Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins

[CH1]

Yes, buses are all "wheelchair accessible" now - IF the space isn't already taken up with baby carriages or another wheelchair, and the buses are the only public transport in London that is fully-accessible, as the tube and overground are pretty dire accessibility-wise both in terms of rolling stock and of stations.

Getting a bus from Fiveways to Kings would be terrible for a disabled person in a wheelchair.
The interchange at Loughborough Junction involves wheeling yourself round the corner - and the pavement on Coldharbour Lane at that point is barely wide enough for 2 pedestrians to pass.

 

[CH1]

Went down a bit earlier to see what was going on. Not a huge deal. Mostly people sitting about outside the Platform cafe and wandering between there and the Farm thing. And someone doing bike fixing. A few cars doing U-turns at the barrages of signs each side of the closed bit.

View attachment 77219 View attachment 77220

Why do they have to lie (i.e. use signs indicating roadworks etc when it is merely a bourgeois occupation of an innocent road)?

 

[teuchter]

Getting a bus from Fiveways to Kings would be terrible for a disabled person in a wheelchair.
The interchange at Loughborough Junction involves wheeling yourself round the corner - and the pavement on Coldharbour Lane at that point is barely wide enough for 2 pedestrians to pass.

Yes. The pavements are too narrow. Because the streetscape has become dominated by the needs of motor traffic. The centre of LJ is dominated by road traffic and pedestrians are marginalised. This is the problem this scheme is trying to address

But maybe we shouldn't attempt to fix it because then it might make the area more attractive and that would just be a calculated step towards gentrification. Probably best just to leave wheelchair users to edge their way along the wonky pavements while the traffic continues to tear through.

 

[CH1]

Yes. The pavements are too narrow. Because the streetscape has become dominated by the needs of motor traffic. The centre of LJ is dominated by road traffic and pedestrians are marginalised. This is the problem this scheme is trying to address

But maybe we shouldn't attempt to fix it because then it might make the area more attractive and that would just be a calculated step towards gentrification. Probably best just to leave wheelchair users to edge their way along the wonky pavements while the traffic continues to tear through.

You'd have been better off persuading TFL to turn the Higgs Industrial Estate into a Loughborough Junction Bus Station.
Thus killing two birds with one stone.

 

[goldengraham]

The thing is that as others have pointed out, there is a perception amongst some or even many that these traffic measures are part of a sinister gentrification agenda. People are even talking in all seriousness about an attempt to calm traffic as "social cleansing". With these ideas floating about I become rather sceptical about the various adverse effects that are being claimed. I'd like to hear something a bit more concrete than second hand reports that business is down.

Both of the examples you give are dead-end roads. They won't have passing trade anyway. In any case it seems implausible that effects are being felt so quickly after the beginning of the experimental period. All the more so, given that my observations are that most drivers are still ignoring the closures anyway. If business is down despite the closures not actually having been enforced yet, then doesn't that suggest the cause is something else?

When you look at what's going on in places like elephant & Brixton, it seems we have got to a point where many Londoners, especially tenants, are suspicious of urban regeneration projects because ultimately they feel it will push up house prices & rents and force them out of the area. That's incredibly sad because as teuchter says there is no sinister agenda here, just some people trying to breathe a bit of new energy into a slightly down at heel part of town.

I'm a car driver and the Loughborough rd closure inconveniences me a fair bit. I'm in favour of giving it a go, but then admittedly I don't live on Loughborough rd.

For what it's worth I'll add my subjective testimony to everyone else's and say that apart from one afternoon last week I haven't noticed the traffic on CHL to be any worse in the mornings or evenings.

Re Brixton Buzz, you just have to take it for what it is, don't you? It is often remarkably lopsided in its coverage but then so is the daily mail.

 

[editor]

Re Brixton Buzz, you just have to take it for what it is, don't you? It is often remarkably lopsided in its coverage but then so is the daily mail.

Just about any coverage may appear 'lopsided' to someone depending on their own viewpoint, but the opinions expressed are honest, and, of course, people are free to add their own voice to the articles.

This topic has attracted a lot of attention on the site too, with around 50 replies from locals so far.

 

[goldengraham]

Aagh - just realised that looks like I am comparing the Buzz uncharitably to the Mail but that's not what I meant at all - the Buzz does a very fine job of drawing wider attention to local issues.

 

[editor]

Aagh - just realised that looks like I am comparing the Buzz uncharitably to the Mail but that's not what I meant at all - the Buzz does a very fine job of drawing wider attention to local issues.

No offence taken!

 

[goldengraham]

Just about any coverage may appear 'lopsided' to someone depending on their own viewpoint, but the opinions expressed are honest, and, of course, people are free to add their own voice to the articles.

This topic has attracted a lot of attention on the site so far, with around 50 replies from locals so far.

Sure, I agree that the comments seem to tell a story of their own. But I don't think reaction to the scheme (or at least the objective, if not how it is being implemented) is universally negative is it? The article could at least have conveyed that in some passing way.

 

[editor]

Sure, I agree that the comments seem to tell a story of their own. But I don't think reaction to the scheme (or at least the objective, if not how it is being implemented) is universally negative is it? The article could at least have conveyed that in some passing way.

Oh, I don't know. It was a quick article in response to a lot of earlier reader comments - and my own experience of increased traffic- and was really all about flagging up the issue and inviting others to offer their own feedback.

I think it's done it's job too because there's been a lot of interesting local feedback that perhaps may have gone unheard. Don't forget, there's already been many other articles about this on Buzz too and I may well write a follow up detailing what some feel are the positive aspects of the scheme. Or - even better - perhaps you'd like to write it?

 

[Gramsci]

When you look at what's going on in places like elephant & Brixton, it seems we have got to a point where many Londoners, especially tenants, are suspicious of urban regeneration projects because ultimately they feel it will push up house prices & rents and force them out of the area. That's incredibly sad because as teuchter says there is no sinister agenda here, just some people trying to breathe a bit of new energy into a slightly down at heel part of town.

Thats exactly how they feel from my chats to people on Loughborough Estate. Its a massive estate so I cannot be certain most of them are against it. But when I chat to them the talk goes from the road closures to how Council estates are being "regenerated" as at Elephant Castle and now Cressingham Gardens is under threat. So its a response to seeing any improvements to the public realm as prelude to gentrification. This I can understand.

But Some of the arguments against it are starting to annoy me. I did point out today that the stats show car ownership in the area is very low. A sign of the less well off living in area. The class issue is that the most polluted areas are often in the poorest. Its the well off driving through poorer areas like in Loughborough road who cause the pollution. This appears to fall on deaf ears.

I had a look at the car free Loughborough road today and it was depressing. I dont know how the other car free street went but there was no party atmosphere. The Farm and Platform was open. Apart from that as the photos put up here show it was an empty space. On the other side the barrier were the Council tenants handing out leaflets for the meeting opposing the street closures.

If this was meant as a street party to get people together it was a failure and waste of time.

As someone who has told both sides that Im non aligned and neutral on the road closures I felt really uncomfortable there today and didn't feel like staying long.

I chatted to both sides today. I am feeling like I am being pressured to join one side or the other.

Both sides are not on speaking terms with each other. And as time goes by any possibility of debate on the pros and cons of this experiment are reducing.

The level of antipathy is getting quite personal. Why I was not keen on staying as being seen to talk to one side or the other is damning.

 

[Gramsci]

And along with the opposition to the road closures is opposition to the Farm as a close second.

 

[bimble]

.

 

[bimble]

The level of antipathy is getting quite personal. Why I was not keen on staying as being seen to talk to one side or the other is damning.

Yes, it was the opposite of fun yesterday.
I heard that the people who were supposed to come and make a pop up park in the closed area packed up and left because they were just getting abuse.

 

[Ms T]

Good point. My family never owned a car. I walked to school. As did most of my classmates.

To add. Where I grew up in the 70s in Plymouth I don't remember many people owning a car in my street.

Me too. Twice a day because I used to go home for lunch. It was just over half a mile away.

 

[teuchter]

Yes, it was the opposite of fun yesterday.
I heard that the people who were supposed to come and make a pop up park in the closed area packed up and left because they were just getting abuse.

I suspected something like this might be the case.

Or at least, that it had been decided to keep a low profile.

It's a shame because it was such a nice sunny day, too.

 

[ViolentPanda]

When you look at what's going on in places like elephant & Brixton, it seems we have got to a point where many Londoners, especially tenants, are suspicious of urban regeneration projects because ultimately they feel it will push up house prices & rents and force them out of the area. That's incredibly sad because as teuchter says there is no sinister agenda here, just some people trying to breathe a bit of new energy into a slightly down at heel part of town.

There doesn't need to be a "sinister agenda" for the outcome of such regeneration projects to have a bad effect on tenants. That much is obvious to anyone who peruses at any detail, reports about regeneration projects in London in the 21st century.

I'm a car driver and the Loughborough rd closure inconveniences me a fair bit. I'm in favour of giving it a go, but then admittedly I don't live on Loughborough rd.

For what it's worth I'll add my subjective testimony to everyone else's and say that apart from one afternoon last week I haven't noticed the traffic on CHL to be any worse in the mornings or evenings.

Re Brixton Buzz, you just have to take it for what it is, don't you? It is often remarkably lopsided in its coverage but then so is the daily mail.

All press expresses opinions. Media doing so isn't remarkable unless you're one of those hopeless idealists that believe that media can be neutral.

 

[Complain!]

I've quickly added something: Lambeth Car Free Day on Estreham Rd and Loughborough Rd, Sat 26 Sept

I took my family to the 'No cars day' on Saturday 26th organised by the LJAG...I expected some community things, kids playing in the street , a sound system - that sort of thing but no, a 'bar'.

They closed the street and diverted the buses for a 'bar' (and that was only from 4pm). My kids don't drink beer or cocktails for that matter!

Outrageous and quite disgusting....

 

[Complain!]

Complain to these people...

At lambeth write to:

George Wright gwright@lambeth.gov.uk
Barbara Poulter BPoulter@lambeth.gov.uk

Write to Steve Griffen at The Stockwell Partnership Steve@stockwell.org.uk

(The Stockwell Partnership have been appointed to manage the on-going consultation on the Loughborough Road closure)

 

[CH1]

One of my friends from Ashby House (old Loughborough Est) was complaining bitterly about scheme this today as we walked past.
I have not met anyone (outside of the LJAG secretariat - and George Wright) who thinks it is a good idea.

 

[teuchter]

I took my family to the 'No cars day' on Saturday 26th organised by the LJAG...I expected some community things, kids playing in the street , a sound system - that sort of thing but no, a 'bar'.

They closed the street and diverted the buses for a 'bar' (and that was only from 4pm). My kids don't drink beer or cocktails for that matter!

Outrageous and quite disgusting....

FYI:

I heard that the people who were supposed to come and make a pop up park in the closed area packed up and left because they were just getting abuse.

 

[CH1]

I am not surprised people "gave abuse". If you bypass them in the decision making process in what is supposed to be a democracy that is what could happen.

I can't think of any other development where a pressure group apparently persuaded the council to do something in the hope it would be come a fait accompli.

There are ways of doing these things. When I was a councillor in the early 1990s there was a proposal to turn a Lambeth owned property in Atkins Road into a mental health centre. Massive opposition at a public meeting - and a lot of abuse given and taken. Schools should be alerted, clients would reek havoc with (particularly) children living in surrounding properties etc etc. Social Services had problems justifying what they proposed to do.

The council did approve the project - and it was successful and in the event there was not a peep out of locals for the (20 year) life of the project.

But the difference is that the Atkins Road Clubhouse did not interfere with residents in any way.

The Loughborough Road closure will remind people every day that there are people in the more leafy parts of Loughborough Junction capable for raising funding and manipulating council officers to bugger up their lives - LJAG will live to regret this. It is their first mistake, and a seriously bad one.

 

[teuchter]

CH1 you say there are "other ways of doing things" and then give an example of a project where the council ignored apparent public opinion and went ahead anyway.

I don't quite get your point.

Also, I don't think our democracy is supposed to work in quite such a way that every single decision is made on the basis of public consultation. People make their objections or proposals and it's then up to local government to decide how much regard to give them. Decisions have to be made in the context of a wider view and strategy.

It seems unfair to blame LJAG for this. As far as I can make out they came up with a proposal the intention of which was to make things better for people living in LJ, leafy side or not. They proposed it to Lambeth. It's Lambeth who decided to support and facilitate the project. It's Lambeth who carried out the allegedly bungled consultation which seemed to show that most people locally were in support. It's Lambeth who agreed to go ahead with the experimental scheme and it's Lambeth who have screwed up the implementation of it.

I've yet to see anyone give a clear and specific reason for their objection to the scheme. The vast majority of it seems to be speculation about what the terrible effects might be. The experimental period has barely started, so no-one is able to give an opinion on the actual effects of it.

What exactly is your objection? What is it based on other than opinions expressed in the hairdresser? I'm guessing that the opinion in the hairdresser might not have been favourable regarding the mental health centre you describe. You describe the opposition as being based on fears about terrible things that in reality simply didn't materialise. So why is this so different?

In that case there wasn't the option of an experimental period. But with this there is. Why not let it run its course before coming to conclusions?

 

[Gramsci]

I am not surprised people "gave abuse". If you bypass them in the decision making process in what is supposed to be a democracy that is what could happen.

I can't think of any other development where a pressure group apparently persuaded the council to do something in the hope it would be come a fait accompli.

There are ways of doing these things. When I was a councillor in the early 1990s there was a proposal to turn a Lambeth owned property in Atkins Road into a mental health centre. Massive opposition at a public meeting - and a lot of abuse given and taken. Schools should be alerted, clients would reek havoc with (particularly) children living in surrounding properties etc etc. Social Services had problems justifying what they proposed to do.

The council did approve the project - and it was successful and in the event there was not a peep out of locals for the (20 year) life of the project.

But the difference is that the Atkins Road Clubhouse did not interfere with residents in any way.

The problem with this argument is that you are saying in the case of these road closures people were by passed in the decision making process. So its out of order.

Then you give an example of where the Council did over ride local opposition. The fact that there was not a peep out of locals afterwards is not the point. Its still a Council overriding a lot of local opposition.

The argument you are putting forward is that it ok for Councils to override opposition in certain cases and not others.

Also the road closures are not up to LJAG. Its a Council decision and this case the road closures are not permanent.

 

[Gramsci]

Was reading about the Mayors Ultra Low Emission Zone that’s been brought in. One of the Mayors officers said that when they said they were going to implement it they got loads of emails from small business about how it would burden them with increased cost and endanger there business.

The officer said Mayor for sake of the public good of all Londoners health pushed it through despite opposition.

My point being from my reading of projects to reduce car usage they all have been unpopular.

 

[teuchter]

Yes, nearly all projects to reduce car usage meet with a lot of opposition.

And yet when you ask people to name cities and places they have enjoyed being in or would like to live in, the list generally contains a notable proportion which are either car free or have strong policy to encourage other forms of transport.

 

[CH1]

The problem with this argument is that you are saying in the case of these road closures people were by passed in the decision making process. So its out of order.

Then you give an example of where the Council did over ride local opposition. The fact that there was not a peep out of locals afterwards is not the point. Its still a Council overriding a lot of local opposition.

The argument you are putting forward is that it ok for Councils to override opposition in certain cases and not others.

Also the road closures are not up to LJAG. Its a Council decision and this case the road closures are not permanent.

I meant that people don't think they have had a fair say.

I agree some kind of ballot took place months ago - but it looks to me that 90% of Loughborough Estate residents were not aware of this - and did not get a presentation about the implications (other than a leaflet to read). Therefore I think the ballot is not a valid indicator of local feelings on the matter.

With regard to my example from Streatham social services - this was a meeting which was fully notified to all local residents. It was held in Clapham Park Library, which was completely full. There were presentations from Lambeth Social Services officers, and Health Authority officials and members of the mental health project explaining what was needed and why.

When it went to committee, the results of the meeting were reported - but residents did not come to committee to oppose. As I say despite the initial moral panic the scheme was a success.

In the case of the Loughborough Road closure - I don't think that residents have had a proper presentation - or an indication of who is behind it (hence the generalised anti gentrification and now apparently anti Farm sentiment).

LJAG have operated in an underhand way in this matter because they are using their networking skills to impose a solution on a third of the residents of Coldharbour Ward - means 4,000 voters more if you include those not registered. The way they have done this is part of the problem. I would remind you that I was a committee member of LJAG when this came up - and I chose to resign when it was made clear to me that a form of "collective responsibility" was required. I do wish to be told what to say publicly whilst believing something else in private.

 

[leanderman]

Interesting that this debate is playing out just as the VW scandal highlights the death toll from vehicle emissions.

 

[Gramsci]

I meant that people don't think they have had a fair say.

With regard to my example from Streatham social services - this was a meeting which was fully notified to all local residents. It was held in Clapham Park Library, which was completely full. There were presentations from Lambeth Social Services officers, and Health Authority officials and members of the mental health project explaining what was needed and why.

When it went to committee, the results of the meeting were reported - but residents did not come to committee to oppose. As I say despite the initial moral panic the scheme was a success.

In the case of the Loughborough Road closure - I don't think that residents have had a proper presentation - or an indication of who is behind it (hence the generalised anti gentrification and now apparently anti Farm sentiment).

On having a fair say and being consulted I am reminded of one of my chats in my off license. The guys there were complaining at the unfairness of the 20mph speed limit coming in. They then got onto speed bumps and bus lanes. As far as they were concerned the Council were or had imposed all these things on the hard pressed working man and his car.

In there opinion the 20mph speed limit was just about the Council wanting to make money out of them. Another scam by the authorities.

There is a lot of unrecognized resentment against the authorities in general from the less well off. Something I sympathise with.

My problem with the opposition to the road closures is that in fact its about a lot more than just this scheme.

What I am saying is that in the case of car use any policy to reduce it through road measures ( and this is not about increasing cost or banning ownership) will be bitterly resented.

I remember a situation in Brixton where Council were going to give permission for a hostel for those just out of prison I think it was. There was local outrage. Council pushed it through and there was a lot of resentment against the Council long afterwards. My question would be whats the point of a Council organising a meeting about a controversial siting of a mental health centre if its going to push it through anyway? Perhaps people didnt attend the later committee meeting because they knew it was a done deal?

I take your point about the Council favouring certain groups. This is not just an issue in LJ. It happens in Brixton.

A mistake by LJAG is that they are now going to be the fall guys for the failure of this scheme. Also officers in charge of implementing the scheme. The local Cllrs are now positioning themselves as riding to the rescue of the beleaguered Council tenants. I would put it to the Loughborough Estate Council tenants that its the same Cllrs who are supporting Council policy of "regenerating" Council estates who are now making noises about the consultation of this scheme. My Ward Cllrs aren’t stupid. They don’t make a move without looking at the consequences for them.

I’ve warned LJAG to never trust the Council.

 

[editor]

This has been posted by a reader on Buzz:

There is a Stop the closures public meeting at the Loughborough centre corner of Barrington road and Angell Road at 6.30pm on 1st October 2015.