Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins
- Thread starter Leo Chesterton
- Start date
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Anyway I was at the meeting last night.
It was on the Loughborough estate which I thought was a good thing.
The meeting was the LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum. So several topics were covered re LJ.
I will try to give balanced account of the item on the agenda on road closure.
First who attended. Balance of people from the Loughborough Estate and LJAG plus "non aligned" locals like me.
An underlying issue throughout the whole meeting was the division between LJAG and Loughborough Estate. LE residents regard LJAG as middle class group who want to gentrify the area. The road closure are an example of this as they have been done mainly in the working class part of LJ.
The part closure of Loughborough road for example was criticised as making a new public space for the well off in the future
The issue of road closures was linked to what are perceived as LJAGs plans for LJ. So imo the road closure scheme cannot be seen as separate from the masterplan.
I did ask what the road closure scheme was for. As it now appears that road closures are about helping to create LJ as a "destination".
Those who asked what rational of the scheme is ( ie less cars, less pollution etc) did not get a clear answer. This imo is a flaw in how the scheme has been implemented. The "goalposts" for what the scheme is supposed to fulfil , as one attendee noticed, kept moving.
Cllr Rachel Heywood turned up. She and her other Coldharbour Ward Cllrs have taken up complaints from residents about flawed consultation.
George the officer from Lambeth spoke first. He was disappointed at the level on non compliance. At this time those vehicles who have been going through Loughborough road are being sent warning letters. This will go on for several weeks then fines will be issued. At this time Council are using a CCTV car.
The signs have been changed several times. As Council officer see that people do not understand signs or see them to late.
Nearly all of non compliance is related to Loughborough Road.
There was a heated discussion after officer report. I didn’t think the officer handled it that well. Impression I got was that those in Council who pushed this scheme forward did not foresee this level of vocal opposition. Nor the difficulty in making the scheme work.
The upshot is that Stockwell Partnership will be invited to next meeting.
It was on the Loughborough estate which I thought was a good thing.
The meeting was the LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum. So several topics were covered re LJ.
I will try to give balanced account of the item on the agenda on road closure.
First who attended. Balance of people from the Loughborough Estate and LJAG plus "non aligned" locals like me.
An underlying issue throughout the whole meeting was the division between LJAG and Loughborough Estate. LE residents regard LJAG as middle class group who want to gentrify the area. The road closure are an example of this as they have been done mainly in the working class part of LJ.
The part closure of Loughborough road for example was criticised as making a new public space for the well off in the future
The issue of road closures was linked to what are perceived as LJAGs plans for LJ. So imo the road closure scheme cannot be seen as separate from the masterplan.
I did ask what the road closure scheme was for. As it now appears that road closures are about helping to create LJ as a "destination".
Those who asked what rational of the scheme is ( ie less cars, less pollution etc) did not get a clear answer. This imo is a flaw in how the scheme has been implemented. The "goalposts" for what the scheme is supposed to fulfil , as one attendee noticed, kept moving.
Cllr Rachel Heywood turned up. She and her other Coldharbour Ward Cllrs have taken up complaints from residents about flawed consultation.
George the officer from Lambeth spoke first. He was disappointed at the level on non compliance. At this time those vehicles who have been going through Loughborough road are being sent warning letters. This will go on for several weeks then fines will be issued. At this time Council are using a CCTV car.
The signs have been changed several times. As Council officer see that people do not understand signs or see them to late.
Nearly all of non compliance is related to Loughborough Road.
There was a heated discussion after officer report. I didn’t think the officer handled it that well. Impression I got was that those in Council who pushed this scheme forward did not foresee this level of vocal opposition. Nor the difficulty in making the scheme work.
- One person raised very good point of how the scheme will be consulted on as it goes on over six months. The Council have got "Stockwell Partnership" lined up to do this. What was concerning to me was that the officer did not seem to know how this will be done. To the point that the questioner had to tell the officer one aspect of how the consultation was already agreed to be done that the officer was not aware of.
The upshot is that Stockwell Partnership will be invited to next meeting.
- Someone else criticised the scheme so far on Health and Safety issues. Firstly that there had already been an accident on Minet road. Several at meeting regarded this as down to the road closures. Otherwise safe roads are now used by drivers trying to get around road closures. This was causing an unsafe environment.
- Second car drivers were using or trying to find short cuts around estates car parks. This was causing danger to children for example.
- So some asked for the scheme to be pulled now. The officer said he cannot pull scheme. Its not under his power but he can recommend this. He said he would want to hear Police advice on public safety re increase in accidents before recommending this.
- The issue of emergency vehicles came up. Some present argued that the road closures endangered life as the road closures make it longer for ambulance etc to get through.
- Also said that those who have long term illnesses will now find it difficult to get to Kings Hospital quickly.
- There was someone from Lambeth Cyclists present. They to my surprise kept there head down and didn’t say much. Though they agreed that roads like Hinton might have been better to have been closed off to reduce through traffic.
- The way that roads have been closed was criticized it looks amateurish. Also the idea to get residents to build and maintain planters to block roads.
- It was asked if any study has been done to work out where traffic will now go. The officer said that this is not possible to predict. Answer was that TFL do this and it can be done.
- The class issue came up. For example the road closure are all around the estate not in the better off areas. So the better off are not inconvenienced. Also the perception is the LJAG have to much influence with Council regarding what happens on the Loughborough Estate.
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Poster was comparing cyclists to the Nazis. What are they most remember for?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
After re reading my post above- and I am not knee jerk against this scheme- its not going very well.
Both sides have dug in and I do not see a happy outcome.
If it becomes permanent its likely to cause a unbridgeable rift between to the two halves of LJ.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
More planned for De B being done in parallel to Boris Super Highway.
In fact looks to me that Hackney Council is taking more radical plans that Lambeth.
See here for update. I have noticed new works in De B in last few weeks.
I do cycle around there sometimes. The area is similar to your streets. So yes I think it could work in a residential area like yours.
I would be interested in knowing how the Council got public support for this or if they just pushed it through.
The Pitfield street closure is the nearest comparable to Loughborough Road closure. Its a direct route into the area. Now you have to drive around to Kingsland road.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
I ride a bike every day and I try to treat everyone on the road with respect, so you can take that attitude and shove up your arse sideways, dry.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately I think the increasing ( to my mind good) better provision for cycling in London is starting to cause resentment.
At the meeting last night later those who opposed the road closures started to go on about "The cyclists". As in the increasing number of cyclists on the road being a problem ( not cars).
teuchter
je suis teuchter
What I'd really like to know is whether it's true that most residents on the estate are strongly against the scheme, or if it's a smallish group of nutters making a big noise about it. It seems consistently to be a feature of any scheme that reduces car dominance that there will be a small number of people vehemently against it, talking about tree-huggers, cyling nazis and the like. Even if the area is as middle class as you like. Lambeth's consultation suggested that most people on the estate weren't against the proposals. But of course no-one trusts Lambeth to do anything properly and the farce that is the implementation of the experimental scheme just reinforces that.
If it's really true that a significant proportion living on the Loughborough Estate just don't want this, then I'd be inclined to say, fine, don't do it (even though I strongly believe that closing off that section near the Junction is a no-brainer in terms of improving the quality of the public realm for everyone that lives in the area). If people don't want it they don't want it.
But I'd really rather an effort was made to determine what the real balance of opinion is. And I'd rather that to happen after the experimental scheme has been implemented properly, and been given time to bed in. It's massively unhelpful to start sending surveys around at this point asking people what they think of something that hasn't happened yet. And objections based on things like drivers searching for alternative routes are essentially spurious before we know if it's a long term pattern or just something that's going to happen for a few weeks before people settle into new patterns (likewise anecdotal evidence of traffic queues being longer else where at present).
Sadly it's starting to look like the whole process has been so botched that it's probably going to fail and be rejected, and not because the idea was fundamentally flawed or because it couldn't have become something that would actually be good for lots of people in the area. And that woudl really be a shame if it's not even true that most people on the Loughborough Estate oppose the scheme.
So, maybe LJAG can then try and focus some effort on implementing public realm improvements on the nice middle class side of LJ, which is populated by tree-hugging cycle nazis. And then be criticised for ignoring the people on the other side of the tracks.
If it's really true that a significant proportion living on the Loughborough Estate just don't want this, then I'd be inclined to say, fine, don't do it (even though I strongly believe that closing off that section near the Junction is a no-brainer in terms of improving the quality of the public realm for everyone that lives in the area). If people don't want it they don't want it.
But I'd really rather an effort was made to determine what the real balance of opinion is. And I'd rather that to happen after the experimental scheme has been implemented properly, and been given time to bed in. It's massively unhelpful to start sending surveys around at this point asking people what they think of something that hasn't happened yet. And objections based on things like drivers searching for alternative routes are essentially spurious before we know if it's a long term pattern or just something that's going to happen for a few weeks before people settle into new patterns (likewise anecdotal evidence of traffic queues being longer else where at present).
Sadly it's starting to look like the whole process has been so botched that it's probably going to fail and be rejected, and not because the idea was fundamentally flawed or because it couldn't have become something that would actually be good for lots of people in the area. And that woudl really be a shame if it's not even true that most people on the Loughborough Estate oppose the scheme.
So, maybe LJAG can then try and focus some effort on implementing public realm improvements on the nice middle class side of LJ, which is populated by tree-hugging cycle nazis. And then be criticised for ignoring the people on the other side of the tracks.
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
Oh please, it was a throw away comment. I doubt he seriously considers cyclists Nazis. And even if he was comparing them, the Nazis are famous for more than just murdering a fuck ton of Jews.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I don't think this is a helpful strand of conversation to pursue on this thread.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
The impression I get is that a lot of the estate residents regard this as LJAG idea and opposed it from the start as anything LJAG do is for the well off middle classes. I have heard this kind of thing from other residents who were not at the meeting.
At one point someone said they thought that the road closures were making roads around the estate more dangerous. That this was deliberate as LJAG wanted to kill off the Council tenants on the estate and gentrify the area.
It was not that serious but its wasn’t really a joke either. Shows how much antipathy there is towards LJAG.
The same person also said that perceptions are important. And the perception is that LJAG get listened to by Council.
I can understand were they are coming from on the estate. They see what is happening to Brixton (Pop was mentioned by one person from estate as what they do not want). I have heard comments at other times that some fear for the long term future of there Council housing. As one person at meeting said there is a lot of deprivation on the estate and they feel improvements to the area not for them but the well off. So I think those at the meeting were representative of a lot of people on the estate. As the issue of the road closures is an issue around which other conflicts about the area are being argued about.
The issue of gentrification- which at heart is about who London is for- is not just an issue on these boards. But its out there on the estates.
Its interesting to see this in such a stark way in LJ.
Last edited:
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
I don't understand
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Gramsci Yes, I do understand these underlying issues.
A lot of it seems to lead to a "let's keep LJ shit" type argument though. Let's not make it safer for pedestrians, or do things that might allow kids to play outside more, or people use the public space more and have more contact with those living around them, because it might make the area more desirable, and then gentrification.
I don't know where to go with that reasoning. I think it could do with a thread actually.
A lot of it seems to lead to a "let's keep LJ shit" type argument though. Let's not make it safer for pedestrians, or do things that might allow kids to play outside more, or people use the public space more and have more contact with those living around them, because it might make the area more desirable, and then gentrification.
I don't know where to go with that reasoning. I think it could do with a thread actually.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Someone compared cyclists to Nazis. I don't know if that poster is a genuine nutter, doing a parody act or just trying to get a rise. But Gramsci reasonably enough commented that it was unacceptable and ignorant. I don't see there's anything to dispute there. No further discussion necessary and it's not relevant to what we're talking about on this thread.
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
bimble
floofy
Thanks Gramsci for your minutes from the meeting at Loughborough Estate on Wednesday - accurate & balanced .
It was pretty heartbreaking, the depth of the division felt the animosity & resentment from the estate residents towards the non-estate residents / LJAG / the gentrifiers who are perceived to taking over the area with their bicycles and their organic farming etc etc.
It is probably a good thing for the leader of LJAG that not everyone knows she is the author of the below:
It was pretty heartbreaking, the depth of the division felt the animosity & resentment from the estate residents towards the non-estate residents / LJAG / the gentrifiers who are perceived to taking over the area with their bicycles and their organic farming etc etc.
It is probably a good thing for the leader of LJAG that not everyone knows she is the author of the below:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Not this time.
There was discussion of the Farm and the Masterplan. Took some notes so will put up when have time.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
So apparently Jeremy Corbyn is not a cyclo-nazi - but a cyclo-maoist.
We Phoned Some Bike Shops to See if They Sell Jeremy Corbyn's 'Mao-Style Bicycle' | VICE | United Kingdom
We Phoned Some Bike Shops to See if They Sell Jeremy Corbyn's 'Mao-Style Bicycle' | VICE | United Kingdom
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
The Future of Loughborough Farm.
This was also item on the LJ Neighbourhood forum.
It appears that there is a pot of money available which Lambeth can bid for- Lambeth bid for regeneration fund from GLA- as it was put on the agenda.
For unknown reason Lambeth did not know about this fund. Then realised it could apply to LJ. Leaving only a few weeks to put in bid.
So from what I gathered at the meeting officers approached LJAG about putting a bid in for the land around the Farm.
As CH1 has posted previously LJ was categorised for light industrial back in early 80s. Something the leading lights in LJAH at the meeting did not understand. In planning jargon "KIBA"
As Council came late to this there is only a few weeks to put in a bid to GLA. The actual idea imo does not sound to bad.
To keep the farm and also keep the light industrial use in that area for local employment the fund could be good way to keep this under local control.
First problem. There was discussion in the meeting about the Farm. The guy from LEMB ( Loughborough Estate Management Board) said that the land the farm is on comes under LEMB. That LEMB had let LJAG use it for the farm. He was now upset the LJAG regarded it as there land. He questioned how many from the estate used it. That people on the estate wanted a gym on it instead. LJAG replied that this was incorrect and that some from estate used the Farm.
So its was the issue around class again coming up in the meeting.
Thinking on this today also remembered that the guy from LEMB also brought up issue of land in estate area that Lambeth had transferred out of the estate. ( The land thats being built on now). So imo the farm is seen as part of loss of control of land by a working class community in that area. If I was on that estate I would be looking at what is happening to Cressingham for example and not trust the Council to defend Council housing.
The bid for this regeneration fund needs to be in by 2nd October. So there is not time for proper consultation.
It appears to me that Lambeth are looking to LJAG as the body they can work with. Forgetting the Council tenants. At one point in the meeting the officer said that the Council have not the budget for proper consultation. So were relying on voluntary groups like LJAG to do this.
This is dangerous position for LJAG. They asked me after meeting how to build links with the estate. I said there is a danger they will become part of Council. The role Brixton Green are quite happy with.
Whilst I like my Ward Cllr who turned up to meeting I am a bit concerned that LJAG could be used by our Nu Labour Cllrs as fall guys. As ViolentPanda pointed out on other thread about Brixton Green and Somerleyton road. The same Cllrs who are colluding with Government cuts and support Blairite for party leader, can give themselves local credibility with the working class Council tenants by siding with them against a "middle class" lobby group. An hypothesis worth pondering on.
The politics of LJ are rather fascinating.
Anyway. The guy from the Farm who is on voluntary basis looking at the bid , and he seemed a young well meaning person, wanted to get a framework bid in and appeared to me to genuinely want to talk to Loughborough Estate residents. Saw him talking to the guy from LEMB after meeting ended.
He did say he would be in LJ over weekend as the "Platform" is open selling the farm produce etc. So if anyone wants to go and see what its about I would recommend this.
The idea of the bid is that as the area is classified as light industrial the bid will be about local employment- workshops etc.
The Council officer said in reply to concerns from Loughborough estate residents that this might be another way that LJAG gain control over land that a management board would be set up to oversee the project of all local groups. .
I dd say, as someone from estate had already brought up issue of Pop, that in Brixton the Pop project had started with a lot of promises then ended up as Pop. Not what many thought they had agreed to.
Cllr Heywood agreed that lessons needed to be learnt from what had happened to that use of land. Got the feeling the Cllr Hopkins enthusiasm for Pop on his blog is not felt by some other local Labour Cllrs.
Its was about the only thing that Loughborough Estate residents and LJAG agreed on- we dont want "Pop" in LJ. Rather refreshing for me to hear others do not think Pop is wonderful.
Another estate resident said that as the bid had to be put in so quickly there was not enough time to do proper consultation. So it should be dropped.
I agreed with this. Considering the disagreements going on now a bid without proper consultation may make divisions and resentments in the area worse.
I do think that the proposal could be a good thing for LJ if it could be done in way that does not cause more divisions and ends up living to its promise of locally controlled social enterprise type project.
This was also item on the LJ Neighbourhood forum.
It appears that there is a pot of money available which Lambeth can bid for- Lambeth bid for regeneration fund from GLA- as it was put on the agenda.
For unknown reason Lambeth did not know about this fund. Then realised it could apply to LJ. Leaving only a few weeks to put in bid.
So from what I gathered at the meeting officers approached LJAG about putting a bid in for the land around the Farm.
As CH1 has posted previously LJ was categorised for light industrial back in early 80s. Something the leading lights in LJAH at the meeting did not understand. In planning jargon "KIBA"
As Council came late to this there is only a few weeks to put in a bid to GLA. The actual idea imo does not sound to bad.
To keep the farm and also keep the light industrial use in that area for local employment the fund could be good way to keep this under local control.
First problem. There was discussion in the meeting about the Farm. The guy from LEMB ( Loughborough Estate Management Board) said that the land the farm is on comes under LEMB. That LEMB had let LJAG use it for the farm. He was now upset the LJAG regarded it as there land. He questioned how many from the estate used it. That people on the estate wanted a gym on it instead. LJAG replied that this was incorrect and that some from estate used the Farm.
So its was the issue around class again coming up in the meeting.
Thinking on this today also remembered that the guy from LEMB also brought up issue of land in estate area that Lambeth had transferred out of the estate. ( The land thats being built on now). So imo the farm is seen as part of loss of control of land by a working class community in that area. If I was on that estate I would be looking at what is happening to Cressingham for example and not trust the Council to defend Council housing.
The bid for this regeneration fund needs to be in by 2nd October. So there is not time for proper consultation.
It appears to me that Lambeth are looking to LJAG as the body they can work with. Forgetting the Council tenants. At one point in the meeting the officer said that the Council have not the budget for proper consultation. So were relying on voluntary groups like LJAG to do this.
This is dangerous position for LJAG. They asked me after meeting how to build links with the estate. I said there is a danger they will become part of Council. The role Brixton Green are quite happy with.
Whilst I like my Ward Cllr who turned up to meeting I am a bit concerned that LJAG could be used by our Nu Labour Cllrs as fall guys. As ViolentPanda pointed out on other thread about Brixton Green and Somerleyton road. The same Cllrs who are colluding with Government cuts and support Blairite for party leader, can give themselves local credibility with the working class Council tenants by siding with them against a "middle class" lobby group. An hypothesis worth pondering on.
The politics of LJ are rather fascinating.
Anyway. The guy from the Farm who is on voluntary basis looking at the bid , and he seemed a young well meaning person, wanted to get a framework bid in and appeared to me to genuinely want to talk to Loughborough Estate residents. Saw him talking to the guy from LEMB after meeting ended.
He did say he would be in LJ over weekend as the "Platform" is open selling the farm produce etc. So if anyone wants to go and see what its about I would recommend this.
The idea of the bid is that as the area is classified as light industrial the bid will be about local employment- workshops etc.
The Council officer said in reply to concerns from Loughborough estate residents that this might be another way that LJAG gain control over land that a management board would be set up to oversee the project of all local groups. .
I dd say, as someone from estate had already brought up issue of Pop, that in Brixton the Pop project had started with a lot of promises then ended up as Pop. Not what many thought they had agreed to.
Cllr Heywood agreed that lessons needed to be learnt from what had happened to that use of land. Got the feeling the Cllr Hopkins enthusiasm for Pop on his blog is not felt by some other local Labour Cllrs.
Its was about the only thing that Loughborough Estate residents and LJAG agreed on- we dont want "Pop" in LJ. Rather refreshing for me to hear others do not think Pop is wonderful.
Another estate resident said that as the bid had to be put in so quickly there was not enough time to do proper consultation. So it should be dropped.
I agreed with this. Considering the disagreements going on now a bid without proper consultation may make divisions and resentments in the area worse.
I do think that the proposal could be a good thing for LJ if it could be done in way that does not cause more divisions and ends up living to its promise of locally controlled social enterprise type project.
Last edited:
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I feel that it would be possible to incorporate a gym into the set-up that was proposed for the Farm - assuming all parties agreed to this.
I think a gym would be therapeutic for the middle class tendencies within LJAG as it would clearly reach out to ethnic minority male youth who are probably least involved in the farming activity.
There is supposed to be a gym already on the Loughborough Estate.
The NEP - Neighbourhood Enhancement programme said it would happen in 2013 - see "final decisions" page 22 in the report on this link.
https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/NEPconsultationreportColdharbour.pdf
Where is it exactly? Or is it "another broken promise"?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
London Open House Guided Walk: TOMORROW -- Sunday 20 September 2pm -- in Clapham Old Town
Councillor Brathwaite and her traffic planners always put up Clapham as an example for Loughborough Junction. So the event tomorrow afternoon could be worth a visit.
It is a guided walk with the lead designer, landscape architect Ian Hingley. Meet: 2pm by the Clock Tower by Clapham Common tube station, duration 2 hours.
From Open House website:
"Once dominated by parked cars and fast moving through traffic, Clapham's Old Town was radically redesigned using the principles of 'shared space' and 'naked streets' to dramatically improve the pedestrian environment. The first place in the UK to use 'Copenhagen' style side road crossings. The first phase, Venn Street has become the Old Town's premier destination for alfresco dining, four years since its completion and now also hosts a regular weekend market."
See Clapham Old Town and Venn Street | Open City Event Listings
Councillor Brathwaite and her traffic planners always put up Clapham as an example for Loughborough Junction. So the event tomorrow afternoon could be worth a visit.
It is a guided walk with the lead designer, landscape architect Ian Hingley. Meet: 2pm by the Clock Tower by Clapham Common tube station, duration 2 hours.
From Open House website:
"Once dominated by parked cars and fast moving through traffic, Clapham's Old Town was radically redesigned using the principles of 'shared space' and 'naked streets' to dramatically improve the pedestrian environment. The first place in the UK to use 'Copenhagen' style side road crossings. The first phase, Venn Street has become the Old Town's premier destination for alfresco dining, four years since its completion and now also hosts a regular weekend market."
See Clapham Old Town and Venn Street | Open City Event Listings
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
The LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum on 18th November will discuss the arches. It will be held in conjunction with the LJ Business Association.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
That location looked less of a wide main road than Loughborough Road - and the motorists seemed not to be rebelling against ineffectual road markings and signs.
Re Gramsci above there is a "Safer Neighbourhood Forum" at Brixton Police Station shortly (in mid October).
I wonder if this will be on their agenda? Probably not if the police have anything to do with it.
bimble
floofy
I know that it's not representative of anything much but results of my tiny survey on here show that (so far) 70 % of people who answered want the whole thing scrapped, in direct contrast to the 68% 'for the closures" number which Lambeth's consultation document sites.
Loughborough Junction Experimental Road Closures
Loughborough Junction Experimental Road Closures
Similar threads
