extent in the planning committee discussion). And these seemingly deliberately misleading statements are part of the reason the scheme got such a bad response from folk living locally.

 

[Chris Boyle]

I think that the nature of the previous businesses is of key importance in this debate. It could be argued that an industrial estate with no external influences that evolved into a situation where only 1 in 6 of the occupiers were of industrial use classification is evidence that there isn't a very high demand for industrial space. Whilst the previous units could have been used for industrial purposes, the fact most of them weren't cannot be ignored.

I do see your point on how the exact use differences between B1 & B2 can be made clearer but I do not think that it is misleading to say that employment space of an existing use classification is being re-provided as the same use classification. As I stated earlier, there is no instruction from the council nor is there an adopted Policy to provide a certain quantum/division between the B1 and B2 use proposed on this site.

I'd also like to be very clear that none of the previous businesses were evicted, that is a misleading statement.

I don't think there's necessarily a right or wrong view on whether or not the use classification should be B1/B2 or more B2 or something else entirely, as you rightly say not everyone will agree. It is an interesting topic.

We can see how the previous label on the CGI for the church building of "community centre" could have been misinterpreted. The images were for artistic purposes only (as stated in the committee meeting) and we were drawing attention to the fact that a community centre was proposed as part of the new accommodation for the church. Part of the previously proposed accommodation was for a multi-purpose conference/function hall that could have been used or rented by the community for any appropriate event. The application form, drawings, and all other submitted information on that application never proposed that the whole building would become a community centre. It was never intended to be misleading. As you will have seen on our leaflet, this is not proposed in the new application.

As a quick update; our new application will be submitted to the council today, it usually takes them a week or so to officially register the submission at which time all of our submitted drawings, consultant reports etc will be publicly available to view.