Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Loughborough Junction chitter-chatter

just in case anyone is interested and free to attend between 3 and 6 this eve the architects of the block planned for the corner of rathgar road are holding their consultation today.
(LJAg website says they haven't yet had any response to their request that the consultation be extended or another time added over the weekend)

6-9-station-avenue-development--440x310.png
 
Last edited:
just in case anyone is interested and free to attend between 3 and 6 this eve the architects of the block planned for the corner of rathgar road are holding their consultation today.
(LJAg website says they haven't yet had any response to their request that the consultation be extended or another time added over the weekend)

View attachment 78546
I'm hoping to make it around 4.30 pm (if they haven't packed up and gone home by then). Need to go to the blood pressure clinic first.
Maybe that's the wrong way round.

Seems a very industrial location for a block of flats. Still I know (knew) someone who lived in the block on Brixton Station Road overlooking the railway (Hanover House?). She sold her flat a while back and decamped to Uckfield. So could be "an investment" as they say these days. Certainily handy for bagging the front row on the platform waiting for the 8.04 to Luton.
 
The site has some flats on it at the moment as far as I know. The proposal looks like it will build on the hoarding site but also demolish the existing buildings adjacent.
 
It's all going to be lovely. The architects website says that "Our projects slot into and augment existing neighbourhoods and communities, providing new places for people to live, work and play. Our buildings are reactive to their surroundings and built around the human."
 
The site has some flats on it at the moment as far as I know. The proposal looks like it will build on the hoarding site but also demolish the existing buildings adjacent.
Why don't they give the address as Coldharbour Lane then? If you are right (which I don't think you are) their image reads as though they are demolishing the Body of Christ Christian Centre (former Midland Bank). Hope not - there is nothing wrong with that building and it is a mark of the heritage of Loughborough Junction when it actually needed or was provided with a bank.

Rather I think the image is from the other direction, and what will be demolished will be storage/garage space.

Actually given that this almost coincides with Network Rail's exhibition we should be asking that the council's Degeneration Department to start putting on section 106's to get an Overground station - either LJ, BE or BC.
 
Why don't they give the address as Coldharbour Lane then? If you are right (which I don't think you are) their image reads as though they are demolishing the Body of Christ Christian Centre (former Midland Bank). Hope not - there is nothing wrong with that building and it is a mark of the heritage of Loughborough Junction when it actually needed or was provided with a bank.

Rather I think the image is from the other direction, and what will be demolished will be storage/garage space.

Actually given that this almost coincides with Network Rail's exhibition we should be asking that the council's Degeneration Department to start putting on section 106's to get an Overground station - either LJ, BE or BC.
You're right - my wrong. It's not the hoarding site, I see now that it's down the other end of Station Ave.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CH1
the Body of Christ Christian Centre (former Midland Bank) a mark of the heritage of Loughborough Junction when it actually needed or was provided with a bank..
Interesting nugget never noticed that thanks, lots of demand for God round here but come to think of it it's surprising we haven't got one of those cash4U loanshark places.
 
I think I would oppose the change of use here for the same reasons that I opposed the change of use at Higgs.

This building becoming housing would have a greater impact on the viability of the current businesses on Rathgar Rd than the road closures scheme, in my opinion.
 
I think I would oppose the change of use here for the same reasons that I opposed the change of use at Higgs.

This building becoming housing would have a greater impact on the viability of the current businesses on Rathgar Rd than the road closures scheme, in my opinion.
You have a point. Of course if they're empty anyway?
I guess in the grand scheme of things it would make more customers for bistros in arches though.
What does one do for the best? Pragmatic of Coldharbour Lane.
 
This building becoming housing would have a greater impact on the viability of the current businesses on Rathgar Rd than the road closures scheme, in my opinion.
Do you mean just in that more people moving in to LJ (the kind likely to have disposable incomes) is going to speed up the transition from car repair to cupcakes ?
 
You'd have to be a pretty hardcore anti-gentrification warrior to cry for the demise of that particular building.

On 2nd thoughts, that must be me.

I got to the consult just as the bloke was packing up to leave..

It's a little church in there, which of course I hadn't a clue.

Festooned with brightly coloured giant satiny bows and ruffles, and photos of the community on daytrips blue-tacked to the wall. I think it was the pastor maybe who was standing there with the key wanting the day to be over.

The documents the architect gave me to carry away point out , in bold, that this is an "unauthorised church", as if the developers are doing everyone a favour by obliterating it.
 
It looks like they are taking their cue from the existing butterfly-roofed houses along station avenue, which you can see from the train station platform.
 
The documents the architect gave me to carry away point out , in bold, that this is an "unauthorised church", as if the developers are doing everyone a favour by obliterating it.
May comment more on this later. Beehive "happy Monday" takes precedence after the shock of the constitutional crisis.

Meanwhile I gathered from the architect that the pastor of the church had been in touch with a developer who has some sort of an option contingent on planning approval.

Seemed the thinking was originally that they might claim continuity of church use on the grounds of B8 (storage) but Lambeth advised this was not on.

To me the redevelopment looks OK but interestingly there was another consultee a bit older than me I think - said he'd been around the area for 40 years. That guy was at pains to stress that the proposal was to timid. He felt that the Victorian viaducts needed appropriately large to offset them rather than infill which tended to hide their engineering & architecture.

Another couple there were very concerned to discuss the failings of the Loughborough Road scheme, and how that would fit into the area's future prospects (which they saw as adversely affected).

A tall well spoken professional turned up after me and pointed out that the opening of an arch through to the "farm" area might make it more desirable for residential - but then went on to point out that a new development in this spot might make future improvements at Loughborough Junction impossible - such as reinstating platforms on the Victoria-Blackfriars loop line which started the whole station development off.

teuchter's roof comment above is obviously correct. Actually the design seemed a bit better than another sample of this architect's work from Southwark which was in the illustrative material handed out. I did not manage to hang onto mine - so can't put anything up. bimble do your duty!

I am wondering in view of bimble comments earlier about the shortage of premises for African churches whether I should comment in favour of contuing that use on the ground floor.

It seems to me that from a moral perspective Lambeth are forcing ther church elders to cash in an accidentally potentially lucrative investment which will almost inevitably lead to them being ripped of by a developer and/or falling out over money. I feel moved to save from themselves those who would save me from myself.

Meanwhile Beehive calls. Will the guest ales be £2.10 tonight or £1.99 that is the question.
 
bimble do your duty!
Who me?.. I did manage to get the whole cheap little ring bound folder thing from him, just because I got there so late and it was easier than talking to me. Are you interested enough to want the whole tawdry thing scanned in ?
 
Last edited:
Who me?.. I did manage to get the whole cheap little ring bound folder thing from him, just because I got there so late and it was easier than talking to me. Are you interested enough to want the whole tawdry thing scanned in ?
No - but there was a sketch image. Or you think it added nothing to the flyer?:
ljsr1000-jpg.78472
 
Don't think it has much to add really, here are a couple more pictures and also the bit about the rejected idea of it continuing to have a use as a church.

1.JPG 2.JPG 3.JPG
 
bimble did you get a name or direct email contact for the guy from the architects?

I was browsing their website and found this attractive number
International House.jpg
International House - Woolwich - affordable housing.

At £16M rather out of budget for the church or developer of the Station Ave site I guess.

Might have fitted the bill for the gentleman who wanted "more bold" though.
 
Planning consultation (2nd and final part)
Forgot some detail earlier:

1. I should have said that the first person to sign in was Anthea - but she had gone by the time I arrived. Also there was Alan Piper from the Brixton Society. He left shortly after I arrived.

2. A South American guy turned up in blue overalls and pointed out where he was working/metal bashing - at the apex of Rathgar Road.

He was not happy about having residential flats built as he felt the owners or tenants would then complain about his workshop causing noise, disturbance etc. He wanted the site kept industrial. Incidentally he wanted to take the plans away, but the architect did not allow this.

3. Clare turned up. I think she was representing cyclists. Anyway she wanted assurance that the correct number of cycle places were provided and that the building would comply with the latest energy conservation standards.

There seemed an issue here - to do with Lambeth wanting obscured glazing in the bedroom windows to preserve the privacy of rail travellers (or was it the other way round). Clare was not convinced this allowed maximum use of sunlight - from an energy saving perspective.

I would be more worried that obscuring the windows might cause depression - but Lambeth don't have to pay for that. That is down to the NHS.

4. The church pastor's wife was present at the meeting - she was indicated by the architect with a wave of his arm, but sat apart looking a bit irritated.

5. At the point I left several Nigerian men had come in, presumably from the church, and were engaging with the architect.

All I can say really.
 
There seemed an issue here - to do with Lambeth wanting obscured glazing in the bedroom windows to preserve the privacy of rail travellers (or was it the other way round).

Seems an unusual requirement. Usually this is to do with protecting privacy of neighbours - so that someone can't suddenly build something with lots of windows looking into neighbours' houses or gardens.

Haven't heard of it being asked for by a railway line before.
 
Seems an unusual requirement. Usually this is to do with protecting privacy of neighbours - so that someone can't suddenly build something with lots of windows looking into neighbours' houses or gardens.

Haven't heard of it being asked for by a railway line before.
I was emulating your sardonic style. It was asked for by Lambeth Planning.
 
Seems an unusual requirement. Usually this is to do with protecting privacy of neighbours - so that someone can't suddenly build something with lots of windows looking into neighbours' houses or gardens.

Haven't heard of it being asked for by a railway line before.
Oh - and to be crystal clear I think Clare was implying there would thereby be sub-optimal use of available daylight.
 
Here's me doing my duty as the person who got to take the plan home.

WINDOWS:
That picture above (this one llm 1.jpeg) it has numbers on the windows because it's talking about the windows which will be directly overlooked from the platform of the station.
& here's the bit of writing that goes alongside the numbered windows where they explain how they have attempted to deal with this privacy problem:
w1.JPG

BIKES:
It says they will be providing 20 bike parking spaces , next to the bin area like this..
IMG_1978.JPG
(says "this has been provided in accordance with London Housing Design Guide requirements for two spaces per 2 or 3 bed flat and one space per 1 bed flat which equates to 16 spaces".


CONTACT:
There's no name or email on the plan thing (and the man who was sent to do the consult explained that the reason they could not extend beyond 6pm was that the boss was unwilling to pay anything extra for this consultation , so he was doing it within office hours) but the architects website is here:aca-bullet
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom