Higgs Triangle Loughborough Junction redevelopment

[teuchter]

Chris Boyle thanks again for taking the time to reply. Most developers simply ignore discussion boards like this.

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 would put this a little differently - here highlighted in red are the units whose usage until recently was of a type that won't be accomodated in the proposed scheme:



This is my best effort according to info available/my memory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 3 and 4 were MDM and I think 5 and 6 were being used by them too - at least, I'm fairly sure I saw large things being made in those units too. 7 was the packaging company. 9 was the imprints company - I've hatched it because I don't know enough about them to know if they would be likely to take space in the new scheme but I'm guessing that as they were effectively manufacturing stuff probably not. 8 is the church and 2 is an older non industrial building anyway. Looking at it this way seems to provide evidence of a fairly healthy use of the space by businesses that the new scheme simply won't be any good for. We can argue about the technical use classifications but they were all providing jobs that are of quite a different nature to the office-based ones that they will be replaced by.

On any case, I don't think the usage over the past few years can be taken as a reliable indicator of demand. To come to that conclusion would require taking into account a lot of other factors. The current/previous owners of the site may have been eying up redevelopment opportunities for some time. Maybe they were offering shorter leases than they would otherwise, so as to keep these options open. Maybe their marketing of any available space was influenced by this too. Perhaps in these circumstances offering a shorter lease to a church was more attractive than offering a longer one to a true industrial user who would want to invest in machinery and so on, even if the industrial user might have paid a bit more?

I'm not trying make criticism of Perrit Leng's potential involvement in any negotiations about the site, or its relationship or deal with the previous owners. I don't know what that's involved nor would I expect you to tell me. The point here is that I don't think local people should accept this kind of "not commercially viable" argument about maintaining the current usage (if they care about this issue at all, of course).

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 think it's misleading if it's being presented in the context of a discussion about whether or not the new scheme will provide space for similar businesses as were there previously. And that's how I saw it presented by your planning consultant.

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

Fair enough. I shouldn't suggest that they were removed against their will. However, I presume it's not just coincidence that all the main tenants moved out at around the same time, which happens to be the same time that a planning application for redevlopment of the site goes in. Maybe they were on leases that terminated at this point (as per my other points above) or maybe they were given incentives? The point being that they have moved on in order to make space for redevelopment of the site, and will now not return. Unless you are saying they all just happened to want to move out of their own accord.

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.

What exactly are "artistic purposes"? If they were simply artworks for people to enjoy as standalone pieces it was a bit curious to display them at consultation sessions. Let's not pretend that these images aren't used to portray the scheme in a way that will be attractive to those who will be affected by the development. The principle user (and indeed owner) of that building would be Sureways Church. The entrance to the church would have been on the corner. The signage was shown positioned over that entrance. The entrance to the token "community space" (in fact a rather small room upstairs) would have been around the corner towards the railway bridge. Someone made a conscious decision that the signage would say "Community Centre" not "Sureways Church" and I'm not buying it that that wasn't made for a calculated reason.

Anyway, thank you again for responding.

Also, the widening of the pavement on the corner is very welcome. I assume this means that more of the current building would be demolished than in the previous scheme?

 

[editor]

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.

Thanks for taking the time to keep us updated.

This site reaches quite a lot of people so I'm sure sure that there will be many interested parties who will appreciate your interaction here.

 

[Chris Boyle]

Chris Boyle thanks again for taking the time to reply. Most developers simply ignore discussion boards like this.





I would put this a little differently - here highlighted in red are the units whose usage until recently was of a type that won't be accomodated in the proposed scheme:

View attachment 67806

This is my best effort according to info available/my memory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 3 and 4 were MDM and I think 5 and 6 were being used by them too - at least, I'm fairly sure I saw large things being made in those units too. 7 was the packaging company. 9 was the imprints company - I've hatched it because I don't know enough about them to know if they would be likely to take space in the new scheme but I'm guessing that as they were effectively manufacturing stuff probably not. 8 is the church and 2 is an older non industrial building anyway. Looking at it this way seems to provide evidence of a fairly healthy use of the space by businesses that the new scheme simply won't be any good for. We can argue about the technical use classifications but they were all providing jobs that are of quite a different nature to the office-based ones that they will be replaced by.

On any case, I don't think the usage over the past few years can be taken as a reliable indicator of demand. To come to that conclusion would require taking into account a lot of other factors. The current/previous owners of the site may have been eying up redevelopment opportunities for some time. Maybe they were offering shorter leases than they would otherwise, so as to keep these options open. Maybe their marketing of any available space was influenced by this too. Perhaps in these circumstances offering a shorter lease to a church was more attractive than offering a longer one to a true industrial user who would want to invest in machinery and so on, even if the industrial user might have paid a bit more?

I'm not trying make criticism of Perrit Leng's potential involvement in any negotiations about the site, or its relationship or deal with the previous owners. I don't know what that's involved nor would I expect you to tell me. The point here is that I don't think local people should accept this kind of "not commercially viable" argument about maintaining the current usage (if they care about this issue at all, of course).



I think it's misleading if it's being presented in the context of a discussion about whether or not the new scheme will provide space for similar businesses as were there previously. And that's how I saw it presented by your planning consultant.



Fair enough. I shouldn't suggest that they were removed against their will. However, I presume it's not just coincidence that all the main tenants moved out at around the same time, which happens to be the same time that a planning application for redevlopment of the site goes in. Maybe they were on leases that terminated at this point (as per my other points above) or maybe they were given incentives? The point being that they have moved on in order to make space for redevelopment of the site, and will now not return. Unless you are saying they all just happened to want to move out of their own accord.



What exactly are "artistic purposes"? If they were simply artworks for people to enjoy as standalone pieces it was a bit curious to display them at consultation sessions. Let's not pretend that these images aren't used to portray the scheme in a way that will be attractive to those who will be affected by the development. The principle user (and indeed owner) of that building would be Sureways Church. The entrance to the church would have been on the corner. The signage was shown positioned over that entrance. The entrance to the token "community space" (in fact a rather small room upstairs) would have been around the corner towards the railway bridge. Someone made a conscious decision that the signage would say "Community Centre" not "Sureways Church" and I'm not buying it that that wasn't made for a calculated reason.

Anyway, thank you again for responding.

Also, the widening of the pavement on the corner is very welcome. I assume this means that more of the current building would be demolished than in the previous scheme?

Thanks for your comments again. With regards to the units, MDM were in units 3-6, Units 9 & 7 (and the others) were not industrial. It is worth remembering that B1 classification is not solely office, it does also include light industry suitable for residential areas. We've never made the argument that retaining the use is not commercially viable, we are retaining the use. The commercial space that we have designed can accommodate a wide range of employment uses (including B2) with a variety of floor plate sizes and ceiling heights. I can't name specific business owners but we have had some interest from an artists studio company about possibly taking some of the commercial area.

I'm pleased that you think widening the pavement for the Site 2 application is a good idea, it does mean that more of the current building will be demolished than the previous scheme.

Asides from the commercial use classification are there any other elements of the scheme that you or anyone else on this thread would like to know more about or have any queries on? Understandably there will be aspects of the scheme that people will not agree with and may have alternative opinions. We'd like people to be as informed as possible in this respect. We had issues on the previous application as well as this one of certain individuals and companies making rather slanderous and misinformed claims about us which we do not think is fair, obviously people are fully entitled to their own opinion but we kindly ask that people use all best endeavours to review all of the submitted information and try and speak to us before making up their minds on the scheme. A specific event that I'm referring to occurred the other day when a poster from the South London Press had been installed over the top of one of our public consultation banners reading "Lambeth: oligarch (i'm aware of the misspelling gentrification virus invasion continues"

We want to be working with the public as much as possible which is why we undertook such an extensive public consultation process and why I'm taking part on this thread. If anyone does have any other queries then please let me know and I'll endeavour to get back to you as soon as I can.

 

[Winot]

^^ I don't know much about this as it's outside my area but just wanted to thank you for coming here and engaging.

 

[Chris Boyle]

Hi Everyone, from re-reading my last post it looks like it uploaded before I'd finished writing it for some reason. The poster from the South London Press that defaced our banner read "Lambeth: oligarch gentrification virus continues" (on the poster they misspelled oligarch). I don't think that providing a large amount of affordable housing in line with council policy can be classified as gentrification, in any event general mud slinging and unfounded accusations are not a productive way of getting a point across.

I've been in touch with the editor in chief for the South London Press who has officially stated that the poster was nothing to do with them. Their assumption is that someone must have taken the poster from a news stand and made it themselves. They have since been to site and taken it down which we are grateful for.

The council have now officially registered the applications on their website now but they are still in the process of uploading all of the drawings and documents which should hopefully be complete in the next day or so.

Just to reiterate that if anyone has any other queries on the project then please let me know.

 

[Tricky Skills]

Chris Boyle the original planning application was rejected because it was thought that a 'resident led' Loughborough Junction masterplan needed to be in place before any future major development could be passed.

Did you consider holding back with this new application until the residents have had time to work with the likes of Cllr Jim Dickson to put a masterplan in place?

 

[brixtonblade]

Chris Boyle the original planning application was rejected because it was thought that a 'resident led' Loughborough Junction masterplan needed to be in place before any future major development could be passed.

Did you consider holding back with this new application until the residents have had time to work with the likes of Cllr Jim Dickson to put a masterplan in place?

I thought LJAG had done one?

 

[CH1]

I thought LJAG had done one?

Your right. It did in 2012/3.
Not sure why they have to have another one. Maybe the original one was "aspirational" and the new one will be a legal document planning wise.

Lambeth will be funding both exercises - no wonder they are thinking of closing half the libraries, if they can't even do planning correctly and spend twice as much as necessary.

 

[Chris Boyle]

The masterplan was not a reason for the previous application being refused, it was not referenced at all in the decision notice. At the last committee meeting the Chair said that they could not assess this scheme against a masterplan that may or may not happen. As such, it is not a material consideration for this or any other application.

Nonetheless, we have met with LJAG on numerous occasions and discussed the key principles that will be outlined in the masterplan that they are currently working on. We wholeheartedly support their main objectives of creating more green open space and more pedestrian routes through the Loughborough Junction area. We have taken this on board with our design and we will be delivering approx 1250sqm of publicly accessible green space, currently there is none. Furthermore, the only possible routes through the site to neighbouring sites and beyond is through the railway arches which is not possible on the site in it's current situation as the units on the southern boundary are adjoining the railway viaduct. Due to our proposed building positions, every arch that borders the site is opened up and can create a possible connection route when/if the sites on the other side(s) get developed.

The arches themselves are not part of our application and we are not proposing any change to their existing condition. What we have done by opening them up is enabling the possibility for these routes to be implemented as part of LJAG's masterplan which is the most that can be done at this stage. Further discussions would need to take place between LJAG and Network Rail in line with future development applications before this could be realised.

Any masterplan has to be undertaken in stages of phased development, considering that our scheme is in line with the key principles of the masterplan being worked up by LJAG and it does not hinder or obstruct development on any other site that it may target, we do not see any reason to delay our application until the masterplan is completed. LJAG have acknowledged that the scheme has been designed in accordance with their main objectives and the possibility of new routes has been maximised.

LJAG had previously completed a document called the Loughborough Junction Plan which set out key objectives and sites that could be developed in the area, I believe that the masterplan being worked up at the moment will be a more detailed version.

It is worth noting that when/if the masterplan is completed and adopted by the council, it will not override planning policy. Much like the current document, the council may recommend architects and developers to review it but any future application can not be refused for not being in line with its principles as long as planning policy is adhered to.

 

[teuchter]

It's now two and a half weeks since the application was submitted and still it doesn't seem possible to view it online. A list of drawings is now there but clicking on the links doesn't work for me - just get a "timed out" message. Has anyone else had any success? Chris Boyle is it possible to chase lambeth on this?

 

[teuchter]

Ok, looks like the drawings are finally available. I've yet to look through them properly but an initial question for Chris Boyle:





The lower image is an extract from the plans, and represents approximately the same area as the google aerial view above it.

On the plans, the access road into the proposed development is shown running immediately next to the north edge of the railway viaduct.

If you look at the aerial view, you can see there is a strip of space, 2 or 3m wide, between the north edge of the viaduct and the back of the existing industrial units. That strip is filled at least partly with extensionsn to the railway arch units. For example, in Whirled cinema, the seating is under the viaduct arch, but the screen is a couple of metres further "outside" of the arch opening. As far as I understand it's within that strip (as are the toilets and access to the toilets). The plans imply that all those extensions to the arch units will be demolished, which would mean the cinema would have to be reconfigured and made smaller. Presumably the same would apply to other arch units too.

So, is that right; the proposals will mean Whirled cinema and other arch users will have part of their space taken away? Or is the proposal plan drawn wrongly? Or have I misunderstood something?



(nb Whirled cinema is not actually located where it's marked on the google view - it's further off to the left, under the railway)

 

[teuchter]

I've started having a look at the application documents. Here from the design statement are a couplel of comparison CGIs showing previous vs new proposal.


This is looking along Herne Hill Road down towards Coldharbour Lane. Previous scheme left, new one right.

I think it's fair to say that any reduction in massing is negligible. Bulk presented to street is not reduced at all really (in fact the elevation has become somewhat less perforated with a number of balcony recesses removed). Looking down the alleyway the apparent height of the second block has increased if anything as it no longer has a setback at upper level. The reasons given for refusal included excessive sense of enclosure and overdevelopment of the site. I wouldn't say these images indicate that any significant changes have been made in that regard.

 

[teuchter]

This is the Coldharbour Lane corner.



New scheme on the right.

It's better. Pavement has been widened and the streetfront at ground level has been made a little bit less blank. It's OK if not massively exciting. I don't think I'll object to the new site 2 application.

 

[teuchter]

If anyone wants to look at the drawings or make a comment, links to planning database are:

Site 1 (Main Development)

Site2 (Sureways church corner site)

 

[CH1]

This is the Coldharbour Lane corner.

View attachment 68469

New scheme on the right.

It's better. Pavement has been widened and the streetfront at ground level has been made a little bit less blank. It's OK if not massively exciting. I don't think I'll object to the new site 2 application.

I don't think it's hugely different. About 20% less oppressive I's say.

Rather bit like the Satay Bar illusion on Coldharbour Lane behind the Ritzy at the Brixton end - an overhang with pillars. The Satay had the cheek to want to fill in the pillars (which the Lambeth planning fortunately refused).

 

[teuchter]

I don't think it's hugely different. About 20% less oppressive I's say.

Rather bit like the Satay Bar illusion on Coldharbour Lane behind the Ritzy at the Brixton end - an overhang with pillars. The Satay had the cheek to want to fill in the pillars (which the Lambeth planning fortunately refused).

I wouldn't describe it as oppressive. Overall height broadly in line with buildings on opposite side of the street, and upper floors set back.

The main entrance to the church is now on Coldharbour Lane next to the bridge, instead of on the corner. That's a significant improvement because it would mean that the first thing you see coming out of the train station is a glazed entranceway rather than a blank brick wall with razor wire on top as it is now.

 

[ChrisSouth]

This is the Coldharbour Lane corner.

View attachment 68469

New scheme on the right.

It's better. Pavement has been widened and the streetfront at ground level has been made a little bit less blank. It's OK if not massively exciting. I don't think I'll object to the new site 2 application.

Where do the traffic lights go? If they aren't relocated, they will be slap bang in the middle of the Sureway church door. If they are relocated, will that be done with the interest of pedistrians in mind?

 

[CH1]

I wouldn't describe it as oppressive. Overall height broadly in line with buildings on opposite side of the street, and upper floors set back.

The main entrance to the church is now on Coldharbour Lane next to the bridge, instead of on the corner. That's a significant improvement because it would mean that the first thing you see coming out of the train station is a glazed entranceway rather than a blank brick wall with razor wire on top as it is now.

There is no increase in real pavement space though - it just looks slightly more spacious in a very tight spot.

 

[teuchter]

There is no increase in real pavement space though - it just looks slightly more spacious in a very tight spot.

The grey bit is new pavement area. The line of the building at ground level has been set back by 1m compared to where it is now.

 

[Chris Boyle]

Ok, looks like the drawings are finally available. I've yet to look through them properly but an initial question for Chris Boyle:

View attachment 68388

View attachment 68387

The lower image is an extract from the plans, and represents approximately the same area as the google aerial view above it.

On the plans, the access road into the proposed development is shown running immediately next to the north edge of the railway viaduct.

If you look at the aerial view, you can see there is a strip of space, 2 or 3m wide, between the north edge of the viaduct and the back of the existing industrial units. That strip is filled at least partly with extensionsn to the railway arch units. For example, in Whirled cinema, the seating is under the viaduct arch, but the screen is a couple of metres further "outside" of the arch opening. As far as I understand it's within that strip (as are the toilets and access to the toilets). The plans imply that all those extensions to the arch units will be demolished, which would mean the cinema would have to be reconfigured and made smaller. Presumably the same would apply to other arch units too.

So, is that right; the proposals will mean Whirled cinema and other arch users will have part of their space taken away? Or is the proposal plan drawn wrongly? Or have I misunderstood something?



(nb Whirled cinema is not actually located where it's marked on the google view - it's further off to the left, under the railway)

Hi Again,

Firstly I share your frustration on how long it took the council to upload everything, apparently they were having IT problems affecting all their current applications. Due to the delays they have extended their public consultation period so there is more time for people to leave comments.

Regarding your point above, if you look at our site location plan you'll see that this strip of land is not included with our development. That 3m strip of land in front of the railway viaduct is a standard 'clear zone' that network rail have on either side of all of their lines. All of our vehicle access, turning areas etc have been designed to work without breaching this line.

We are aware that the Whirled cinema (as well as the boxing gym and others) have built into this strip of land and we are not planning on demolishing anything outside of our boundary.

When/if we get planning approval we will have more detailed discussions with the tenants and Network Rail with regards to the final treatment of this side of the arches, whether or not they remain solid or are used as a secondary access point will need to be decided.

I can see that there are other points/queries that people have raised. I'll respond to these early next week.

As a semi-separate point, I can see that there are quite a few people on this site who are taking a very active interest in the applications which is good. I'd be happy to come and meet with a group of you to explain the project in more detail with a set of the submitted drawings & design report if that would help? I appreciate that going through all of the information on the council website is fairly time consuming, it may be easier to discuss the scheme(s) in person.

 

[teuchter]

Regarding your point above, if you look at our site location plan you'll see that this strip of land is not included with our development. That 3m strip of land in front of the railway viaduct is a standard 'clear zone' that network rail have on either side of all of their lines. All of our vehicle access, turning areas etc have been designed to work without breaching this line.

Most of your drawings imply that 3m zone is pavement though (and in your CGI a nice row of trees by the arches)





...which it won't be (unless stuff is demolished and not replaced which seems unlikely). The reality is it'll be something like this, no?



The alley which on the drawings looks like it'll be about 10m wide, will actually be 6 or 7m wide, with a pavement on one side only.

(Forgive me if I've misunderstood)

 

[Twattor]

Most of your drawings imply that 3m zone is pavement though (and in your CGI a nice row of trees by the arches)

View attachment 68520View attachment 68521



...which it won't be (unless stuff is demolished and not replaced which seems unlikely). The reality is it'll be something like this, no?

View attachment 68522

The alley which on the drawings looks like it'll be about 10m wide, will actually be 6 or 7m wide, with a pavement on one side only.

(Forgive me if I've misunderstood)

Remember that trees come under that auspices of TFL, who have the power to refuse streetworks irrespective of planning - they don't like people digging up pavements and upsetting the utility companies

 

[Chris Boyle]

Most of your drawings imply that 3m zone is pavement though (and in your CGI a nice row of trees by the arches)

View attachment 68520View attachment 68521



...which it won't be (unless stuff is demolished and not replaced which seems unlikely). The reality is it'll be something like this, no?

View attachment 68522

The alley which on the drawings looks like it'll be about 10m wide, will actually be 6 or 7m wide, with a pavement on one side only.

(Forgive me if I've misunderstood)

The drawings that we have are drawn over Ordinance and Topographical Survey information which don't take into account the arch extensions as they are not officially recorded. As far as we are aware, this area hasn't been extended into by all of the arches so any offset from the back of the arches in our drawings would have to be assumed. With regards to Network Rail regulations, this 3m strip of land should be completely clear and any built structure that exists is there without permission. Whether or not this was done by the current or previous tenants doesn't really matter (from speaking to the boxing gym they've said that their lease plan is inclusive of this zone), we would not proceed with any work that would hinder or disrupt the current use without prior consent.

As mentioned before, when/if planning approval is granted we'll be entering into detailed discussions with everyone involved to establish how this boundary will be treated, it may be brought back to the line of the arches with internal refurbishments/improvements to compensate or it may remain where it stands and act as a new frontage to the existing units. It's too early to say what will happen at this stage. Even if the line remains where it stands the width between this line and the proposed buildings is more than enough for all the pedestrian and vehicle service access required for this proposal.

To go back to an earlier point on the CGI's, we have labelled on these where the distance & massing differences have occurred but we'd recommend looking at the plan and elevation comparison sections of the D&A statement to fully grasp the reductions. These are shown with the scaled architectural drawings and are much clearer. We have made considerable reductions to the mass and scale of this development since the last application, the main points are summarised below:

- Spacing between Blocks has been widened by 2-4m
- Height of Block E has come down from 10 to 8 stories
- Overall height of Blocks A, B, C and D has been reduced by 600mm to 800mm
- Footprints of all blocks have been reduced
- Southern area of Block C 5th floor has been removed
- Northern element of Block F 7th floor has been removed
- A 9m section in the middle of Block D from 5th to roof level has been removed

My offer of meeting up with a group of you to run through the application in more detail still stands, if this is of interest then please let me know.

 

[Chris Boyle]

Where do the traffic lights go? If they aren't relocated, they will be slap bang in the middle of the Sureway church door. If they are relocated, will that be done with the interest of pedistrians in mind?

The church door is not located in the same position as the traffic lights. The main access for the church is next to railway viaduct and the residential entrance is further down Herne Hill Road. If you'd like further information on this area then I'd recommend looking at the proposed ground floor plan and/or the Design and Access Statement for this site it demonstrates where the entrance and access points for the proposal are in relation to the existing context.

 

[teuchter]

We have made considerable reductions to the mass and scale of this development since the last application, the main points are summarised below:

- Spacing between Blocks has been widened by 2-4m
- Height of Block E has come down from 10 to 8 stories
- Overall height of Blocks A, B, C and D has been reduced by 600mm to 800mm
- Footprints of all blocks have been reduced
- Southern area of Block C 5th floor has been removed
- Northern element of Block F 7th floor has been removed
- A 9m section in the middle of Block D from 5th to roof level has been removed

I've looked at the drawings in some detail. I think that you've made some reductions that would certainly make the central courtyard feel a bit less hemmed in. It's good also that the central courtyard is now free of vehicle traffic.

My comments were mainly about the impression from the street (principally Herne Hill Road as this is the street frontage that would be most significantly affected by this development). And to a lesser extent the frontage facing south onto the railway viaduct. I can see that you've made a gap in the upper storeys of Block D, which is welcome. You say the southern portion of Block C 5th floor has been removed, but as far as I can see it's been replaced with a kind of open frame collonade structure around a roof terrace...I don't quite understand this as the apparant height from the street remains much the same - just that there are open holes in the facade rather than windows.

The spacing between blocks has indeed been increased a bit, which I can see will be beneficial for the inner courtyard but I don't think it has that much effect on the view from the street as those views are by definition oblique (unless you are standing right opposite the gap) and therefore that gap is greatly foreshortened. I think your CGIs demonstrate this fact quite well. In terms of understanding what things will look like from the street they are more informative than elevations for anyone not used to interpreting orthogonal drawings.

And the height reduction of 600-800mm (0.6m - 0.8m)- fair enough, but it's not really that much when we're talking about an elevation that's 21.7m high at its highest point. It's about 3% of the total height.

The 2-storey height reduction of the tower - block E - is quite substantial. Personally the height of that didn't bother me too much as it's well set back from any of the surrounding streets. I'd actually prefer to keep some bulk concentrated in the tower and reduce the heights of the east- and south- facing perimeter frontages more instead. Completely just a personal preference though.

 

[teuchter]

My offer of meeting up with a group of you to run through the application in more detail still stands, if this is of interest then please let me know.

The offer is appreciated. Speaking for myself only, I feel happy that I can understand the scheme from the drawings though.

Also, my principal objection to the scheme doesn't really revolve around the details. It's to do with the loss of proper industrial space and the fundamental effect this will have on the locality. That's really an argument to have with Lambeth Planning rather than you though, as long as you represent the true nature of the proposal honestly.

But if and when this gets the go-ahead, it would certainly be good of you to stick around on here to talk about any details that come up on the finalised scheme.

 

[ChrisSouth]

The church door is not located in the same position as the traffic lights. The main access for the church is next to railway viaduct and the residential entrance is further down Herne Hill Road. If you'd like further information on this area then I'd recommend looking at the proposed ground floor plan and/or the Design and Access Statement for this site it demonstrates where the entrance and access points for the proposal are in relation to the existing context.

I'm less concerned about the church and more concerned about the traffic lights. Where are they?

 

[teuchter]

I'm less concerned about the church and more concerned about the traffic lights. Where are they?

Presumably they stay where they are now. What is it you're concerned about exactly? It's been explained that they will not conflict with either of the access doors.

 

[ChrisSouth]

Presumably they stay where they are now. What is it you're concerned about exactly? It's been explained that they will not conflict with either of the access doors.

The clue is written throughout the question. Where, in the drawings, do the traffic lights appear?

 

[editor]

Here's the planning notices.