Higgs Triangle Loughborough Junction redevelopment

[teuchter]

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

As far as I can see they are not shown on the drawings. They are outside of the site. You've been told they aren't in a position that conflicts with any of the building entrances, which was your initial concern. What are you fretting about?

 

[ChrisSouth]

As far as I can see they are not shown on the drawings. They are outside of the site. You've been told they aren't in a position that conflicts with any of the building entrances, which was your initial concern. What are you fretting about?

If you wish to infer that I am fretting, then that is your interpretation.

 

[teuchter]

The scheme architect has volunteered to answer questions...it would be a courtesy to make them as clear as possible, rather than cryptic.

 

[Chris Boyle]

The traffic lights are remaining in their current position. They are located on the north west corner of Herne Hill Road at the junction of Coldharbour lane.

 

[Chris Boyle]

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.

The view and appearance of the proposal on Herne Hill Road was not raised by the council as being an issue, the problem that was stated in relation to the mass/height/bulk/scale was it created an undue sense of enclosure from within the development (I note that you are saying this area is just a personal preference).

With regards to Block C, the open parapets do not have any roof structure on top and as such they are much more transparent which creates a more visible skyline on Herne Hill Road than the previous proposal. You're view through these areas will be looking at open sky as opposed to a window where the view would be obstructed by the roof structure above. Whilst the overall height has not come down by a big percentage, the overall physical impact of the proposal on the street scene is largely reduced in this sense.

Height is always a popular topic on any planning application. There are many quantifiable and regulated aspects in relation to this such as daylight/sunlight, overlooking, protected views, overshadowing etc. Each of these points have very strict guidelines and policies that have to be adhered to, without which an application would never be recommended for approval. A point I've discussed with many residents on this matter is that when all of these points are satisfied then is height still a problem? We've had a wide variety of comments on the height, scale and mass of the development including people who are very happy with where it stands, some who would like it lower and even some who stated they would like the heights increased. It essentially comes down to an individual subjective view point (as you've stated), obviously everyone is fully entitled to their own opinion and it's a topic that will always split the crowd.

 

[teuchter]

With regards to Block C, the open parapets do not have any roof structure on top and as such they are much more transparent which creates a more visible skyline on Herne Hill Road than the previous proposal.

Not as transparent as they would be if they weren't there at all!

 

[Twattor]

Not as transparent as they would be if they weren't there at all!

And fantastically expensive to build for nothing gained. But how else can an architect define a corner these days.

The architecture of 2010-2020 will be remembered for uninspiring brickwork monoliths, open parapets and flying lintols. We're 5 years in now; it is all a bit passe.

 

[Beasley]

I see LJAG has another meeting about this on Saturday; presumably all are welcome:
Saturday 21 March from 2-4pm: Sunshine International Arts Cafe, Studio 5, 209a Coldharbour Lane, SW9 8RU (opposite Loughborough Junction station).

 

[Chris Boyle]

Hello All,

Can anyone update me on the outcome of the recent LJAG meetings if possible?

 

[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)

A reminder - deadline for anyone wanting to make a comment is this Friday (27th)!

 

[teuchter]

I've just been looking at the transport report. It's changed a bit from the previous one. They now acknowledge that LJ station is "busy".

They say there will only be 2-3 extra train journeys in the morning peak.

Look how they work it out though - they add up all the bus and train services, which apparently amount to around 50 buses and 8 trains, per hour. They predict 144 "additional AM peak" journeys.

So they divide that number - 144 - by about 60 and arrive at 2-3 extra passengers on each of those buses and trains. So they assume commuters are equally likely to get on a bus or a train, and equally likely to get on a bus/train going away from town as into town. The 8 train services include those going to Sutton rather than towards Blackfriars.

This seems obviously nonsense to me. Commuters are more likely to want to get on the train and far more likely to get onto trains heading north, but they make no attempt to allow for this. The real numbers of people trying to get on peak train services are much higher (never mind the fact that even 2 or 3 might well not be able to get on the trains).

If just half of those 144 extra journeys want to go by the train, that's something like 70 divided by 4 trains, which is just under twenty people trying to get on each peak service.

I hope Lambeth actually read this report critically as it seems disingenuous to me.

 

[prunus]

I've just been looking at the transport report. It's changed a bit from the previous one. They now acknowledge that LJ station is "busy".

They say there will only be 2-3 extra train journeys in the morning peak.

Look how they work it out though - they add up all the bus and train services, which apparently amount to around 50 buses and 8 trains, per hour. They predict 144 "additional AM peak" journeys.

So they divide that number - 144 - by about 60 and arrive at 2-3 extra passengers on each of those buses and trains. So they assume commuters are equally likely to get on a bus or a train, and equally likely to get on a bus/train going away from town as into town. The 8 train services include those going to Sutton rather than towards Blackfriars.

This seems obviously nonsense to me. Commuters are more likely to want to get on the train and far more likely to get onto trains heading north, but they make no attempt to allow for this. The real numbers of people trying to get on peak train services are much higher (never mind the fact that even 2 or 3 might well not be able to get on the trains).

If just half of those 144 extra journeys want to go by the train, that's something like 70 divided by 4 trains, which is just under twenty people trying to get on each peak service.

I hope Lambeth actually read this report critically as it seems disingenuous to me.

View attachment 69321

6.23 No. No it isn't. The specific route that is the one going towards the centre of the largest city in Europe by train is likely to more popular than ooh let's say the bus to Lewisham via Forest Hill. Twats.

 

[teuchter]

Anyone who feels like pointing this out in the comments to the planning application - links are above. Today is official deadline although i believe they will still accept them after.

 

[brixtonblade]

I do agree that the analysis is at best lazy but I don't think it's quite as simple as saying that the train will be the only attractive option. People could get buses to the tube or train.

 

[teuchter]

Sure, but the question is whether the development will put significant extra pressure on the train services from LJ. They are trying to say "no" but the reasoning presented doesn't add up. I don't think it's laziness - they are presenting an argument to support the answer the developer wants. They are hoping no-one looks too closely at how they arrive at their numbers.

 

[Twattor]

Sure, but the question is whether the development will put significant extra pressure on the train services from LJ. They are trying to say "no" but the reasoning presented doesn't add up. I don't think it's laziness - they are presenting an argument to support the answer the developer wants. They are hoping no-one looks too closely at how they arrive at their numbers.

I feel you're missing the point.

Transport Assessments are absolute rubbish; they can't not be. How can you possibly predict the movements of possible future occupiers? Do you assume all private sales purchasers will work in town? 50% of social tenants will sit at home? All built on assumptions, and all assumptions are by definition guesswork.

It would take a pretty fucking massive development to materially affect the public transport network.

The real purpose of a TA is so the developer can demonstrate thatnothing will actually be affected, whilst giving the local authority ammunition to say that enough will be affected for them to be able to levy a whopping contribution for "public transport" or "local infrastructure" when it comes to negotiating the s106.

 

[CH1]

The only transport contribution I've ever seen is to promote car sharing clubs. Do these actually exist - or are they fictional?

 

[Crispy]

The only transport contribution I've ever seen is to promote car sharing clubs. Do these actually exist - or are they fictional?

It'll mean Zipcar and the like

 

[teuchter]

I feel you're missing the point.

Transport Assessments are absolute rubbish; they can't not be. How can you possibly predict the movements of possible future occupiers? Do you assume all private sales purchasers will work in town? 50% of social tenants will sit at home? All built on assumptions, and all assumptions are by definition guesswork.

It would take a pretty fucking massive development to materially affect the public transport network.

The real purpose of a TA is so the developer can demonstrate thatnothing will actually be affected, whilst giving the local authority ammunition to say that enough will be affected for them to be able to levy a whopping contribution for "public transport" or "local infrastructure" when it comes to negotiating the s106.

I don't think I'm missing the point - I'm well aware that much of the planning process is essentially a game of negotiation and that we pretend decisions are more objective than they really are.

And of course it's difficult to make accurate predictions about how people will travel but I'm pretty sure it's possible to make a more realistic guess than they have in this case. There are reasonable assumptions you can make about the number of people who might want to commute into town, even if it results in a maximum/minimum estimate over a wide range. As prunus says above it's quite clearly nonsense to base your estimates on an assumption that rush hour travellers are as likely to want to get the P5 to Forest Hill as they are to want to get the Thameslink.

I'm no transport forecasting expert but it's something TfL do all the time when assessing future transport needs. I'm fairluy sure the data and expertise is there to do a much more meaningful analysis than they have here.

I think it's entirely plausible that this will have a material effect on the local transport services. It's 100+ units in zone 2 in London in an area popular with the dreaded "young professionals" and a large number of residents are likely to be working in town. And it's right next to the train station so people are obviously going to be inclined to try and use that rather than walk 15 mins to Brixton tube, if they can.

 

[Chris Boyle]

Hi Everyone,

I'd just like to point out that Transport Assessments do have to be carried out in strict accordance with regulated assessment criteria & methodology stipulated by TFL, the GLA and local council framework. A huge amount of work has gone into this item of work from our transport consultant whilst maintaining an open dialogue with the council's Transport and Highways dept.

They are based on assumptions but these have been made after a detailed assessment of a vast amount of quantifiable data and the necessary methodology required from TFL. Transport consultants would not be able to simply pick and choose what they can and can't assess in order to please a client, if they did the report would not be validated by the council, nor would it be approved by TFL (we are still awaiting TFL comments on the current application).

As someone mentioned above, it would take a considerably vast development to materially affect the public transport network. This was the same conclusion that TFL reached on the previous application; whilst there may be more people using various public transport nodes as a result of the development, the amount would not be significant enough to have a material or noticeable affect the existing transport infrastructure.

 

[teuchter]

Ultimately we have to accept TfL and Lambeth's response on whether or not the TA has been carried out properly, of course.

My scepticism about the analysis (perhaps including TfL/Lambeth's role) derives from the previous report which stated there were no known issues with the train services at LJ station. This was completely contrary to the experience of anyone who lives here and uses the station in the morning. The issues are acknowledged in the new report but I don't think it's unreasonable to raise an eyebrow when something as basic as that failed to show up in what is supposed to be a thorough assessment.

 

[Chris Boyle]

I think that the wording in the previously submitted report was that there were no known 'capacity' issues on the existing bus and rail routes. I believe that TFL have a means of officially establishing when a station/service route exceeds it's capacity threshold but I'm not sure of the exact criteria required.

As you say, we will have to accept any response that we are given from TFL and Lambeth once the application has been fully assessed. If they disagree with any of the points made in the Transport Assessment then we will have to address these accordingly.

 

[Twattor]

I think that the wording in the previously submitted report was that there were no known 'capacity' issues on the existing bus and rail routes. I believe that TFL have a means of officially establishing when a station/service route exceeds it's capacity threshold but I'm not sure of the exact criteria required.

As you say, we will have to accept any response that we are given from TFL and Lambeth once the application has been fully assessed. If they disagree with any of the points made in the Transport Assessment then we will have to address these accordingly.

Can't imagine they'll be too bothered tbh. Looking at some recent 106s transport contribution is usually just shy of £1,000 per unit. All about priorities.

 

[MrM]

it would take a considerably vast development to materially affect the public transport network... the amount would not be significant enough to have a material or noticeable affect the existing transport infrastructure.

I really appreciate Chris Boyle’s efforts in engaging with the community here, but these recent comments are so exasperating that I’ve decided to stop lurking and add a comment.

It’s daft to suggest that the Higgs development will have ‘no discernible effect’ on the overloaded rush-hour trains into London. I’d rather believe this is a cynical but understandable effort to put a positive gloss on the matter, because the alternative is that the developers have made no real effort to understand local issues, or impacts of the development on the area.

The northbound rush-hour trains are already horrendously over-crowded.

It is normal to see people physically shoving passengers into the train to try to make sure that as few people as possible are left standing frustrated on the platform as the train leaves.

You should see the looks of pity or amusement for anyone appearing on the platform with a suitcase or a pushchair.

It is not unusual for verbal aggression to break out among otherwise silent London commuters as frustration boils over into hostility.

In this context, a handful of additional passengers to each train will have a marked effect.

The developer isn’t in a position to do much about the size or frequency of trains, and clearly existing problems have nothing to do with Parritt Leng but to say that “the amount [of people] would not be significant enough to have a material or noticeable affect the existing transport infrastructure.” is either deliberately misleading, or shows a failure to engage with the current situation.

 

[Crispy]

Exactly my thoughts

 

[prunus]

Precisely. Disingenuous at best.

 

[Chris Boyle]

I really appreciate Chris Boyle’s efforts in engaging with the community here, but these recent comments are so exasperating that I’ve decided to stop lurking and add a comment.

It’s daft to suggest that the Higgs development will have ‘no discernible effect’ on the overloaded rush-hour trains into London. I’d rather believe this is a cynical but understandable effort to put a positive gloss on the matter, because the alternative is that the developers have made no real effort to understand local issues, or impacts of the development on the area.

The northbound rush-hour trains are already horrendously over-crowded.

It is normal to see people physically shoving passengers into the train to try to make sure that as few people as possible are left standing frustrated on the platform as the train leaves.

You should see the looks of pity or amusement for anyone appearing on the platform with a suitcase or a pushchair.

It is not unusual for verbal aggression to break out among otherwise silent London commuters as frustration boils over into hostility.

In this context, a handful of additional passengers to each train will have a marked effect.

The developer isn’t in a position to do much about the size or frequency of trains, and clearly existing problems have nothing to do with Parritt Leng but to say that “the amount [of people] would not be significant enough to have a material or noticeable affect the existing transport infrastructure.” is either deliberately misleading, or shows a failure to engage with the current situation.

Thanks for your comments, I appreciate your view but I stand by the points I have previously made.

I do have to contest your statement of my being deliberately misleading or showing a failure to engage with the current situation. The reality is the complete antithesis of this comment; it is exactly because we have engaged with the current situation via a huge amount of public consultation, site visits, year long discussions with the councils highways dept and correspondence with TFL that we are able to make these comments. They are based on a vast combination of events and analysis, all of which are directly applicable to this topic.

From looking at earlier posts and from feedback I've had at the public consultation events it seems that this is a subject with differing viewpoints. Much like the previous discussion on height & scale there will invariably be differences in opinion which is understandable.

 

[teuchter]

Sorry, but you really haven't engaged in a "huge amount of public consultation".

All of your engagement has been to present and explain an essentially already finalised design, whether on this forum, or at the various "consultation" sessions held locally. That has been welcome but it hasn't been done in such a way that people's comments could ever have fed back to significant changes to the proposals.

I live within spitting distance of the site but the first I heard of anything was via a conversation with my neighbours who were on the LJAG email list. A "consultation" session was to take place within, as far as I remember, a couple of weeks. Very short notice, and it would have been quite possible for me never to have heard about it. In addition the venue was hidden away round a corner with very little signage. We were presented with what was basically the scheme that went into planning just a couple of weeks later. You did a good job of explaining it and answering questions about it, but there was no possibility that any comments made at that session could have led to anything other than minor changes before the scheme was submitted.

The "consultations" for the second scheme were much better publicised and more extensive. However, once again, there was little chance that the scheme would be altered significantly as a result of any feedback you recieved. It was more an opportunity for Perrit Lang to persuade locals of the merits of the design.

I know there have supposedly been discussions with LJAG earlier in the process but I don't know what points they made to you and how many you took on board or didn't. There doesn't seem to be any record of this available. But given that members of LJAG spoke against the scheme at the committee hearing, I'd say that I can conclude the scheme didn't reflect what they would have liked.

We could have a discussion about the merits of public consultation, the way it is carried out, how democratic it is, and how useful it is, and I might well agree that its influence in the design process should be limited. But here you are claiming that something happened, when it simply didn't.

This development would/will have a big impact on the place where I live, but I haven't felt that there's any way that I could influence what gets built other than making comments on the planning applications after they've gone in.

And I do genuinely appreciate that you have taken part in this thread but nonetheless I do feel that there have been several instances where we have been presented with misleading information.

 

[Twattor]

Sorry, but you really haven't engaged in a "huge amount of public consultation".

All of your engagement has been to present and explain an essentially already finalised design, whether on this forum, or at the various "consultation" sessions held locally. That has been welcome but it hasn't been done in such a way that people's comments could ever have fed back to significant changes to the proposals.

I live within spitting distance of the site but the first I heard of anything was via a conversation with my neighbours who were on the LJAG email list. A "consultation" session was to take place within, as far as I remember, a couple of weeks. Very short notice, and it would have been quite possible for me never to have heard about it. In addition the venue was hidden away round a corner with very little signage. We were presented with what was basically the scheme that went into planning just a couple of weeks later. You did a good job of explaining it and answering questions about it, but there was no possibility that any comments made at that session could have led to anything other than minor changes before the scheme was submitted.

The "consultations" for the second scheme were much better publicised and more extensive. However, once again, there was little chance that the scheme would be altered significantly as a result of any feedback you recieved. It was more an opportunity for Perrit Lang to persuade locals of the merits of the design.

I know there have supposedly been discussions with LJAG earlier in the process but I don't know what points they made to you and how many you took on board or didn't. There doesn't seem to be any record of this available. But given that members of LJAG spoke against the scheme at the committee hearing, I'd say that I can conclude the scheme didn't reflect what they would have liked.

We could have a discussion about the merits of public consultation, the way it is carried out, how democratic it is, and how useful it is, and I might well agree that its influence in the design process should be limited. But here you are claiming that something happened, when it simply didn't.

This development would/will have a big impact on the place where I live, but I haven't felt that there's any way that I could influence what gets built other than making comments on the planning applications after they've gone in.

And I do genuinely appreciate that you have taken part in this thread but nonetheless I do feel that there have been several instances where we have been presented with misleading information.

tbf this is the most interactive consulation I've ever witnessed in many years of dealing with this shit.

"But the plans were on display . . ."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a torch."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice, didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard."

 

[MrM]

Just to be clear - is it your contention that there isn't currently an overloaded rail service from Loughborough Junction (suggest a look at the #LJsardines twitter feed if you think so) or that your development won't make any difference? If the latter can you explain a bit more about how you see the commuting behaviour of the people who can afford the projected prices to get to work? I don't imagine your prices will be accessible to someone working shifts on the tills at the Co-op store by the Higgs site, which really points squarely at business-hour commuters to Central London doesn't it? My guess is that applies to more or less all potential buyers, so several hundred extra passengers travelling at peak time.

As I said before, I don't expect you to be able to wave a magic wand to make the trains better, but I don't think your current angle is convincing anyone that you're planning a positive addition to the area. But then perhaps I'm naively hoping your consultation process is intended to help craft a development that local people want, rather than fulfilling a legal requirement to push things through the planning system.

Personally I'm saddened by the impression that you're steaming ahead in the face of facts and feelings in pursuit of profit to the exclusion of all else.

It's too big for its location (in terms of height, massing and density of housing for an area like this). Add to this the fact that you're driving out much-valued light industrial employment opportunities, and you're doing little more than the required minimum in terms of carbon emissions and energy efficiency, and you've decided against investing slightly more to produce something with a more ambitious and sensitive aesthetic impact on the area, and I feel you have a hill to climb in convincing people this is acceptable.

I've strayed a bit from my initial point but I really hope you will reconsider the plans, and that this development becomes something that the people of Loughborough Junction can be proud of.