Thanks, I managed to miss that - was it recorded you think?
Loughborough Junction chitter-chatter
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Yes. Minutes go out. Its monthly meetings. PM me if you want to go on the email list.
Discussed was upcoming online meeting with Officers on this. The meeting was circulated to the email list.
At the meeting last Monday the senior planning officer just used it to explain how to comment on the proposals. There was no discussion of the proposals.
The senior officer said that this consultation is Statutory consultation. That is its required that the Council do this.
So the officer did it by the book. Any comments and people were told to put them in as comments on the commonplace website or by email. No real discussion was allowed.
The senior planning officers have decided on the SAPD sites and written the docs with no consultation with local communities. Falling back on you can comment a part of the Statutory consultation.
Which in reality means little.
After meeting I wrote to Cllrs saying I wasn't happy with the way officers had gone about this. This is supposed to be a Coop Council and I expect more than just the minimum Statutory formal consultation.
Cllr passed this onto the senior officer who wrote rather dismissive email back saying this was the way to do it. As per usual the Cllr ( Labour) supported the officer.
The recent history of consultation in LJ leaves a lot to be desired ( Road closures, the LJ masterplan and now this).
Labour Cllrs will not take on board anything that residents say. Default mode is to never have an opinion as elected representative but just go along with what senior officers say.
I won't be voting Labour in May.
I'm sick and tired of having people getting elected and then acting like the management rather than representing the people.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Gramsci has done a good job of explaining what this consultation is actually about and I agree with most of the points he's made.
I think the consultation website is quite badly laid out, for example there's no obvious way to get from the individual site pages back to an overview page. Anyway, to make things easier for anyone who wants to look at things and comment, here is my summary of what's relevant to LJ
Here is the overview for the whole SADPD (Site allocations development plan) which covers all of Lambeth:
Draft Site Allocations Development Plan Document
We are seeking your views on the Draft Lambeth Site Allocations Development Plan Document (SADPD), which includes proposed site-specific planning policies for 14 sites across Lambeth to guide future development.lambethsadpd.commonplace.is
Here is a link to the draft document itself:
Loughborough Junction is covered from page 140 onwards in that document.
There are three sites considered in Loughborough Junction:
"Site 22" which is the Wellfit St/ Hardess St site.
- consultation webpage here: Proposed Site 22
- thread about previous development proposals for this site: 29 and 20 storey tower blocks proposed for Hardess Street /Wellfit St, Loughborough Junction.
"Site 23" which is the site on the corner of Herne Hill Road and Coldharbour Lane (the Sureways church site)
- consultation webpage here: Proposed Site 23
- this site has been discussed on and off before, because at one point it looked like it might be included with the Higgs site plans but in the end it wasn't Higgs Triangle Loughborough Junction redevelopment
"Site 24" covers Kings Hospital grounds and I'd say is not so relevant to Loughborough Junction as such.
- consultation webpage here: Proposed Site 24
How to comment
The way to comment looks pretty messy to me - it seems you can comment on any section on any of the site webpages, and there's not an obvious way to make a general comment for each site. And if you look at each section on the site webpages you can't see previously made comments. To see previously made comments it looks like you have to go to the overview page and then click on the speech bubble symbol for the site you're interested in - for example you can see comments for site 22 by clicking on the speech bubble at bottom left of its section on that overview page
View attachment 306483
Links to comments made so far:
Site 22:
Proposed Site 22
1 & 3–11 Wellfit Street, 7–9 Hinton Road & Units 1–4 Hardess Street SE24
Site 23:
Proposed Site 23
Land at corner of Coldharbour Lane and Herne Hill Road SE24
(NB you can "agree" with comments already written there)
The deadline for comments is 22nd Feb.
About this consultation - I have been trying to add comments to the Commonplace website and it's a mess - keeps wanting me to put in all my details for each separate comment, the confirmation links to my email address only seem to work half the time, and there's no clear confirmation that your comment has actually made it through.
If you have comments to make it might be better just to email them instead; they have to take emailed comments into account too. The email address is:
sadpd@lambeth.gov.uk
sparkybird
ask the bird...
I found that if I used chrome as my browser and a Gmail address, I only had to put my email once and then it remembered.
HTH
teuchter
je suis teuchter
This should not be necessary though!
It really feels like the whole thing is deliberately set up to make it difficult and confusing to leave any comment.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
took your time working that out
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Gosh. There's a surprise.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I'm going to take your advice and put my comments all in one email.
This will include my views on the consultation process itself. Or rather lack of it. As I want it on record.
I'm expecting, as in case of the Local Plan and LJ, that community groups will have to go to appeal to the Planning Inspector.
sparkybird
ask the bird...
Absolutely!
BusLanes
Pedestrian
Man the Thameslink was rammed today at the station. I could barely squeeze in.
I don't know what it was like pre pandemic but presumably pretty busy, but this is the busiest it's been for me with sporadic use this last year or so.
I guess the Feb return to offices and cut backs in trains / tubes are an issue too
I don't know what it was like pre pandemic but presumably pretty busy, but this is the busiest it's been for me with sporadic use this last year or so.
I guess the Feb return to offices and cut backs in trains / tubes are an issue too
The Cambria will be reopening in March! Had a flyer through the post today.
thecambrialondon.co.uk
Pub and Restaurant in London – Fabulous food, friendly service and quality ales
thecambrialondon.co.uk
jimbarkanoodle
Well-Known Member
The website comes up with this spiel in the food and drink section:
"Join us for a cheeky bite or something bigger…
Open all day, every day, food at The Cambria will focus on classic pub grub, shareable small plates, an extensive grill section and good, old-fashioned puds. Expect to find hearty plates of ribs and wings, succulent best of British homemade burgers, Middle Eastern flatbreads and plenty of plant-based crowd pleasers. Plus, statement roasts with all the trimmings on Sundays, retro bar snacks, banging Bloody Mary’s and an extensive menu of barista-style Fairtrade coffees and teas."
It doesn't bother talking about beer, wine or spirits. Sounds like a restaurant with a bar. But i guess, that's how you have to operate to pay Heineken 60k a year rent, plus the start up costs.
"Join us for a cheeky bite or something bigger…
Open all day, every day, food at The Cambria will focus on classic pub grub, shareable small plates, an extensive grill section and good, old-fashioned puds. Expect to find hearty plates of ribs and wings, succulent best of British homemade burgers, Middle Eastern flatbreads and plenty of plant-based crowd pleasers. Plus, statement roasts with all the trimmings on Sundays, retro bar snacks, banging Bloody Mary’s and an extensive menu of barista-style Fairtrade coffees and teas."
It doesn't bother talking about beer, wine or spirits. Sounds like a restaurant with a bar. But i guess, that's how you have to operate to pay Heineken 60k a year rent, plus the start up costs.
A Star Bars advert popped up on my facebook feed, and out of interest i checked which pubs they have available at the moment looking for a new landlord.
The Cambria came up as below:
Cambria Camberwell
www.starpubs.co.uk
Am i right in thinking that if you want a shot at running the place you need to have £175k to send to Heineken?!. I have very little knowledge of how these things work, but you'd hope that maybe they could have forked out of the refurb....
Johnlj1234
Member
On The Cambria new website it also says "...its rightful place back at the heart of Denmark Hill's bustling community" No mention of Loughborough Junction.
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
The failure to list what beers are on tap is true of almost all pub websites (whether they are gastropubs or not) and is a major bugbear of mine.
felonius monk
Well-Known Member
Part of a small chain of pub/restaurants. First one in London for them Our Pubs & Bars – Prospect Pubs & Bars Ltd | Pubs and Pubs with Rooms Oxfordshire
jimbarkanoodle
Well-Known Member
Its not a major bugbear of mine either, but most pubs actually do list their drinks as well as food. They often don't state prices of their draft though (you wait for the bad news after you've ordered), mostly just wine and bottled beers. I get that perhaps they haven't got round to deciding what booze they are going to sell, but this snippet does give a good idea what their priorities will be, and its unlikely to be for the casual drinker.
ChrisSouth
Well-Known Member
Also, the Northern Line (Bank branch) is closed so a lot of people on in Tooting etc are using the Sutton loop to get up to the City.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Gramsci has done a good job of explaining what this consultation is actually about and I agree with most of the points he's made.
I think the consultation website is quite badly laid out, for example there's no obvious way to get from the individual site pages back to an overview page. Anyway, to make things easier for anyone who wants to look at things and comment, here is my summary of what's relevant to LJ
Here is the overview for the whole SADPD (Site allocations development plan) which covers all of Lambeth:
Draft Site Allocations Development Plan Document
We are seeking your views on the Draft Lambeth Site Allocations Development Plan Document (SADPD), which includes proposed site-specific planning policies for 14 sites across Lambeth to guide future development.
Here is a link to the draft document itself:
Loughborough Junction is covered from page 140 onwards in that document.
There are three sites considered in Loughborough Junction:
"Site 22" which is the Wellfit St/ Hardess St site.
- consultation webpage here: Proposed Site 22
- thread about previous development proposals for this site: 29 and 20 storey tower blocks proposed for Hardess Street /Wellfit St, Loughborough Junction.
"Site 23" which is the site on the corner of Herne Hill Road and Coldharbour Lane (the Sureways church site)
- consultation webpage here: Proposed Site 23
- this site has been discussed on and off before, because at one point it looked like it might be included with the Higgs site plans but in the end it wasn't Higgs Triangle Loughborough Junction redevelopment
"Site 24" covers Kings Hospital grounds and I'd say is not so relevant to Loughborough Junction as such.
- consultation webpage here: Proposed Site 24
How to comment
The way to comment looks pretty messy to me - it seems you can comment on any section on any of the site webpages, and there's not an obvious way to make a general comment for each site. And if you look at each section on the site webpages you can't see previously made comments. To see previously made comments it looks like you have to go to the overview page and then click on the speech bubble symbol for the site you're interested in - for example you can see comments for site 22 by clicking on the speech bubble at bottom left of its section on that overview page
View attachment 306483
Links to comments made so far:
Site 22:
Proposed Site 22
1 & 3–11 Wellfit Street, 7–9 Hinton Road & Units 1–4 Hardess Street SE24
Site 23:
Proposed Site 23
Land at corner of Coldharbour Lane and Herne Hill Road SE24
(NB you can "agree" with comments already written there)
The deadline for comments is 22nd Feb.
How did you access the comments on the commonplace site? I've been struggling. Put my email address in and got three day access but can't get see comments button to work.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I put in my comments on the SADP sites 22 and 23. That is the Sureways site and the Wanless / Hardess site.
Did it by email. Which was a lot easier than trying to put them on the Commonplace. Which I've done to see how it works. Didn't find it that straightforward.
Here are my comments on two of the Loughborough Junctions SADPs.
First a few comments on the consultation process for these draft SAPDs.
The LJ Masterplan was never finished by the Council due to the argument over the Grove APG site. Were told that SADP were alternative. During process of drafting the SADPs the Council has been unwilling to talk to local residents. Nor did local residents get given choice of which sites they wanted for a SAPD. All local residents are getting is Statutory consultation. As this is a Coop Council local residents should have had consultation/ Co production before the draft was finished. also asked what sites they wanted for a SADP.
On the Sureways site/ Site 23
The adjacent Higgs site was criticised as over development of that site. This draft SAPD continues this to adjacent site. So this SAPD is overdevelopment of the site.
The height is a major issue. Whilst the draft says it will be set back to have wider pavement the site is right next to Coldharbour lane. This section of Loughborough Junction is low rise Victorian. The justification is that this will be a landmark building to announce the railway station and centre of Loughborough Junction. So it's in planning jargon good placemaking. The height allowed is going to dominate that part of Loughborough Junction. It is out of keeping with the surrounding streetscape.
The Council did say when they first mooted SADPs for Loughborough Junction that they would help appropriate development for Loughborough Junction. All this draft SADP does is continue with the Higgs development.
The SADP proposes a mixed use developement. Retail on bottom is fine. This part of Coldharbour lane could do with more active frontage to work.
However the draft SADP is trying to cram to much on site with uses that don't go together. Putting church on first and second floors with flats above isn't going to work. A church is better located on its own site. Noise etc is going to be a problem.
Site 22/ Wellfit st/ Hinton rd/ Hardess st
Has some of the same issues as the Sureways site. Its using the agreed heights of the Higgs development on the other side of the railway line to propose high development on this site. The streetscape surrounding this site is Victorian low rise terraced housing.
Whilst replacing the workspace the height is about putting housing above. Why does it need this height? I think this will affect the nearby residential properties with overshadowing. It is overbearing on the nearby low rise Victorian housing.
As with Site 23 its overdevelopment of this site.
The play space on the roof of the podiums looks to me to be the miminum required. Not satisfactory for guide to future development.
The mixed use development will also limit the kinds of uses to which the workspace can be used for.
Did it by email. Which was a lot easier than trying to put them on the Commonplace. Which I've done to see how it works. Didn't find it that straightforward.
Here are my comments on two of the Loughborough Junctions SADPs.
First a few comments on the consultation process for these draft SAPDs.
The LJ Masterplan was never finished by the Council due to the argument over the Grove APG site. Were told that SADP were alternative. During process of drafting the SADPs the Council has been unwilling to talk to local residents. Nor did local residents get given choice of which sites they wanted for a SAPD. All local residents are getting is Statutory consultation. As this is a Coop Council local residents should have had consultation/ Co production before the draft was finished. also asked what sites they wanted for a SADP.
On the Sureways site/ Site 23
The adjacent Higgs site was criticised as over development of that site. This draft SAPD continues this to adjacent site. So this SAPD is overdevelopment of the site.
The height is a major issue. Whilst the draft says it will be set back to have wider pavement the site is right next to Coldharbour lane. This section of Loughborough Junction is low rise Victorian. The justification is that this will be a landmark building to announce the railway station and centre of Loughborough Junction. So it's in planning jargon good placemaking. The height allowed is going to dominate that part of Loughborough Junction. It is out of keeping with the surrounding streetscape.
The Council did say when they first mooted SADPs for Loughborough Junction that they would help appropriate development for Loughborough Junction. All this draft SADP does is continue with the Higgs development.
The SADP proposes a mixed use developement. Retail on bottom is fine. This part of Coldharbour lane could do with more active frontage to work.
However the draft SADP is trying to cram to much on site with uses that don't go together. Putting church on first and second floors with flats above isn't going to work. A church is better located on its own site. Noise etc is going to be a problem.
Site 22/ Wellfit st/ Hinton rd/ Hardess st
Has some of the same issues as the Sureways site. Its using the agreed heights of the Higgs development on the other side of the railway line to propose high development on this site. The streetscape surrounding this site is Victorian low rise terraced housing.
Whilst replacing the workspace the height is about putting housing above. Why does it need this height? I think this will affect the nearby residential properties with overshadowing. It is overbearing on the nearby low rise Victorian housing.
As with Site 23 its overdevelopment of this site.
The play space on the roof of the podiums looks to me to be the miminum required. Not satisfactory for guide to future development.
The mixed use development will also limit the kinds of uses to which the workspace can be used for.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
As I've got Covid ( not that bad but positive) I've been doing online food shopping.
The Coop is very quick. Came after twenty minutes of me ordering. They use local Coop shops. Either Stockwell or LJ. It's a bit more expensive as pay two pound for delivery.
They also give you an hour slot. You can choose. And it comes at that time.
The Coop is very quick. Came after twenty minutes of me ordering. They use local Coop shops. Either Stockwell or LJ. It's a bit more expensive as pay two pound for delivery.
They also give you an hour slot. You can choose. And it comes at that time.
Thaw
Aye like, so it is.
"And when it comes to beer, we’re keeping things local too, with nearby Brixton Brewery’s hand-crafted, small batch beers and ales on tap, alongside a range of wines, spirits and cocktails, plus a vibrant selection of no and lows."
Maybe they have added this paragraph recently. Although its not exactly detailed.
editor
hiraethified
Lambeth going wildly over budget again Yet more money needed for Loughborough Junction Works as Lambeth Council’s ‘enterprise hub’ continues to swallow up the cash
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I guess there has been a 2 year hold-up due to Covid?
Be interesting to what if any work is done in the "works" - eventually.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Actually no.. From the grapevine I've heard it's more to do with Lambeth being incapable of managing the scheme.
Any problem and the scheme kept on grinding to a halt for weeks.
This doesn't surprise me about Lambeth. They just don't have the experienced staff or expertise to manage a complicated scheme like this.
I'm also wondering what the outcome is going to be. This is GLA money and they expect monitoring of outcomes
The Farm has struggled to keep going during to delays in the scheme.
Also local community faith in scheme is low. As can be seen by comment below article.
It would have helped if Council had given regular updates of why the scheme was delayed.
Instead of leaving it to Brixton buzz to look into.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I was in town at a University College Hospital ENT appointment this morning, and having had an agonising ear wax removal session fancied a pint at the Kentish Drover in Peckham. Imagine my horror on catching the Circle Line to Farringdon that the only trains available were to Gatwick, Brighton or (half hourly) to LJ.
Seems like a new timetable came in in February which cut out the Kentish Town - Sevenoaks service completely.
This service now departs from Blackfriars - as does the service to Sutton via Wimbledon (every half hour).
Luton via Mitcham East continues as before every half hour.
I guess we can console ourselves that even though the services generally are cut back, at Loughborough Junction we keep our 4 trains an hour service each way (more or less).
Seems like a new timetable came in in February which cut out the Kentish Town - Sevenoaks service completely.
This service now departs from Blackfriars - as does the service to Sutton via Wimbledon (every half hour).
Luton via Mitcham East continues as before every half hour.
I guess we can console ourselves that even though the services generally are cut back, at Loughborough Junction we keep our 4 trains an hour service each way (more or less).
Similar threads
