Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins

upthejunction said:
Also is the £800,000 that I understand LJAG have won from TfL to improve the LJ area tied to this plan or is it for general improvements?
Click to expand...
Are you sure LJAG have £800,000 from TFL. Sounds more like LB Lambeth than LJAG (which is a recently incorporated charity with no full-time employees or physical office).
 
I also went to the meeting - I came in about halfway through and heard about 10 minutes of the first meeting and the whole of the second one. The Lambeth team, I felt, didnt sell the overall vision very well - how much more pleasant the area could be if there was reduced through traffic. In a way this is hard to describe until it actually happens as I think people just get on with their lives and dont think how much better things would be if there were fewer cars.

The second meeting, like the bit of the first I heard, did get a bit bogged down in the CPZ discussions - the officers should have made a point that any CPZ would not be possible without the road closures and other traffic calming measures that the scheme proposes. Other issues were dealt with around the edges of the scheme but generally I would say most people are not actively against it and maybe in favour of it. Its a shame that the meeting was skewed, like I fear many consultation events, towards the 'organised middle class' drawn mainly from the 24% of Vassall ward residents who own their own homes and the 35% of households who own cars.
 
se5 said:
Its a shame that the meeting was skewed, like I fear many consultation events, towards the 'organised middle class' drawn mainly from the 24% of Vassall ward residents who own their own homes and the 35% of households who own cars.
Click to expand...

Heard a parent today saying primary schools should have special parking bays giving parents 20 minutes to drop off their kids.
 
upthejunction said:
Just been to the first half off the "consultation" meeting which mainly consisted of continuous failure to answer proper and relevant questions and a total belief in the rightness of their plan. Main points gleaned:
1. There have been NO traffic studies, this supposedly is because of roadworks on Loughborough Road. They are planning to do one when the roadworks finish (7 days at various traffic points) though they could not say whether this would be before the consultation period finished! They also did not know when the experiment was due to be started!!! When asked whether there was any basis for saying there was a through traffic problem on Loughborough Road at all they said they had cycled around and seen it!
2. I asked the main man (in the break) about what they thought the traffic problems were and he said a ratrun on Loughborough Road as confirmed by cycling around and asking people. I said no-one i knew in the area said that - the only traffic problem was not volume, but caused by parking on both sides at the Angell town end of LR casuing only one way traffic to be possible and the impossibly short traffic light timing at the LR/Brixton Road end. I said the volume was not the problem it was that it was not being able to get through - the exact oppostie of what LB Lambeth said. He said he would think about it but the lights were controlled by TfL (who are giving the grant for the proposal!). His answer was that I was looking at it all wrong and from the point of view of someone who wanted to use my car (true, but not exclusive) and was missing ythe point as the aim was to reduce car usage overall in the area.
3. The LB Lambeth person agreed with me when I said that car ownership in the Loughborough area was between 25-50% what it was in other areas - he said it was 30%. Having reached a point of agreement I proposed to him that what they therefore should be considering if they wished to keep and enhance our environmental credentials was excluding others from high car ownership areas from driving on our roads - in other words blocking their roads and access to our area - in other words Hinton and Herne Hill Road. He seemed bemused by this logic (thanks to my wife for this suggestions).
4. LB Lambeth (and some of the Vassall people) seemed to support the plan on the basis of a nicer public space at Loughborough Junction without considering the possibility that this could be achieved in other ways (by for example putting better facilites, street lighting, rate rebates for retail businesses, etc in the area) and making a square area on the corner of wick Gdsn, possibly extended to the Hero - He said the voting on the LB Lambeth masterplan supported the current plan) with no others put). I asked how many people - he didn't have the figures but said they could be made avaialble. I told him I knew of no-one on Loughborough Road or on our side who supported the road-blocking proposal.
5. Vassall Ward people (mainly in private houses it seemed) want parking restrictions rather than roadblocks (were two shows of hands one was in favour of parkign restrictions, the other against road closures). The LB Lambeth person confirmed they had not considered what the effect of parking restrictions may be on any potential traffic problem.
6. Loughborough people were bemused with ghetto-isation and lack of need
7. One of the Vassall people said she could organise a traffic study (as she worked in the field) if LB lambeth thought it was too expensive to do a destination/through traffic study (as they had said!). Unfortunately I forgot to get her details. If anyone knows it may be an idea to liaise on the terms of such a study - she said she would just canvas drivers at Loughborough Jnction entering & exiting LR at rush hour. Obviously this would hugely help in establishing if the problem is just a parking one or a through traffic one but other traffic points may be useful as well if there is the person power with clipboards.

Loughborough Estate are having a meeting to discuss all of this on 21 October 2014 at the Loughborough Community Centre at 7pm. It would seem (by their reaction) that the LB Lambeth people are a bit taken aback at the less than joyous welcome to their unresearched plan and they kept making noises about being amenable to local concerns without comitting themselves to whether this may affect the experimental phase. It seems to me if people canvassed locals by individual household with written confirmation if a yea or nay then LB Lambeth may have a problem if enough were nay. There are about 2000 households in this category - a leaflet drop (wwith a very simple leaflet with two boxes and a brief explanation of the plan (or just a map with the proposed closures) coudl do it for about £200 or some other way coudl be found. Or they may be doing it themselves already - I heard discussion of a petition...

I've just thought of something - if there are no traffic lights, etc at LJ won't the coldharbour lane traffic just speed through making it even more of a transitory wasteland than what the proposal aims to end according to LB Lambeth? Also is the £800,000 that I understand LJAG have won from TfL to improve the LJ area tied to this plan or is it for general improvements?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update on last night's meeting Upthejunction, I was hoping to go but got stuck at work. I'm glad the meeting didn't go completely the way Lambeth and LJAG wanted it to, from the updates above it sounds like putting in some parking restrictions and maybe enforcing the traffic calming measures that are already in place might do the job. I really hope this makes them feel differently about closing the Coldharbour Lane/Loughborough Road junction, I don't think it will give them the results they want and will cause a whole load of issues for those of us who are closer to the junction.
 
se5 said:
I would have thought the LJAG were working with Lambeth to get the money: Lambeth showing that they were reflecting local wishes - its all to do with the LJ masterplan http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Loughborough_Junction_Framework_Plan8.pdf
Click to expand...

Have just read through the framework plan mentioned above for the first time, it's interesting to see the comments made by people about just the area near the junction LJAG now want to close, so many of them are about refuse collection, anti-social behaviour and parked cars, none of these things will be sorted by closing the junction, sounds like they need to go back to their original framework plan.
 
I think the most interesting point from last night’s meeting was that this scheme depends absolutely on the making of a new public space and LJAG arranged the funding with TfL about four years ago.

In other words we can't have a traffic management scheme for the area without the closing of Loughborough Road (because that would not comply with the funding proposal).
 
Lambeth wants to run rings around you poster found, seen is shops around Loughborough. Looks copyright free... So print as you please.image.jpg
 
leanderman said:
Frankly, I'd be happy if they shut every road to private cars.
Click to expand...
Why not go to the public meeting for the people affected and make your views known.

LOUGHBOROUGH ESTATE TENANTS RESIDENTS ASSC. (LETRA)
PUBLIC MEETING 7-8pm
Tuesday 21st October
Location: Loughborough Community Centre
Corner of Loughborough Road & Angell Road

COME AND HAVE YOUR SAY......
 
Leanderman I note you say every "private car" but what about vital services, deliveries, official taxis, carers, doctors midwives, funeral vehicles etc etc?
 
All members of the PRESS INVITED & Wider Community.

LOUGHBOROUGH ESTATE TENANTS RESIDENTS ASSC. (LETRA)
PUBLIC MEETING 7-8pm
Tuesday 21st October
Location: Loughborough Community Centre
Corner of Loughborough Road & Angell Road

 
Bobzillard said:
I think the most interesting point from last night’s meeting was that this scheme depends absolutely on the making of a new public space and LJAG arranged the funding with TfL about four years ago.

In other words we can't have a traffic management scheme for the area without the closing of Loughborough Road (because that would not comply with the funding proposal).
Click to expand...

Oh really? I guess that explains why they're so desperate for it to go through even though it won't necessarily solve any of their issues, maybe they should look somewhere else for their new public space
 
Crispy said:
Closing Loughborough Road?

All those closures combined almost completely isolate Loughborough Road from Coldharbour Lane. If you're coming from Herne Hill on Shakespeare or Milkwood roads, trying to get to the 5-way junction at Myatts Fields, you'd have to loop round via Barrington Road or go as far as Denmark Road, 0.5 or 1.5 extra miles respectively. I'm all for reclaiming the streets, and that junction could certainly use some work, but this is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Rat run is from Herne Hill Road and Hinton Road from my experience, but I'm not an expert!
 
ricbake said:
instead of traffic... modeling is thought to be too expensive and not very reliable.
Click to expand...

By whom? Can you please elaborate who these "experts" are?
I'm sure that a little bit of £800,000 can be spared to provide evidence.
 
extended now to 31 Oct due to public demand
time to fill in a petition that has been seen going round loughborough road :rolleyes:
 
The page on Lambeth website was updated yesterday afternoon to read:
Due to high level of interest the closing date has been extended from Wednesday 22 October to Friday 31 October 2014 at 11pm.
 
someone in lambeth council said lambeth are counting petitions as one petition one vote but one of them that is going round has 10 places for signatures so 10 is 1?
 
The Brixton Society made some comments which I reproduce here as there is no council website dealing with this type of "consultation":

(Part of preamble) The Society strongly objects to several features of this scheme, as set out below. I should make it clear that we welcome the proposed cycle “Quietway” routes, and it is detrimental to this concept that they are being proposed as part of a wider package that is fundamentally flawed.

1. Inadequate Consultation:
The proposals will have wide effects so publicity and consultation should have taken place over a wider area, not confined just to Loughborough Junction.
The Brixton Society has not been consulted directly. Describing the plans as “public space improvements” is gross misrepresentation, when the main elements concern road closures.
No contact point has been included for enquiries, comments or objections.

2. Conflict with Existing Plans:
The proposals are a departure from the emerging Lambeth Borough Plan, and would have wider adverse effects on public transport networks and the viability of local business premises, the supply of which is already dwindling. The road closures represent a major change from proposals consulted on previously for local highways and public realm improvements.

3. Community Safety:
Local traffic plays a useful role in providing casual surveillance to deter street crime. Removing through traffic from Gordon Grove, Lilford Road and Barrington Road is of particular concern.

4. Impact on Bus Services:
Blocking Loughborough Road will disrupt the P5 bus route, which is an important link, allowing the less mobile to reach a wider selection of public transport services around the periphery of the area. If the route is to be diverted via Barrington Road, it would no longer be practical to serve Loughborough Park, where needs are increasing but the Public Transport Accessibility remains low.

5. Individual Road Closures:
5.1 Loughborough Road (adjacent Ridgway Road)
There is a discrepancy between the map and the illustrations. If the illustrated scheme is carried out, there will be no access to the commercial enterprises in the railway arches in Ridgway Road. We are anxious to maintain local employment space in the area.
5.2 Barrington Road
The immediate effect would be to increase vehicle traffic in St.James’ Crescent. Any obstruction of Barrington Road would conflict with efforts to re-open East Brixton Station, as the most promising option for gaining local access to London Overground services. It follows that such a station needs to be accessible, with opportunities to drop off passengers via Dial-a-Ride or hire cars.
5.3 Gordon Grove
Closure would block access to commercial/ industrial sites in Wickwood Street, since vehicle access from Eastlake Road is restricted by a low bridge.
5.4 Lilford Road (adjacent Carew Street)
Again this is unacceptable because it would restrict access to commercial/ industrial premises in Lilford Road and Paulet Road. Goods traffic along the western arms of Lilford Road and Loughborough Road would increase.
5.5 Calais Street (Lothian Road end)
The effect would be to divert local traffic into Burton Road and Flodden Road, but it is not clear what benefits are intended. If Lothian Road remains one-way southbound, the number of vehicles turning into Calais Street is limited anyway. It would have been more practical to prevent northbound traffic from cutting through Tindal Street and Myatt Road.
5.6 Padfield Road/ Cambria Road
The map provided is ambiguous – it shows Cambria Road and Wanless Road restored as through routes, which we object to. We accept the closure shown in Padfield Road because this blind corner is inherently dangerous, but access needs to remain from both ends in order for business premises to remain accessible.

NB - Sites south-east of the Cambria Road railway bridge are outside our area of benefit, and the Herne Hill Society may have their own comments to make.
 
5.3 Gordon Grove
Closure would block access to commercial/ industrial sites in Wickwood Street, since vehicle access from Eastlake Road is restricted by a low bridge.


I thought the plan included blocking off that route (I guess by stopping traffic going under the bridge)?
 
leanderman said:
Not totally convinced by the argument that local traffic deters street crime.
Click to expand...
Not my document - but I remember separation of vehicle access and pedestrian routyes was considered to be a factor leading to robbery and burglary on various estates, particularly Moorlands and Stockwell Park where they had to be reconfigured to eliminate pedestrian only areas, following which crime fell.

I think in that sense the argument is evidence based.
 
brixtonblade said:
5.3 Gordon Grove
Closure would block access to commercial/ industrial sites in Wickwood Street, since vehicle access from Eastlake Road is restricted by a low bridge.
I thought the plan included blocking off that route (I guess by stopping traffic going under the bridge)?
Click to expand...
The map shows a blocked off portion on Gordon Grove. That would be a delivery route for lorries etc that could not go under the low railway bridge. Hence the commercial premises would be adversely affected.

Are you missing something, or am I? Map is page 2

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LJ consultation visualisations.pdf
 
CH1 said:
Not my document - but I remember separation of vehicle access and pedestrian routyes was considered to be a factor leading to robbery and burglary on various estates, particularly Moorlands and Stockwell Park where they had to be reconfigured to eliminate pedestrian only areas, following which crime fell.

I think in that sense the argument is evidence based.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But as a general principle it seems rather despairing - and desperate.
 
leanderman said:
Not totally convinced by the argument that local traffic deters street crime.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't walk around near the junction in question very much then, when the junction has been shut for roadworks, there was a marked increase in anti-social behaviour, try living near it before you support closing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CH1
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

teuchter
New development at Hardess St / Wellfit St, Loughborough Junction: 2024 planning application
2 3 4 5
Replies
128
Views
6K
teuchter
teuchter
Rushy
Petition to make busy Effra Road / Brixton Water Lane junction safer for pedestrians
Replies
18
Views
1K
Zapp Brannigan
Zapp Brannigan
editor
Cyclist killed in Brixton
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
T & P
T & P
Rushy
Action on ASB! Public meeting on 30 November at Lambeth Town Hall
Replies
2
Views
441
Rushy
Rushy
I
Lambeth council magnolia paint
Replies
9
Views
665
WouldBe
WouldBe
Back
Top Bottom