Loughborough Junction chitter-chatter
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Fuddydaddy.#outoftouch
The Fornicator
Active Member
Does anyone know if not maintaining the viaduct in this way - the foilage, mostly above those arches - eventually leads to structural issues?
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Yes I believe so eventually, but they do come along and cut it back now and again.
Buddleja, which I think is the shrub growing out of the cement, has very long roots so removing them does damage the cement work. I think that's why they are normally just cut back.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
From my experience of LJ it's more to do with people from estate ( or rather those that represent them) opposing any kind of plans to make LJ a "destination". Making LJ a "destination" is linked to LJAGs "gentrification" of the area. It's not about street drinking. People from estate say LJ is just "somewhere you pass through" not a destination. ( I actually heard this said). Anything that might encourage people to hang about or enjoy public space is opposed.
I've even heard complaints about the South Americans using Wyck Gardens on weekends at meetings. They in summer often meet up and hang around there a large part of day. Family groups using the sports courts there. They don't live on estate. I think most are private renters who live in LJ area. It's still not that gentrified around here. This is where I get annoyed. Complaints about South American ( immigrants) "hogging" the space is more than annoying imo.
Whilst I understand on one level why gulf between LJAG and the estate other aspects of it wind me up. Like moaning about Columbians.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Reading this and I think you are right on rationale behind design.
Given reasons for objecting to seating above.
The Platform is as disliked as the Farm is by some on estate ( not all).
As much as I like the Farm in some ways. And try to like the Platform. I do wonder it's relevance to locals on estate. I've been in Platform on open days when it sells farm produce. It's not cheap. If local food growing and production is to be encouraged for environmental reasons it needs to be affordable. Platform was trying to sell me local honey for £5 a bottle and cosmetics made from farm plants for £8 a go. I didn't know what to say. I might buy that as very special present but not normally. The way the Platform was set out reminded me of "organic" shops in Chelsea. The same kind of people run it Incredibly nice. But I don't know what. Couldn't help but remind me of the "I saw you coming" Enfield joke. I've heard people on estate complain about these prices. It's not for us. I think they have a point.
Last edited:
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
I guess the issue is whether life can go on in the face of a new way of life moving in. There’s nothing inherently objectionable IMO about expensive food being offered. What’s more difficult is if that leads to a lack of cheaper choices for the existing residents.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Excuse me if I'm double posting - but had not seen this mentioned elsewhere on Urban.
There is a consultation meeting in Loughborough Centre regarding a "mixed development" in Hardess Street. Scheduled for Thursday 2nd November 4 pm - 8 pm
Not sure why the developer's PR people (Your Shout of 107 Southank House) decided to have the consultation in a different ward from the development, but there you are.
Any one know what effect this is likely to have on Whirled Cinema and Miguel's gym? The development proposal looks unusually small compared to what we've had in Brixton and LJ in the last 5 years. Surprised Lambeth Planning haven't blocked it for not being megalomaniac enough!
There is a consultation meeting in Loughborough Centre regarding a "mixed development" in Hardess Street. Scheduled for Thursday 2nd November 4 pm - 8 pm
Not sure why the developer's PR people (Your Shout of 107 Southank House) decided to have the consultation in a different ward from the development, but there you are.
Any one know what effect this is likely to have on Whirled Cinema and Miguel's gym? The development proposal looks unusually small compared to what we've had in Brixton and LJ in the last 5 years. Surprised Lambeth Planning haven't blocked it for not being megalomaniac enough!
I got this through my letterbox. Have not had time to post. Opps, replied to wrong thread.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
There is an email address: hardessstreet@yourshout.org
also the leaflet has a Freepost postal address this is on the full leaflet
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
On the issue of the Whirled Cinema and the Boxing gym. These are I think separate to this particular application as they are in Network Rail property. At last LJ Neighborhood Planning forum it came up. LJAG have successfully got the Whirled Cinema and the Gym listed as assets of community value. Network Rail are contesting this. Link in last Planning forum newsletter to NR written objections. See below. Item four.
REMINDER: LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum Wednesday 27 September at 7.30pm
As in Brixton Network Rail want to show they have the whip hand in what happens in an area.
LJ it's potentially more sensitive than in Brixton. The centre is Criss crossed by several lines with a complex set of arches.
I was talking to local business last weekend who use an arch. Didn't hear anything good about NR.
Whilst full on gentrification hasnt come to LJ yet. It might. Potentially more than one long-standing local business may be under threat if NR see "potential" in the arches.
It was a good move of LJAG to get assets of community value status for these two business. It's pushing the definition to the limit. NR appeal unfortunately has grounds.
If areas are to be protected, in light of what's happening in Brixton, ideas like community value need to be given more teeth.
The very fact that NR are appealing shows where they stand in relation to local community. As if it wasn't obvious from what they have done in Brixton.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Here is info. For some reason ended up in my spam box.
LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum Wednesday 25 October 2017 at 7.30pm
LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum Wednesday 25 October 2017 at 7.30pm
There should be a 'fun fact' on the reverse from 1820.
I figured it out today outside the Co-op.
I wish I was more excited.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I've been.
Funnily enough when I was there at 4,15 pm a couple of people from the church in Wanless Road had turned up. They were interested in contacting the landowners/developers and purchasing some land to extend their facility.
I put in my general comments - along the lines of shame developments in Loughborough Junction all seem to require wiping out existing employment activity + businesses in the arches are onrto a hidung to nothing given the way Network Rail have behaved in Brixton and Herne Hill + wouldn't it be great if the housing was 100% social/affordable? That was done with Hanover House in Brixton Station Road, why not now?
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I went too. Have put some photos up on this thread:
Hardess St Industrial Estate - next bit of LJ up for redevelopment?
Hardess St Industrial Estate - next bit of LJ up for redevelopment?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Assets of Community Value - Whirled Cinema and Miguel's Boxing Gym
I did post up previously that LJAG had got whirled cinema and the boxing gym listed as assets of community value by the Council. These two business are in Network Rail arches. NR appealed the decision. LJAG response is in link above. (Haven't read it yet).
You can see all the docs in the link.
I did post up previously that LJAG had got whirled cinema and the boxing gym listed as assets of community value by the Council. These two business are in Network Rail arches. NR appealed the decision. LJAG response is in link above. (Haven't read it yet).
You can see all the docs in the link.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Assets of Community Value - Whirled Cinema and Miguel's Boxing Gym
Had a read of the docs.
Getting listing as Assets of Community Value is as Bimble says limited. It's not total protection.
It's imo good move by LJAG. If or when NR make a decision on these arches it's going to be bad PR for NR to kick these business out.
The Council accept these two as ACV. NR argue that renting the arches is a sideline to main job of using arches to run a railway. So NR is exempt from the legislation that provides ACV protection.
LJAG response is that recently NR set up separate property company to deal with its land and property rentals. So NR is now split between company using arches to provide infrastructure for railway and a new property company set up by NR.
Therefore NR argument is no longer valid.
Council response is to ask for more time to get answer from NR to clarify status of the property company set up by NR.
If this is hard to follow I'm struggling.
In the LJAG response re the arches the property company was set up to make it easier for NR to sell what are in effect publicly owned assets. So the separate property company is set up to in the end liquidate itself. It's not really a proper business in the sense that it wants to be a success. Its set up because the government wants NR to flog off assets.It's all fairly bizarre.
I would guess that NR may come back and say arches are different from other land it owns and will not be sold off. On other hand they might not want to put that in writing.
Had a read of the docs.
Getting listing as Assets of Community Value is as Bimble says limited. It's not total protection.
It's imo good move by LJAG. If or when NR make a decision on these arches it's going to be bad PR for NR to kick these business out.
The Council accept these two as ACV. NR argue that renting the arches is a sideline to main job of using arches to run a railway. So NR is exempt from the legislation that provides ACV protection.
LJAG response is that recently NR set up separate property company to deal with its land and property rentals. So NR is now split between company using arches to provide infrastructure for railway and a new property company set up by NR.
Therefore NR argument is no longer valid.
Council response is to ask for more time to get answer from NR to clarify status of the property company set up by NR.
If this is hard to follow I'm struggling.
In the LJAG response re the arches the property company was set up to make it easier for NR to sell what are in effect publicly owned assets. So the separate property company is set up to in the end liquidate itself. It's not really a proper business in the sense that it wants to be a success. Its set up because the government wants NR to flog off assets.It's all fairly bizarre.
I would guess that NR may come back and say arches are different from other land it owns and will not be sold off. On other hand they might not want to put that in writing.
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
From what I've seen of LJAG they are fit for purpose in sense they use they grant money they get properly. Projects look well run to me.
A lot of activist groups are in practice small. That's not the problem.
The problem is class issue. LJAG are mainly middle class guardian readers. Mean well but rub working class people on the estate upt the wrong way. I can understand why. LJAG vision of LJ as destination is middle class.
Last edited:
bimble
floofy
Saying it (LJAG) isn't fit for purpose was a bit unfair, was coming from personal frustration recently with trying to get stuff done with them.
Anybody here read 'the Room Of Lost Things' by Stella Duffy which is set here in LJ ?
Just got the book and the beginning is promising, nicely written.
Anybody here read 'the Room Of Lost Things' by Stella Duffy which is set here in LJ ?
Just got the book and the beginning is promising, nicely written.
Last edited:
sparkybird
ask the bird...
Yes l loved that book. Spoiler alert..
I blubbed at the end
I blubbed at the end
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I haven't. The book of hers that appeals to me is "Theodora" based around the life of the Empress Theodora - wife of Justinian (who had the Church of the Holy Sophia built in Constantinople) and currently a saint (saint's day 14th November).
Theodora seems to have been a bit like a super version of John Major. Daughter of a bear trainer then became empress then a saint. If you ever go to Ravenna there is an impressive mosaic of Theodora and her retinue in the Church of San Vitale.
No doubt Stella Duffy conveys this much more elegantly than I.
shakespearegirl
just worked out taglines
I really enjoyed Room of Lost Things. The dry cleaner who features in it was based on the real LJ dry cleaner who was a lovely bloke
Similar threads
