footballerslegs
Well-Known Member
I've made a note that there's a LJ bridge launch party happening tomorrow - and now I can't find anything about it. Anyone able to confirm or deny?
Loughborough Junction chitter-chatter
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
I've made a note that there's a LJ bridge launch party happening tomorrow - and now I can't find anything about it. Anyone able to confirm or deny?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Im trying to remember what was said at recent meeting ( the LJ Planning Forum). I've checked LJAG website. And nothing on there. I think it's been postponed until the other works are done. The public realm improvements. (They are happening next to bridge.)
It appears the public realm improvements aren't been met with universal approval.
So don't know how this will pan out regarding a launch party.
footballerslegs
Well-Known Member
Thanks very much. I did think it might not be great timing given all the digging going on at the park. glad I checked!
Hello all, regarding bridge launch party I believe it has been postponed until further notice as the original concept was to shut the road so the underside of the bridge could be viewed. Not a popular local option, however, and permits are also proving difficult.
On public realm works I understand that a new entrance is to be made for the Platform and the digging is to provide landscaping and paths to the entrance. Hopefully public toilet provision will be reinstated as well.
On public realm works I understand that a new entrance is to be made for the Platform and the digging is to provide landscaping and paths to the entrance. Hopefully public toilet provision will be reinstated as well.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Shutting road for launch of bridge wouldn't go down well in some quarters.
The "public realm improvements" have been so mired in arguments that it has lead to scheme that satisfies nobody.
The original idea of LJAG was to join up the park and the Farm. The above photo shows beginning of works that are cut down version of what LJAG wanted. I will wait to see how it turns out. But I did ask why there is no seating.
The final plans for the "public realm improvements" have had the LJ Road madness group , with there success at having got rid of the road closures, resisting any measures that might improve the junction for pedestrians. With LJAG trying to salvage some of there vision for a link up of the hated Farm and the Platform.
I think the whole public realm improvements should have been abandoned. TFL given the money back.
The "public realm improvements" have been so mired in arguments that it has lead to scheme that satisfies nobody.
The original idea of LJAG was to join up the park and the Farm. The above photo shows beginning of works that are cut down version of what LJAG wanted. I will wait to see how it turns out. But I did ask why there is no seating.
The final plans for the "public realm improvements" have had the LJ Road madness group , with there success at having got rid of the road closures, resisting any measures that might improve the junction for pedestrians. With LJAG trying to salvage some of there vision for a link up of the hated Farm and the Platform.
I think the whole public realm improvements should have been abandoned. TFL given the money back.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
After the road closure experiment was stopped by the Council new consultation process started. This was invite only. Not public consultation.
The funding for the public realm improvements comes from TFL. But administered through the Council.
The new consultation meetings took p!ace before the LJ Neighborhood Forum meetings. Which I attend. Also at the forum meetings there was reports of what happened at the new consultation meetings on the public realm.
They sometimes overlapped. So I have good idea how they worked.
After the road closure experiment debacle LJ Road Madness were on a roll. The new consultation group set up by Council of leading stakeholders included LEMB , LJ Road Madness, LJAG.
Basically LJAGs vision for LJ was in tatters. The road closure experiment had failed.
The whole point imo of the TFL funding was to make LJ more pedestrian and cycle friendly. One might argue that the road closure experiment was a failure. But my understanding of the opposition was that other ways would be looking at to reduce dominance of cars.
But no. LJ Road Madness and LEMB argued about any improvements.
Two cases. I asked at LJ Neighborhood P!winning forum that the rat run by Coop, Padfield road, remain closed off. LJ Road Madness opposed this. Despite it being obvious it's rat run to avoid the lights at junction. That's when I realized that car lobby wasn't interested in traffic reduction.
The new consultation meetings set up by Council were totally dominated by car lobby in LJ.
The planning forum meetings and new consultation meetings on public realm the overlap a bit.
Last one I remember about the pedestrian crossing. Idea is to bring in Oxford Circus type crossing on the Loughborough road/ CHL junction. This was met with great suspicion.
( I've seen the one in Oxford Circus. It works well imo. Much more pedestrian friendly)
Outside the hated Farm idea was to narrow road down. Slow up traffic. This was resisted fiercely. I don't think it is going to happen now. Also remember discussed pedestrian crossing from Wyck Gardens to the Farm/ LJ Works. This caused a big long discussion. I remember as I turned up for planning forum and it was still going on. The LJ Road Madness/ LEMB arguing against pedestrian crossing.
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Basically LJAG didn't have the stomach to argue any more. I know that is what they said to me.
Secondly pedestrian crossing, cycle lanes, closing rat runs, altering roads to slow down traffic all got labelled as "middle class".
Cycling in particular is a middle class activity of selfish people.
Secondly pedestrian crossing, cycle lanes, closing rat runs, altering roads to slow down traffic all got labelled as "middle class".
Cycling in particular is a middle class activity of selfish people.
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
The LEMB don't support keeping Grove APG.
Shows how much the leadership in the estate is out of touch.
Chair of LEMB has said that the road closure experiment did affect the residents. But Grove APG is of no interest.
I've talked to residents. And they are not happy with LEMB.
Shows how much the leadership in the estate is out of touch.
Chair of LEMB has said that the road closure experiment did affect the residents. But Grove APG is of no interest.
I've talked to residents. And they are not happy with LEMB.
Last edited:
teuchter
je suis teuchter
That's all very sad and annoying to hear. It's not democratic - I don't believe the road madness group represent as great a number of people as they claim. I don't see why they should get a privileged place on an invite-only consultation. And if the LEMB is represented then they should surely only be commenting on things that affect the estate. Thank you for attempting to get the Padfield Rd closure retained - indeed it is a rat-run around the lights, and people come round there pretty fast and on my way to the co-op I have to make sure one of them doesn't run me over.
I have been told by someone offline that one of the main board members of LEMB(? I am now not sure if LEMB or LETRA) is a car nut and managed to mobilise the response that got the road scheme shut down. Seeing as there was so much nonsense going round at the time, I wonder what misinformation the residents of the estate are fed and basically whether positions of influence are being abused. It's something I'd like to find out more about but here is probably not the right place to discuss.
I have been told by someone offline that one of the main board members of LEMB(? I am now not sure if LEMB or LETRA) is a car nut and managed to mobilise the response that got the road scheme shut down. Seeing as there was so much nonsense going round at the time, I wonder what misinformation the residents of the estate are fed and basically whether positions of influence are being abused. It's something I'd like to find out more about but here is probably not the right place to discuss.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
The main people in LJ Road Madness were also on LEMB board. LETRA is now barely functioning as its most capable person moved away. LETRA also opposed the road closures.
As you probably know the road closures got mixed up with LJAGs plans to make LJ a "destination", link up the hated farm and platform.
Unfortunately I would say on road closures LEMB and LETRA aren't out of step with general opinion on estate.
What I object to is the aftermath. The general opinion was opposed to the Loughborough road closure. But not against reducing traffic and bringing in measures to make area more pedestrian friendly.
In the aftermath the Council decided to set up a new steering group. LEMB, LJ Road Madness, LETRA and LJAG. Invite only. No further public consultation as time was pressing. If decisions not made money would be lost was justification.
In practice LEMB and LJ Road Madness were numerically bigger on steering group. And Council were shit scared of arguing with them.
What I object to is that what happened was that any measures to reduce traffic were watered down. Padfield road an example. I remember bringing up Padfield. Met with hostility from Cllr and officers. They had obviously been told to get rid of all of original plan. Not just Loughborough road closure.
The Grove APG. This really angered me. LEMB Chair and most of board just wouldn't support saving the APG. Imo one reason was that Anthea of LJAG was one of main people concerned about it. It is imo that petty and personal. The LEMB board ,I've been told was split on the APG. The Chair of LEMB holding sway in this.
The trouble with community organisations is that only a few will do the donkey work. That's fine a lot of time. But not always. Any rational TRA or EMB would have welcomed a group of concerned locals trying to stop a New Labour Council from flogging off APG to private developer.
What got me about LEMBs attitude to the APG was that with road closures they were arguing that it was partly about LJAG plan to gentrify area. Council flogging off land that the APG is on to a developer is imo aiding gentrification. Potentially building expensive flats next to estate. But LEMB would rather pursue webdetta against LJAG. That's not proper politics imo.
As you probably know the road closures got mixed up with LJAGs plans to make LJ a "destination", link up the hated farm and platform.
Unfortunately I would say on road closures LEMB and LETRA aren't out of step with general opinion on estate.
What I object to is the aftermath. The general opinion was opposed to the Loughborough road closure. But not against reducing traffic and bringing in measures to make area more pedestrian friendly.
In the aftermath the Council decided to set up a new steering group. LEMB, LJ Road Madness, LETRA and LJAG. Invite only. No further public consultation as time was pressing. If decisions not made money would be lost was justification.
In practice LEMB and LJ Road Madness were numerically bigger on steering group. And Council were shit scared of arguing with them.
What I object to is that what happened was that any measures to reduce traffic were watered down. Padfield road an example. I remember bringing up Padfield. Met with hostility from Cllr and officers. They had obviously been told to get rid of all of original plan. Not just Loughborough road closure.
The Grove APG. This really angered me. LEMB Chair and most of board just wouldn't support saving the APG. Imo one reason was that Anthea of LJAG was one of main people concerned about it. It is imo that petty and personal. The LEMB board ,I've been told was split on the APG. The Chair of LEMB holding sway in this.
The trouble with community organisations is that only a few will do the donkey work. That's fine a lot of time. But not always. Any rational TRA or EMB would have welcomed a group of concerned locals trying to stop a New Labour Council from flogging off APG to private developer.
What got me about LEMBs attitude to the APG was that with road closures they were arguing that it was partly about LJAG plan to gentrify area. Council flogging off land that the APG is on to a developer is imo aiding gentrification. Potentially building expensive flats next to estate. But LEMB would rather pursue webdetta against LJAG. That's not proper politics imo.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
The question is partly how much that opinion was/is based on misinformation.
To be honest, unfortunately I'm not that surprised how things have played out in the "aftermath". The road madness people said, on abandonment of the closures scheme, that they would support other means of making things more pedestrian friendly, etc. but I didn't believe them. Why would they?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Thing is as the moves to reduce traffic in LJ was combined with LJAGs plans to make LJ a destination it was bound to fail. Resentment against LJAGs plans had been building up for several years. The road closure lit the fuse. Both the Council and LJAG were blind to this. I've was at meetings before road closure when people on estate were saying they didn't want LJ to be a "destination". At other times I was told by non LJAG locals that LJAG ideas would lead to gentrification. LJAG simply didn't listen.
So it's not just misinformation. It's people on estate not being listened to.
goldengraham
Well-Known Member
Coop now taking over Nisa. Wonder what it will mean for the shops in LJ
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Not much - if the Sainsburys takeover of Argos is anything to go by!
editor
hiraethified
bimble
floofy
Not quite sure what this is about but.. there's an application currently being considered by Lambeth & Southwark councils from the Herne Hill Forum which asks that a particular boundary on the map be defined as Herne Hill area.
It seems to include a chunk of what I think is LJ.
Far as I can tell the Herne Hill Forum are doing this with a view to being the only voice in matters of development planning for the area defined (?)
Here's their application including maps and the tiny survey they carried out to support their request:
https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/con-herne-hill-application.pdf
Any objections / comments must be submitted by Monday (11th September) - details of how to comment or lodge an objection are here:
Herne Hill Forum Neighbourhood Forum and Neighbourhood Area application | Lambeth Council
It seems to include a chunk of what I think is LJ.
Far as I can tell the Herne Hill Forum are doing this with a view to being the only voice in matters of development planning for the area defined (?)
Here's their application including maps and the tiny survey they carried out to support their request:
https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/con-herne-hill-application.pdf
Any objections / comments must be submitted by Monday (11th September) - details of how to comment or lodge an objection are here:
Herne Hill Forum Neighbourhood Forum and Neighbourhood Area application | Lambeth Council
Attachments
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I think the Brixton Forum were unhappy at a land grab in the Railton Road area as well. It seems to me there ought to be a Loughborough Junction Forum. Possibly LJAG could consider transforming itself into such a beast - but I don't know the constitutional issues involved. LJAG as it is a registered charity - it might need to review its aims and objects to do this.
Even if LJAG did not wish to become a LJ forum, they could propose the idea and do a survey. I bet plenty of people in the "affected area" might agree - though doubtless many people up Herne Hill Road etc might be delighted to have their Herne Hillness confirmed by the state.
This ball definitely should be kept in the air.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
It came up at last LJ Neighborhood Planning Forum. See my post #2094 , page 70 of this thread.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Neighbourhood forums have basically spent the last couple of years attempting to bagsy turf. This is more of the same. They don't get an exclusive say in development planning, but incorporation into their neighbourhood plan makes developments more likely to happen.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Some hoarding has appeared around part of the Higgs site, on Herne Hill Road. Perhaps the site owners are worried about break-ins as a result of their own decision to leave the buildings half-demolished?
It takes up the whole of the pavement forcing pedestrians into the road. I don't know the rules exactly but I think that in this scenario there is supposed to be a protected pedestrian zone in the roadway.
Lambeth's website seems unforthcoming on how to (a) check whether they've got permission for this or (b) report it as a pavement obstruction. Does anyone know better than I do?
It takes up the whole of the pavement forcing pedestrians into the road. I don't know the rules exactly but I think that in this scenario there is supposed to be a protected pedestrian zone in the roadway.
Lambeth's website seems unforthcoming on how to (a) check whether they've got permission for this or (b) report it as a pavement obstruction. Does anyone know better than I do?
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
You "want" to contact
Lambeth Environment- Highways Licensing,
7th Floor Blue Star House,
234-244 Stockwell Road,
London,
SW9 9SP
Tel: 020 7926 0524
Email: neighbourhoods@lambeth.gov.uk
Lambeth Environment- Highways Licensing,
7th Floor Blue Star House,
234-244 Stockwell Road,
London,
SW9 9SP
Tel: 020 7926 0524
Email: neighbourhoods@lambeth.gov.uk
teuchter
je suis teuchter
done
Similar threads
