You are certainly against people who are for change.
Loughborough Junction chitter-chatter
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
No Im not.
I want change in LJ
I want a station with better access and more trains.
I want developments with genuinely affordable housing - not what happpened with Hero of Switzerland application.
I want a functioning youth centre.
I want to see Loughborough park community centre in use.
Thats for starters.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I think it wquld be more honest is these so-called community consultation events were renamed pre-planning committee meeting information/publicity events.
It seems highly unlikely that any public comments have ever been used to modify planning applications - ever.
As for RHK and Big Bertha preferring a high rise environment - can I suggest they move to Nine Elms if they are rich or Croydon if they are poor.
RHK
Always look on the bright side of life...
As I clearly stated earlier I am entitled to express my opinion just as others are entitled to express theirs. I really do appreciate your kind suggestion that I could move to Nine Elms or Croydon however I am perfectly happy in the area where I was born, went to school and have lived for over 60 years. I am now looking forward with even more renewed vigour to the area evolving, growing and changing. Variety is the spice of life.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
It appears that those who oppose a planning application are nimbys who are against change.
Variety is the spice of life. Losing space for light industry to replace it with more profitable housing is reducing variety not increasing it.
Metaphorm planning application does have workspace below. They make a lot of claims about how innovative it will be.
But the fact of the matter is that this site was light industry site.
Metaphorm portray themselves as cutting edge architects with a vision. But they are still working the same way as the developers who have the Hero of Switzerland site.
I think this is over development of the site. It's not in keeping with its use.
Inner London also needs land for light industry.
I've been looking more at the application.
I remain to be convinced this is right use for this land.
It's not as if Metaphorm already owned the site. The acquired it with view to development.
Variety is the spice of life. Losing space for light industry to replace it with more profitable housing is reducing variety not increasing it.
Metaphorm planning application does have workspace below. They make a lot of claims about how innovative it will be.
But the fact of the matter is that this site was light industry site.
Metaphorm portray themselves as cutting edge architects with a vision. But they are still working the same way as the developers who have the Hero of Switzerland site.
I think this is over development of the site. It's not in keeping with its use.
Inner London also needs land for light industry.
I've been looking more at the application.
I remain to be convinced this is right use for this land.
It's not as if Metaphorm already owned the site. The acquired it with view to development.
Last edited:
RHK
Always look on the bright side of life...
None of my posts said or implied that you were against change at all or anyone else for that matter. No one was called or implied they are a 'nimby' or anything else for that matter. I expressed my own personal opinion that I am for change, growth etc in the area. All opinions can be expressed and respected by those that are for the proposed development and by those that are against the Towers when they are being discussed. I think the Towers could be an interesting addition to the area. It's about respecting other people's opinions whether you agree with them or not. You are entitled to your own opinion and I am entitled to mine.
Last edited:
I think you fear change, which is understandable for some people.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Why do you think that?
I've spent a lot of my spare time going to Council consultations over the future of the LJ and Brixton are. Taking part in developing masterplans for Brixton and LJ to help guide development of these areas.
Taking part as the Council say doing so will ensure growth and development will benefit people.
How you can say I fear change when I've been doing the opposite over the years is beyond me.
Last edited:
editor
hiraethified
I've updated the Buzz article after hearing from the developers:
Update: The developers have got in touch to tell us that the “35.2% affordable housing comprises a mix of homes at 70% social rent and 30% intermediate rent.” The social housing will be run by a housing association on behalf of LB Lambeth
We asked if this percentage of social/intermediate rent would still be guaranteed if the size of the development was later reduced, but they declined to answer to our “hypothetical question about the building heights being lowered.”
Update: The developers have got in touch to tell us that the “35.2% affordable housing comprises a mix of homes at 70% social rent and 30% intermediate rent.” The social housing will be run by a housing association on behalf of LB Lambeth
We asked if this percentage of social/intermediate rent would still be guaranteed if the size of the development was later reduced, but they declined to answer to our “hypothetical question about the building heights being lowered.”
editor
hiraethified
Not wanting two mega blocks towering over your neighbourhood and contributing to an already overcrowded transport system is not 'fearing change' - it's about giving a fuck about your neighbourhood, your community and the quality of life of yourself and the people around you.
editor
hiraethified
That's the kind of change I'd like too.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Someone should go gown Lidls and get him a bottle of Putinov to celebrate.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I see turnout was low. Despite online voting an option.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Lot going one in LJ at the moment.
The Loughborough Junction Neighborhood Forum is this Wednesday.
A full agenda.
Someone will be coming from the Councils Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood to talk about road closures improving LJ for walking and cycling.
Also someone has been invited from the parks department to talk about Loughborough Park. Where the Council have thousands on security to keep the community centre closed.
The Metaphorm architects towers planning application is for discussion.
All welcome.
The Loughborough Junction Neighborhood Forum is this Wednesday.
A full agenda.
Someone will be coming from the Councils Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood to talk about
Also someone has been invited from the parks department to talk about Loughborough Park. Where the Council have thousands on security to keep the community centre closed.
The Metaphorm architects towers planning application is for discussion.
All welcome.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Brixton Liveable Neighborhood the LJ section and ideas for LJ here. You can comment:
ljstreets.commonplace.is
Ideas for the Loughborough Neighbourhood
Join the conversation for how streets in the Loughborough Neighbourhood can change to address the climate emergency, air pollution crisis and safety issues.
ljstreets.commonplace.is
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
The Liveable neighborhood website is very large.Found this on LJ re the last road closures.
ljstreets.commonplace.is
Learning from the past
In 2015 six road closures were trialed across the area, in the end the project was withdrawn. Nobody wants to re-run that experience. A lot has been learned to ensure things are done differently.
ljstreets.commonplace.is
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
For LJ there are two options plus a third add on to make LJ zero carbon - ie electric vehicles only.
First is to stop through traffic Second is to keep through traffic but add more pedestria croossings and bike lanes.
Through traffic is regarded as going through Loughborough road.
Traffic through LJ along Coldharbour lane is not considered- from what I can find. The main emphasis is on through traffic going up Loughborough road.
Plenty of people live along Coldharbour lane. I dont see anything for them.
I would like to know if plans to stop through traffic along Loughborough road will displace traffic onto Coldhharbour lane or other nearby roads.
First is to stop through traffic Second is to keep through traffic but add more pedestria croossings and bike lanes.
Through traffic is regarded as going through Loughborough road.
Traffic through LJ along Coldharbour lane is not considered- from what I can find. The main emphasis is on through traffic going up Loughborough road.
Plenty of people live along Coldharbour lane. I dont see anything for them.
I would like to know if plans to stop through traffic along Loughborough road will displace traffic onto Coldhharbour lane or other nearby roads.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
It probably will initially, then traffic patterns will settle down and there may or may not be an increase in the longer term. This issue was discussed at length on the liveable neighbourhood thread (in relation to atlantic rd). The long term aim is for less traffic in london generally, which would benefit CHL and that can never be achieved if every one of these proposals is opposed on the basis that some traffic is going to be displaced elsewhere.
Of course if the previous road closure trial had been allowed to run its course, we might have known exactly what the effects would be. The idea was that all these things were measured. The trial was successfully scuppered though.
Of course if the previous road closure trial had been allowed to run its course, we might have known exactly what the effects would be. The idea was that all these things were measured. The trial was successfully scuppered though.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Could have been interesting, but I'm booked at a double inaugural lecture at Guys - one of the subjects being the deleterious effects of ammonia residuals resulting from progressive liver dysfunction due to alcohol consumption.
Both of the LJ forum issues were discussed at the last Brixton Society meeting. Apparently there is a delay on the deadline for objections to the Twin Towers until 12th March.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Lambeth Council leaves Loughborough Park in disrepair while spending £612,000 on security for the empty community centre
Concerned at the worsening state of Loughborough Park, a small public space off Coldharbour Lane in Brixton, a local resident has been haranguing Lambeth Council to no avail. Dominating the park is…
www.brixtonbuzz.com
An update.
This article, to my surprise, has made the Labour group sit up and listen. Not all them were happy about it.
editor thanks Ed for publicising this issue.
Had an at times heated discussion with Cllrs at the LJ neighborhood forum last month. With one Cllr accusing those present of being the same old people who complain. Not representative of the local community.
Well the lesson is if one doesnt make a fuss one gets fobbed off.
Last week LJ Neighborhood forum Cllrs were more conciliatory.
Money has suddenly appeared to do maintenane works on the park. Apparently there was Section 106 money around. The consultation that was promised last month on how to improve the park will not now happen. As the Section 106 money needs to be spent or it will be lost.
Which implies to me that the Section 106 money had been around for a long time but the Council never got it together to use it until complaints.
(Section 106 money is from developers. As part of planning application developers give a certain amount of money for improvements to local infrastructure.)
Also a charity has been found to use the empty Community building.
Dwaynamics , a local charity, will take over the building in , we were told, two months.
Dwaynamics ABC
www.dsfcic.co.uk
This is all well and good.
What annoys me is the way one is regarded by Council as a problem if one brings up or campaigns on issues of local concern.
Same thing happened with the Grove adventure playground.
Last edited:
critical1
All views expressed are definitely my own.
This is like a re-run of 2015 all over again.The Liveable neighborhood website is very large.Found this on LJ re the last road closures.
Learning from the past
In 2015 six road closures were trialed across the area, in the end the project was withdrawn. Nobody wants to re-run that experience. A lot has been learned to ensure things are done differently.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
If it is, I revive my call to shut Hinton Road at the Green Man.
That simple measure could reduce through traffic by making the route from Herne Hill to the City into a dog leg instead of a slip stream.
But what do I know - I'm just advocating commonsense. I'm not a traffic engineer.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Option one does not explicity say road closures but I can't see how it can be done without that.
The main person running the Liveable Neighborhood project attended the last Loughborough Junction Neighborhood Forum. I had also heard him at the Brixton Neighborhood Forum a few weeks ago.
What the project team are doing is trying to get support for the project by going out and talking to community.
They aren't keen on holding public meetings. Sounds like they fear the wrong type of people will turn up.
Ive got mixed feelings about this.
At one point in meeting the LN guy said they wanted to talk to people beyond those "who had the luxury to be able to attend meetings" like LJ Neighborhood Forum. Which in hindsight annoyed me.
It is the Council trump card. Your not representative. Also the Council has poor record in consultation.
I did point out that the scheme to improve the cross roads ( of Loughborough road and Coldharbour lane) which had been agreed with local community has never been done.
This was a "shovel ready" scheme .
Now the Council are coming to local community with another load of consultation about roads.
They should imo finish the project that has already been agreed first
Cllrs have been asked repeatedly about the cross roads scheme. Kept being told it would happen.
It took one of the better officers at Lambeth to do the Cllrs job. He found out the funding had gone. That the agreed plans were considered to expensive.
As someone said we have been waiting two years for this to be done.
Hardly gives confidence in the Council that the Liveable Neighborhood will happen.
Last edited:
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Be interesting to see what proposals emerge. In addition to what I said above, to me the last scheme seemed bizarre in the way they set up a soft no-go zone which was partially disregarded. It seemed they wanted to leave emergency access, but prohibit general access.
I really think the key is to prevent or reduce through traffic from outside the area. After all there aren't many local residents whose whole time is spent cruising around the area in their vehicles - except the chair of the EMB of course.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
They could make Wanless Road one-way - No Entry from Milkwood/Hinton Road.
That would stop up the north-bound flow from Milkwood Rd into Loughborough Road.
prunus
Tick tock.
Then it would just go down Wingmore Road and Alderton Road (which are considerably narrower and hence would be more disrupted even than Wanless Road. Wanless is unusually wide because it used to have the trams running down the middle of it - bonus fun fact).
Road closures are complex things with many knock-on effects.
One could close the turning to Wingmore etc (which is basically Hinton Road in fact) as well of course. But what other effects would be needed to look at?
Or you could just close Loughborough Road, which is the onwards journey on the northern rat run. If the problem of isolating the estate from Coldharbour Lane is an issue, could close it at the top at Fiveways. But then there would be other knock-on effects and so on...
Similar threads
