Loughborough Junction Masterplan (presentation 14/17 September)

[bimble]

Just to recap, the new masterplan presents this as the future of the site where the playground & youth centre currently stand:

It says "Grove Adventure Playground has now closed. Any re-provision would need to be subject to availability of funding and the council’s wider strategy for service provision in the area. Provision for younger children may be considered within the new youth centre and / or as part of improvements to Elam Open Space. "
It goes on "Ongoing provision of facilities would need to be secured at no extra cost to the council. Therefore, additional income streams may need to be identified by the operator.

This looks exactly like 'option 4' in the previous consultation documents ('stage 2').



The only real difference is that in the earlier consultation document it states "possible relocation of the playground or provision of enhanced play facility in Elam Street park" and now instead we are simply told that relocating / replacing it will only possibly be considered if it costs the council nothing at all, if they feel like it and if some money appears from an unknown source.

They are no longer saying "will have to be replaced in a more beneficial manner" they're just saying it'll have to go to make room for the flats.


Also, last time they tried to sell this plan to us by suggesting a GPs surgery might be included in the new block, but that's disappeared now, it'll just be residential.
All 4 options we were given last time stated that the playground would either be retained or replaced, now they've simply dropped the charade and are stating plainly that it's just going to be replaced by a block of flats instead.

 

[CH1]

Also, last time they tried to sell this plan to us by suggesting a GPs surgery might be included in the new block, but that's disappeared now, it'll just be residential.

There's already a GP surgery - empty - at Five Ways Junction (former Iveagh House surgery - forced to move into the PFI Akerman Building to serve Oval Quarter's Asian buy to let development.

This dislocation was obviously a headache for Dr Konzon, the lead practitioner doctor at the surgery at least from his reaction when discussing the matter with me in a consultation (I was one of his patients). I have always found it a strange and unexplained co-incidence that he died soon after the move from the surgery he had built up for our area into the "Palace of Health" that is the Akerman Centre a mile away.

Get them to re-open the surgery at Iveagh House, or at least sell it off and pay down some of the £13 million PFI costs of the Akerman Centre
A cathedral for GPs: the south London health centre with big civic ambition

Coldharbour Ward must be fairly unique in Lambeth not having a surgery at all. Not one.

Loughborough Masterplan are hardly going to include a GP surgery in their scheme when Lambeth CCG won't fund it by the way.

This is a sore point with me - and nearly 200 other people who voted for me and a colleague standing locally as Independents on this issue in the council election.

 

[Gramsci]

Just to recap, the new masterplan presents this as the future of the site where the playground & youth centre currently stand:
View attachment 93315
It says "Grove Adventure Playground has now closed. Any re-provision would need to be subject to availability of funding and the council’s wider strategy for service provision in the area. Provision for younger children may be considered within the new youth centre and / or as part of improvements to Elam Open Space. "
It goes on "Ongoing provision of facilities would need to be secured at no extra cost to the council. Therefore, additional income streams may need to be identified by the operator.

This looks exactly like 'option 4' in the previous consultation documents ('stage 2').

View attachment 93316

The only real difference is that in the earlier consultation document it states "possible relocation of the playground or provision of enhanced play facility in Elam Street park" and now instead we are simply told that relocating / replacing it will only possibly be considered if it costs the council nothing at all, if they feel like it and if some money appears from an unknown source.

They are no longer saying "will have to be replaced in a more beneficial manner" they're just saying it'll have to go to make room for the flats.


Also, last time they tried to sell this plan to us by suggesting a GPs surgery might be included in the new block, but that's disappeared now, it'll just be residential.
All 4 options we were given last time stated that the playground would either be retained or replaced, now they've simply dropped the charade and are stating plainly that it's just going to be replaced by a block of flats instead.

Agree with your points except that the draft masterplan is different from option 4.

The football / sports pitch is now on the roof of the new youth centre. The housing is on Minet road side of the site. Looks to me that the new housing takes up more space then before. There is also new route to Elam open space that differs from option 4.

But you are right this is watering down of original options which people were consulted on. One wonders whether this was deliberate. Put in sweeteners to get people more likely to support an option and then drop them for final draft.

 

[bimble]

LJAG email this morning: They have sent this letter to Lib Peck setting out their objections to the plan. Strong objection to the playground plan and the way it has been presented without consultation.

"LJAG is concerned to know how a proposal that has not been consulted on has made its way through to the final draft of the Masterplan. LJAG is opposed to the loss of children’s play space in Loughborough Junction.
We believe that the Marcus Lipton and Grove Adventure Playground sites should be safeguarded as community assets. ...
The decision to consider selling part of this site for housing is one which permanently damages one of the few opportunities for play in what is one of the most deprived corners of Lambeth. "

Good.
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/c6783...JMasterplanconsultationresponse10_10_2016.pdf

 

[CH1]

LJAG email this morning: They have sent this letter to Lib Peck setting out their objections to the plan. Strong objection to the playground plan and the way it has been presented without consultation.

"LJAG is concerned to know how a proposal that has not been consulted on has made its way through to the final draft of the Masterplan. LJAG is opposed to the loss of children’s play space in Loughborough Junction.
We believe that the Marcus Lipton and Grove Adventure Playground sites should be safeguarded as community assets. ...
The decision to consider selling part of this site for housing is one which permanently damages one of the few opportunities for play in what is one of the most deprived corners of Lambeth. "

Good.
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/c6783...JMasterplanconsultationresponse10_10_2016.pdf

The most telling part of the letter is this, surely:
5. Rathgar Road & Station Avenue Consultation Board Three
A large development is shown on the site bounded by Rathgar Road, Loughborough Road and Station Avenue. Although this might be the preferred option for this site it seems unrealistic as part of the site (on the corner of Coldharbour Lane and Loughborough Road) is currently being developed.

although this is not dis-similar from the original plans (modified or not?) showing the Loughborough Hall demolished in favour of creating a "Station Yard"

It turned out at the time that the architects thought Loughborough Hall was a disused paint factory - when it turns out is has belonged to the Clelestial Church of Christ (a Nigerian pentecostal sect) since the mid 1980s and is still very much in use. Indeed I notice a week or so ago the Celestials had engaged roofers to repair their roof.

Final point - is it now the case that in Lambeth one provides consultant fodder, so the council's paid consultants can misinterpret your thoughts in generating Master Plans. And then when they have done all this the chair of LJAG and like-minded organisation write directly to the Leader of the Council to try to get it altered?

Why do we bother electing councillors?

If the councillor we elect is side-lined, not called to top table or being a good boy as an ex Mayor do we not have representation?

Will someone please tell me where the democracy is in all this? The councillors are paid £10,000 + allowances I believe (unless they are in the cabinet in which case it could be £40,000 +. Why are pensioners, the unemployed and people who have to go to a day job having to put so much effort in?

 

[teuchter]

I think it's worth posting the whole of the LJAG response because they bring up quite a few points:

Dear Councillor Lib Peck
LJAG response to the consultation on the Loughborough Junction Masterplan
The Loughborough Junction Action Group (LJAG) is writing in response to the final consultation on
the Loughborough Junction Masterplan
LJAG values its relationship with Lambeth council as one of its funded forums and has enjoyed
working co-operatively with the council on the DSDHA Loughborough Junction Plan, public realm
improvements, the road closures programme and other community and place-making programmes
and events.
We believed we shared with the council a common vision for Loughborough Junction as a vibrant
mixed-use neighbourhood and had established a co-operative and community-led way of working to
bring improvements to the area. However, in the case of the Hawkins\Brown and Fluid
Loughborough Junction Masterplan we find ourselves seriously at odds with Lambeth council for the
following reasons:

1. The LJ Masterplan lacks a vision for Loughborough Junction
We accept that the LJ Masterplan was principally about determining the future of the many
potential development sites within the area. In the early stages of the development of the
Masterplan a steering group was established to lead the masterplanning process. It was this
steering group that appointed Hawkins\Brown and Fluid but it failed to meet after August
2015 for reasons that remain unclear. However, it was always LJAG’s understanding that the
Masterplan would go beyond the simple presentation of proposals for the development
sites and would include a clear vision for the whole area. In the end this has been boiled
down to a series of so-called Masterplan principles which while laudable hardly add up to a
comprehensive vision.

2. The LJ Masterplan fails to address the issues raised during the planning discussions over
the future of Higgs Industrial Estate on Herne Hill Road.
These were:
(i) Housing density: the LJ Masterplan has not addressed the issue of housing density
which was the major issue brought up during discussions over the future of the
Higgs Industrial Estate and whether the correct housing density for the area should
be the higher “central” density, or the lower “urban” density as defined in the
London Plan.
(ii) Height of new buildings: the Masterplan makes no mention of whether or not there
should be a limit on the height of new buildings. Many local residents felt that the
planning permission for the Higgs Industrial Estate which included residential
buildings of seven storeys and a commercial building of ten storeys were
unacceptable high.
(iii) Zoning: The masterplan was an opportunity to re-zone some areas in order to create
the sense of place and destination that residents and businesses want for the town
centre along Coldharbour Lane and near the railway station. It is disappointing, for
example, that the Sureway church site, on the corner of Coldharbour Lane and
Herne Hill Road, which is acknowledged as suitable for intense redevelopment, is
not zoned as retail at ground floor level reinforcing the retail area which already
exists on the south side of Coldharbour Lane
(iv) Infrastructure: While we recognise that the Masterplan proposes greatly improved
connectivity (principally pedestrian) between sites, which we support, the
Masterplan makes no attempt to collate what would happen if all the LJ
development sites were in fact developed over the next 15 years. There is no
information about how many extra residential and/or commercial units this would
involve and how many extra residents and/or workers this would entail. There is no
attempt to place this in the context of Lambeth’s council undertaking in its Local
Plan and in the London Plan to build 17,925 new homes between 2015 and 2030.
There is no analysis of the effect additional residents and workers would have on
capacity in local schools, doctors’ surgeries and other services.
Our transport infrastructure is of particular concern to our residents. We have
recently circulated Thameslink’s post-2018 timetable consultation to our mailing list
and have had a large number of responses from local residents telling us that they
no longer use Thameslink from Loughborough Junction station during the morning
rush hour because of the difficulty of boarding trains; that some residents wait three
quarters of an hour before being able to board a train making them late for work; of
pregnant women being forced to stand because no one can see their plight and offer
a seat; and the effect of cancelled and late running trains. The proposed post-2018
services show little improvement in frequency, only trains with more capacity which
will only exacerbate the dangerous overcrowding experienced currently within the
station when trains arrive on both sides of the island platform at the same time.

3. Marcus Lipton and Grove Adventure Playground site Consultation Board One
Board One proposes building a block of flats on Minet Road and repositioning the Marcus
Lipton Youth Centre on the Grove Adventure Playground site and providing a route through
Styles Gardens, Major Close and Gordon Grove. At the options workshop held in July 2015 at
the Marcus Lipton Youth Centre several options for this site were considered but this was
not one of them.
LJAG is concerned to know how a proposal that has not been consulted on has made its way
through to the final draft of the Masterplan.
LJAG is opposed to the loss of children’s play space in Loughborough Junction. We believe
that the Marcus Lipton and Grove Adventure Playground sites should be safeguarded as
community assets. We appreciate that the previous management of the Grove Adventure
Playground were unable to maintain the service but there has been no attempt by the
council to find an alternative operator or discover if there is any appetite within the
community itself to come forward with a solution in the spirit of the co-operative council.
The decision to consider selling part of this site for housing is one which permanently
damages one of the few opportunities for play in what is one of the most deprived corners
of Lambeth.

4. Wickwood Street Yard & Styles Gardens Consultation Board Two
LJAG would like to see the Town Centre boundary extended to include part of the LJ:Works
site on Loughborough Road to allow for greater animation to the frontage of the LJ:Works
development.

5. Rathgar Road & Station Avenue Consultation Board Three
A large development is shown on the site bounded by Rathgar Road, Loughborough Road
and Station Avenue. Although this might be the preferred option for this site it seems
unrealistic as part of the site (on the corner of Coldharbour Lane and Loughborough Road) is
currently being developed.

The Loughborough Junction Masterplan appears to us to be driven by Lambeth council’s desire to
sell the assets it owns as quickly as possible and to encourage developers to come forward to build
as many high density homes as possible with scant regard for the people who already live and work
in Loughborough Junction whose priorities – even those defined in the Masterplan principles – are
not being met.

Yours sincerely
Anthea Masey
Chair
Loughborough Junction Action Group

 

[Gramsci]

LJAG email this morning: They have sent this letter to Lib Peck setting out their objections to the plan. Strong objection to the playground plan and the way it has been presented without consultation.

"LJAG is concerned to know how a proposal that has not been consulted on has made its way through to the final draft of the Masterplan. LJAG is opposed to the loss of children’s play space in Loughborough Junction.
We believe that the Marcus Lipton and Grove Adventure Playground sites should be safeguarded as community assets. ...
The decision to consider selling part of this site for housing is one which permanently damages one of the few opportunities for play in what is one of the most deprived corners of Lambeth. "

Good.
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/c6783...JMasterplanconsultationresponse10_10_2016.pdf

At the last LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum Anthea suggested to write a critique. Really glad LJAG have done this.

 

[bimble]

Yes, Anthea is sincerely opposed to this, I met her outside Tescos and discussed it a while ago, she is not impressed at all by the way things have gone, and is aware of the 'discrepancies' regarding the consultation and its reporting.

 

[Gramsci]

From LJAGs letter:

The Loughborough Junction Masterplan appears to us to be driven by Lambeth council’s desire to
sell the assets it owns as quickly as possible and to encourage developers to come forward to build
as many high density homes as possible with scant regard for the people who already live and work
in Loughborough Junction whose priorities – even those defined in the Masterplan principles – are
not being met.

This is more hard hitting than I expected.

 

[bimble]

I'm really glad too, that she and LJAG have been so explicit in their denunciation of the plan for the playground and the process by which its been revealed / arrived at.

 

[Gramsci]

Why do we bother electing councillors?

If the councillor we elect is side-lined, not called to top table or being a good boy as an ex Mayor do we not have representation?

Will someone please tell me where the democracy is in all this? The councillors are paid £10,000 + allowances I believe (unless they are in the cabinet in which case it could be £40,000 +. Why are pensioners, the unemployed and people who have to go to a day job having to put so much effort in?

Why do we have Labour Cllrs to be precise. When there were a few LD Cllrs they would raise planning issues.

The local (Labour) Cllrs knew all about the issue of the Adventure playground and concerns about the consultation.

None of them has taken the issue up. One would have thought a Labour Cllr would think this is something they would at least like to question officers about. But no.

And yes it leaves it up to those you list to take the issue up.

This is why demos like Stand Up to Lambeth happen. Derided by the "Progress" Council.

Its where I think far left groups like RCG have a point. The Council operate like management of a private business. We are the workers and they are management.

I can see why LJAG sent the letter straight to the Leader. Its from the lofty heights of senior Cllrs and senior officers that decisions are made. Labour Cllrs on the ground are puppets of the the leadership. I dont think they even get fully told about plans.

 

[CH1]

Why do we have Labour Cllrs to be precise. When there were a few LD Cllrs they would raise planning issues.

There is one who is still ferreting away, despite no longer being a councillor Megaprofits at the Megabowl? | Heart Streatham - all about Streatham

 

[Gramsci]

Just read Brixton Society comments on the draft masterplan. They also oppose the loss of the adventure playground.

So thats LJAG, LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum ( includes residents from the estate) and Brixton Society as three groups I know of opposing the loss of the adventure playground.

Wonder how the Council are going to deal with this?

 

[Gramsci]

The Council has done this before.

When they were consulting on the Brixton SPD (supplementary planning document) in the final draft they put in wording about looking for a new site for the Rec. This had never been consulted on at the consultation meetings.

Caused an uproar and the Council took the wording out after angry public pressure.

But shows that combination of senior officers and Cllrs ( my Ward Cllrs did not know about it and I believe them) behind closed doors plan significant changes and try to slip them in at last moment.

Its why I kept on asking about the adventure playground at the LJN planning forum meetings.I knew from experience this is the kind of thing that happens.

 

[bimble]

Just read Brixton Society comments on the draft masterplan. They also oppose the loss of the adventure playground.

So thats LJAG, LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum ( includes residents from the estate) and Brixton Society as three groups I know of opposing the loss of the adventure playground.

Wonder how the Council are going to deal with this?

Maybe it depends on what form the opposing takes. A few cross emails won't swing it.
This is important for the council, they're doing it because the playground is the single biggest opportunity for a cash influx they have here in lJ and they do need money badly.

 

[Gramsci]

Maybe it depends on what form the opposing takes. A few cross emails won't swing it.
This is important for the council, they're doing it because the playground is the single biggest opportunity for a cash influx they have here in lJ and they do need money badly.

The thing is the Council have never said this at meetings.

As has teuchter has pointed out the Masterplan is really supposed to be about planning considerations not about asset sales. ie density of housing, mix of uses, etc.

Of course it is about asset sales but the Council have been presenting the fiction at meetings that its not.

 

[Gramsci]

Got notice of the next LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum:

LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum
Monday 7 November at 8pm
at Sunshine International Arts,
209a Coldharbour Lane, SW9 8RU
This is a joint meeting of LJAG and the LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum and has been scheduled for Monday 7 November because Lambeth council is unable to attend the next LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum which should have taken place on Wednesday 26 October but has now been cancelled.

Please click below for the LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum letter which has been sent today to Councillor Lib Peck, Lambeth council leader, outlining the Forum's concerns about the LJ Masterplan.

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/c6783...lanconsultationresponseLJNPF10_10_2016.01.pdf

Please click below for the minutes of the LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum on 28 September 216.

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/c6783...es/LJAGLJNeighbourhoodPF28.09.2016minutes.pdf

 

[Gramsci]

Should be an interesting meeting. A guess main topic will be the draft masterplan.

 

[bimble]

in diary

 

[bimble]

So this piece of paper stuck to the wall of Styles garden today seems to be the outcome of that consultation ..




Lots of artwork, decorating the bridge and putting bunting up, and a new pedestrian crossing on Loughborough Road plus some resurfacing to calm traffic, a new crossing outside the station, but no major changes to the layout.
Loughborough junction

 

[Gramsci]

So this piece of paper stuck to the wall of Styles garden today seems to be the outcome of that consultation ..

View attachment 94981
View attachment 94982

Lots of artwork, decorating the bridge and putting bunting up, and a new pedestrian crossing on Loughborough Road plus some resurfacing to calm traffic, a new crossing outside the station, but no major changes to the layout.
Loughborough junction

This is actually separate from the Masterplan consultation. This is about the "public realm improvements" after the road closure failure. So not really relevant to this thread.

As you know Council set up an invite only "Steering Group" to decide all of this. So a great step forward in consulting Joe Public

The poster should have said nothing to improve junction for cyclists. And rat runs will stay open ( Padfield st) as the public realm improvements are based on idea of "keeping the traffic moving" as one officer said to me. So cars must have access to all roads including side roads.

 

[bimble]

I'm so confused by all the different plans and consultations and steering groups and realms. No idea which thread this belongs in even

 

[Gramsci]

I'm so confused by all the different plans and consultations and steering groups and realms. No idea which thread this belongs in even

I agree. There is a lack of joined up thinking re the future development of LJ.To many consultations on the go at the same time.

The public realm improvements are a case in point. The proposals are a mixed bag of making LJ a destination (LJAG) and keeping LJ a place one just passes through ( LJ Road Madness and many of the residents on the Loughborough Estate who are concerned about possible gentrification.)

So arty bits for the bridges- an LJAG obsession disliked by Loughborough Estates as middle class arty bollox.

LJAG were trying to get the road by the farm narrowed and landscaping that bit to join the hated Farm up to Wyck Gardens. Its in the website you linked. Have a feeling its not going to happen as Estate and LJ Road Madness are against it.

So its been an unedifying tussle between LJAG and Loughborough Estate both trying to dilute the others proposals.

Leading to not much change at all.

 

[teuchter]

This is why there should be no time-wasting consultation and everything should just be decided by me.

 

[teuchter]

I'm not really into the banners thing btw. That's what they've done in Herne Hill. Feels contrived.

 

[bimble]

I hate the whole decorative branding idea, that a few colourful signs or whatever, and painting a bridge, will make LJ "a destination" or give it "an identity". Irks me no end. Those silly little placards we already have all over the place saying 'made in LJ" with photos of smiling local artisans, what good is that to anyone and now there's to be just loads more of it.
I took the time to write them a proper little essay explaining this on the day of that consultation and astonishingly they seem to have ignored it.
This is why it's me who should decide everything and not you Teuchter.

 

[Gramsci]

I went to the new meeting last night . Most of the meeting was taken up with Adventure Playground / Youth Centre site .

The Council sent along three officers and two Cllrs to try and persuade us that there proposals was what we really wanted .

It's now clear that this proposal for the site was what the Council wanted to do all along . That is close the adventure playground. Sell parts of site to developer and build new youth centre .

They already have a consultant working on the number of housing units that can go on the site .

So not surprising that they came along in force to the meeting .

 

[Gramsci]

I felt that a lot of pressure was put on people to go along with Council proposal .

Being "sensible" about it.

The discussion started with the question of what the previous consultation findings were . As they are still disputed.

The Council then took a different line . That there was no funding for the adventure playground . That it is not good to have an empty site . Attracting ASB . That therefore the Council proposal needs to be brought forward quickly .

So what ever the findings of the previous consultation were the situation now is that the Council do not think Adventure Playgrounds are viable any more . The Council , at the meeting , argued that it is difficult to get other groups to run the Adventure Playgrounds .

 

[Angellic]

Not sure which thread to post this but here goes;

‘Mini Holland’ scheme hailed as major success as traffic falls by half

 

[CH1]

I felt that a lot of pressure was put on people to go along with Council proposal .
Being "sensible" about it.
The discussion started with the question of what the previous consultation findings were . As they are still disputed.
The Council then took a different line . That there was no funding for the adventure playground . That it is not good to have an empty site . Attracting ASB . That therefore the Council proposal needs to be brought forward quickly .
So what ever the findings of the previous consultation were the situation now is that the Council do not think Adventure Playgrounds are viable any more . The Council , at the meeting , argued that it is difficult to get other groups to run the Adventure Playgrounds .

The idea of taking adventure playgrounds out of the Masterplan seemed to offer temporary respite. Good suggestion.