ChrisSouth
Well-Known Member
Really? Was there? Such as? I've not heard of any from any neighbours (not that I support this closure btw) neither did I experience any
Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins
- Thread starter Leo Chesterton
- Start date
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Yeah well up by Leander/Josephine Rd etc its so leafy & forested that miscreants have enough cover traffic or no traffic.
My gut reaction as a long-term Brixton resident was that when one has tearful work colleagues with phone snatched etc it is either somewhere like Appach Road where the little mites what done it dissappear into the Tulse Hill estate by a back route with is pedestrian only and know only to locals.
Same on Brixton Road where a fave was to run away into Bedwell House and the Stockwell Park Estate hinterlands.
What I want to know is why the people insisting on pedestrianising Loughborough Road, Barrington Road and Gordon Grove are those who live the the other side of Brixton (and ride bicycles?). Are we into Hard Green local politics now where the plebs like myself accept enviroguidance from the more well to do and environmentally correct on the other side of town?
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
OK. My issue is really with deciding other people's rights to drive in their own area.
I think the obvious solution to all this is simply to close off Hinton Road.
That area is where the traffic is coming from - and apparently the complaints.
Then the Loughborough Estate area can be left in peace - in both senses.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
I can assure you that I have no powers to, as you put it, 'insist' or 'decide'!
I merely point out how wedded we are to our cars - with negative consequences for health, the environment, noise, road safety and much else.
And setting up a play street revealed what psychopaths drivers of both sexes become when their short-cut rat run is blocked for an hour.
I merely point out how wedded we are to our cars - with negative consequences for health, the environment, noise, road safety and much else.
And setting up a play street revealed what psychopaths drivers of both sexes become when their short-cut rat run is blocked for an hour.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Well the rat run is Hinton Road, not the Loughborough Estate in this instance.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
critical1
All views expressed are definitely my own.
Well a petition was handed in 700+ and Lambeth says they are refusing to accept it!! never ever heard of a petition not being accepted before, ( has anyone here ever heard of such a thing) BIZZARE...
Anyway here is the letter Lambeth sent out,, there's a meeting at Sunshine Cafe opp the Laundrette on Coldharbour lane, Loughborough Junction, which is open to all on Thursday @ 6:30pm (Thursday 20th November at Sunshine International Arts, 209a Coldharbour Lane, SW9 8RU)
Lambeth never consulted the largest estate in Lambeth!! why not? they will not accept the 700+ petition which is unheard of.. (Imagine going to Downing street and they say go away!)
So below is the response from our co-operative council and following that is a letter in reply from (LETRA) Loughborough Estate Tenants and Residents Assc
===================
Dear Loughborough Residents Association
Following your email last week, I am now in a position to reply to your queries concerning the Loughborough Junction Public Space scheme. The statutory consultation ended on 31st October and the responses reveal that there is an overwhelmingly positive reaction to the proposed scheme:
·78% support making Loughborough Road a more pedestrian and cycle friendly space;
·69% support the six month experimental closure of Loughborough Road to through-traffic in the section outside Wyck Gardens
·66% in favour of the experimental closures of Barrington road, Lilford Road, Gordon Grove, Calais Street and Padfield Road.
·64% support in the future, the permanent closure of Loughborough Road to through traffic in the section outside Wyck Gardens and
·60% support, in the future, the introduction of permanent measures to stop through traffic using Barrington Road, Lilford Road, Gordon Grove, Calais Street and Padfield Road.
I note that a petition against the proposed scheme was recently submitted to the council. I must, however, take into account that those who responded to the statutory consultation have had the benefit of, and the opportunity to, review the proposed scheme in detail before forming their opinions and responding. I will nevertheless take into account any concerns about the proposals.
Should the scheme proceed, the road closures will initially be on a temporary basis. This should give all parties the opportunity to evaluate the impact of the road closures and consider whether or how the proposed scheme needs to be adapted to overcome material concerns.
No decisions will be made until I have had an opportunity to discuss matters with officers, local councillors and community groups. I will of course share a copy of the consultation report as soon as it is available.
Yours sincerely
Cllr Jennifer Brathwaite
Cabinet Member for Environment
===============================
Dear Councillor Brathwaite,
I would like to express my disappointment at the manner in which you have responded to us regarding the Loughborough Junction scheme.
The main element of your response that I wish to take issue with is your blasé dismissal of the 700+ signatories to the petition opposing this scheme.
When you began your consultation, you made no attempt to directly inform anyone in the area that the consultation was taking place, or that it consisted of consultation forms placed beside a display board inside a community centre that is sadly underused. There was not even a public advertisement on the outside of the Loughborough Centre that it was there and indeed I met staff in the housing office in the other side of the same building who were not even aware of it.
In that context, the residents who issued a newslettter to every door, put on a special consultation meeting and put up posters to advertise it, as well as gave residents the opportunity to register their views through a petition, should be commended for making the consultation meaningful rather than dismissed as uninformed or ignorant.
By signing the petition residents took part in the consultation process in a way which is every bit as valid as those who filled in your official consultation form.
Indeed I would go further as to assert that your consultation form positively discouraged rather than engaged residents' participation in the consultation and I personally complained about this at the car free day event when the consultation was launched.
A 4-page form, which starts with a question asking people to think of a number of words to describe the area, comes across like a GCSE english exam, and is very alienating for anyone who struggles with literacy, form-filling or with written english.
I strongly suggested that a comment book should also be available alongside these forms for people who would like to make a more straightforward response to the proposals. This was never done.
It is quite offensive,and bordering on discriminatory, that you would choose to only pay regard to those residents who used this daunting consultation form to register their views.
You fail to report how many people actually filled out the forms and I think this would be vital information rather than the percentages which on their own are quite meaningless. LETRA also actively encouraged residents to email Lambeth directly or attend our meetings to voice their opinions. Have you made any attempt to collate the figures for those types of feedback?
You are quoted in the South London Press Nov 14th describing the 'full consultation' that has taken place on these proposals. But it was in response to a litany of complaints, voiced at our public meeting, about the fundamentally flawed nature of the consultation, that your own officers suggested the consultation be suspended rather than extended again as residents had requested.
Some people attending that meeting from neighbouring estates and businesses had only become aware of the consultation on that day and were quite clear that other people they knew would have taken part in the consultation if it was extended or advertised properly.
We all understood that the suspension of the consultation was a recognition that it's findings could not be viewed as conclusive and that Lambeth officers recognised the need to engage in a proper discussion with the community whatever the ostensible outcome of this particular consultation.
They promised to "come back to LETRA with the results and more information about options to have a discussion about how to take things forward. This could mean a fresh consultation, working with LETRA to make sure people on the estate have a say."
Your response, however, gives no indication whatsoever that you understand how completely inadequate the consultation process has been. If you are using these statistics to advise officers and councillors who will make the final decisions then I believe you are entirely misleading them.
I can assure you that the response to the scheme has not been 'overwhelmingly positive' and it is unlikely that people will respond positively to your decision to disregard the petition against it either.
Rather than pressing ahead regardless with these flawed proposals I hope you will listen to all the views expressed by our residents and other people in the local area during the consultation period, and work with us all to develop other options to improve the area.
Yours faithfully
Grace Lally, Secretary LETRA
Anyway here is the letter Lambeth sent out,, there's a meeting at Sunshine Cafe opp the Laundrette on Coldharbour lane, Loughborough Junction, which is open to all on Thursday @ 6:30pm (Thursday 20th November at Sunshine International Arts, 209a Coldharbour Lane, SW9 8RU)
Lambeth never consulted the largest estate in Lambeth!! why not? they will not accept the 700+ petition which is unheard of.. (Imagine going to Downing street and they say go away!)
So below is the response from our co-operative council and following that is a letter in reply from (LETRA) Loughborough Estate Tenants and Residents Assc
===================
Dear Loughborough Residents Association
Following your email last week, I am now in a position to reply to your queries concerning the Loughborough Junction Public Space scheme. The statutory consultation ended on 31st October and the responses reveal that there is an overwhelmingly positive reaction to the proposed scheme:
·78% support making Loughborough Road a more pedestrian and cycle friendly space;
·69% support the six month experimental closure of Loughborough Road to through-traffic in the section outside Wyck Gardens
·66% in favour of the experimental closures of Barrington road, Lilford Road, Gordon Grove, Calais Street and Padfield Road.
·64% support in the future, the permanent closure of Loughborough Road to through traffic in the section outside Wyck Gardens and
·60% support, in the future, the introduction of permanent measures to stop through traffic using Barrington Road, Lilford Road, Gordon Grove, Calais Street and Padfield Road.
I note that a petition against the proposed scheme was recently submitted to the council. I must, however, take into account that those who responded to the statutory consultation have had the benefit of, and the opportunity to, review the proposed scheme in detail before forming their opinions and responding. I will nevertheless take into account any concerns about the proposals.
Should the scheme proceed, the road closures will initially be on a temporary basis. This should give all parties the opportunity to evaluate the impact of the road closures and consider whether or how the proposed scheme needs to be adapted to overcome material concerns.
No decisions will be made until I have had an opportunity to discuss matters with officers, local councillors and community groups. I will of course share a copy of the consultation report as soon as it is available.
Yours sincerely
Cllr Jennifer Brathwaite
Cabinet Member for Environment
===============================
Dear Councillor Brathwaite,
I would like to express my disappointment at the manner in which you have responded to us regarding the Loughborough Junction scheme.
The main element of your response that I wish to take issue with is your blasé dismissal of the 700+ signatories to the petition opposing this scheme.
When you began your consultation, you made no attempt to directly inform anyone in the area that the consultation was taking place, or that it consisted of consultation forms placed beside a display board inside a community centre that is sadly underused. There was not even a public advertisement on the outside of the Loughborough Centre that it was there and indeed I met staff in the housing office in the other side of the same building who were not even aware of it.
In that context, the residents who issued a newslettter to every door, put on a special consultation meeting and put up posters to advertise it, as well as gave residents the opportunity to register their views through a petition, should be commended for making the consultation meaningful rather than dismissed as uninformed or ignorant.
By signing the petition residents took part in the consultation process in a way which is every bit as valid as those who filled in your official consultation form.
Indeed I would go further as to assert that your consultation form positively discouraged rather than engaged residents' participation in the consultation and I personally complained about this at the car free day event when the consultation was launched.
A 4-page form, which starts with a question asking people to think of a number of words to describe the area, comes across like a GCSE english exam, and is very alienating for anyone who struggles with literacy, form-filling or with written english.
I strongly suggested that a comment book should also be available alongside these forms for people who would like to make a more straightforward response to the proposals. This was never done.
It is quite offensive,and bordering on discriminatory, that you would choose to only pay regard to those residents who used this daunting consultation form to register their views.
You fail to report how many people actually filled out the forms and I think this would be vital information rather than the percentages which on their own are quite meaningless. LETRA also actively encouraged residents to email Lambeth directly or attend our meetings to voice their opinions. Have you made any attempt to collate the figures for those types of feedback?
You are quoted in the South London Press Nov 14th describing the 'full consultation' that has taken place on these proposals. But it was in response to a litany of complaints, voiced at our public meeting, about the fundamentally flawed nature of the consultation, that your own officers suggested the consultation be suspended rather than extended again as residents had requested.
Some people attending that meeting from neighbouring estates and businesses had only become aware of the consultation on that day and were quite clear that other people they knew would have taken part in the consultation if it was extended or advertised properly.
We all understood that the suspension of the consultation was a recognition that it's findings could not be viewed as conclusive and that Lambeth officers recognised the need to engage in a proper discussion with the community whatever the ostensible outcome of this particular consultation.
They promised to "come back to LETRA with the results and more information about options to have a discussion about how to take things forward. This could mean a fresh consultation, working with LETRA to make sure people on the estate have a say."
Your response, however, gives no indication whatsoever that you understand how completely inadequate the consultation process has been. If you are using these statistics to advise officers and councillors who will make the final decisions then I believe you are entirely misleading them.
I can assure you that the response to the scheme has not been 'overwhelmingly positive' and it is unlikely that people will respond positively to your decision to disregard the petition against it either.
Rather than pressing ahead regardless with these flawed proposals I hope you will listen to all the views expressed by our residents and other people in the local area during the consultation period, and work with us all to develop other options to improve the area.
Yours faithfully
Grace Lally, Secretary LETRA
Last edited:
editor
hiraethified
I've publicised this on Brixton Buzz:
Local residents respond angrily to Loughborough Junction Public Space scheme consultation as petition refused
concerned1
behind the small print
very interesting read
the thing with this scheme is it is not about traffic it is about the space between wyck gardens and where the loughborough farm is opposite in other words the road to create a space for public use
by closing all the roads around that area will kill off all the small buisnesses they cannot survive if traffic is shut out
how do you say you have run a full consultation when you omit over 3000 residents as it does not just affect people inside the closed off area but every property the other side of the closed roads and every business around the entire area
not one business has ever been officially consulted or knew of the consultation from LJAG or Lambeth
properties on the other side cut off will also have problems getting into or through the area and all vehicles visiting delivering or passing through will have to go far out of their way
small side roads will be turned into rat runs and highly congested in rush hour times causing untold trouble
all for a space for public use between wyck gardens and loughborough farm
the thing with this scheme is it is not about traffic it is about the space between wyck gardens and where the loughborough farm is opposite in other words the road to create a space for public use
by closing all the roads around that area will kill off all the small buisnesses they cannot survive if traffic is shut out
how do you say you have run a full consultation when you omit over 3000 residents as it does not just affect people inside the closed off area but every property the other side of the closed roads and every business around the entire area
not one business has ever been officially consulted or knew of the consultation from LJAG or Lambeth
properties on the other side cut off will also have problems getting into or through the area and all vehicles visiting delivering or passing through will have to go far out of their way
small side roads will be turned into rat runs and highly congested in rush hour times causing untold trouble
all for a space for public use between wyck gardens and loughborough farm
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Cllr Rachel Heywood handed in a petition (presumably this one) today at full council, emphasising that many Loughborough Estate residents were very unhappy with the proposal, and seemed to have every sympathy with the objectors.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
snowy_again
Slush
Not directly related - but I somehow got myself cc'd into a very peculiar email trail between Vauxhall residents over the TfL consultation on the CS5 cycle route.
Kate Hoey (if it's actually her typing) has got some very strange opinions! Mostly along the lines of 'cyclists will just be passing through Vauxhall and therefore are less important than residents'.
Kate Hoey (if it's actually her typing) has got some very strange opinions! Mostly along the lines of 'cyclists will just be passing through Vauxhall and therefore are less important than residents'.
concerned1
behind the small print
seems lambeth council had over 600 forms including their online forms filled in and suprise suprise the results were in favour of the proposal with each question getting at least 60% in favour
but when the loughborough and business petitions of 750 signatures and also over 100 signatures from vassall ward residents are added in that actually turns the table round with a clear result of people being against the proposal
considering no residents or businesses in and around loughborough were sent any form of consultation or information on the proposal means the online and hard copy forms must have been filled in by a lot of people living nowhere in or closely near the roads involved in the proposal
wonder what lambeth will say now
but when the loughborough and business petitions of 750 signatures and also over 100 signatures from vassall ward residents are added in that actually turns the table round with a clear result of people being against the proposal
considering no residents or businesses in and around loughborough were sent any form of consultation or information on the proposal means the online and hard copy forms must have been filled in by a lot of people living nowhere in or closely near the roads involved in the proposal
wonder what lambeth will say now
Whatever it was going to say anyway </cynic>
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I suspect it will be case of having to spend up/down a budget - so they'd better sort it out quick.
If they're lacking a transport related project to spend money on I recommend repaving the whole of Coldharbour Lane northside from Loughborough Junction to Atlantic Road. Never been done since I've lived here (28 years). The pavement is a disgrace.
If they're lacking a transport related project to spend money on I recommend repaving the whole of Coldharbour Lane northside from Loughborough Junction to Atlantic Road. Never been done since I've lived here (28 years). The pavement is a disgrace.
critical1
All views expressed are definitely my own.
One of the key issues here as someone has already pointed out is the lack of consultation... whole estates and surrounding areas have been left out, omitted, ignored, there has been no formal research as far as anyone can see, there has been no evidence that this was even wanted due to the lack of consultation, if this had been carried out in the proper manner, LJAG would have by now a very clear idea as to the needs, wants and aspirations of the whole area!
Instead LJAG have petitions in their faces and angry people and business who have not been consulted in anyway or form, this is what happens when one gets an idea and goes barging ahead without any proper market research.... now I feel like Lord Alan Sugar on the apprentice duh! but its all true.
LJAG should really look at whom they are representing and to what purpose, I'm sure that they have a purpose and that is now evident that they supposedly representing those of the Loughborough Junction area, whatever the opinion of a few it is always the majority that has the focus... clearly the petition of the 700+ unconsulted residents and business in the Loughborough Junction area should suffice to state what they want.
LJAG has a responsibility to represent the whole of the Loughborough Area and not a small minority, if a small petition of 100 can get an MP of their butts to write a letter to the press supporting it, why cant a significant petition of 700+ get similar treatment in support and treatment from LJAG! and here the disparities begin, them and us as always.
critically critical
critical1
Instead LJAG have petitions in their faces and angry people and business who have not been consulted in anyway or form, this is what happens when one gets an idea and goes barging ahead without any proper market research.... now I feel like Lord Alan Sugar on the apprentice duh! but its all true.
LJAG should really look at whom they are representing and to what purpose, I'm sure that they have a purpose and that is now evident that they supposedly representing those of the Loughborough Junction area, whatever the opinion of a few it is always the majority that has the focus... clearly the petition of the 700+ unconsulted residents and business in the Loughborough Junction area should suffice to state what they want.
LJAG has a responsibility to represent the whole of the Loughborough Area and not a small minority, if a small petition of 100 can get an MP of their butts to write a letter to the press supporting it, why cant a significant petition of 700+ get similar treatment in support and treatment from LJAG! and here the disparities begin, them and us as always.
critically critical
critical1
critical1
All views expressed are definitely my own.
It has been alleged that LJAG are working for Lambeth... but how is that possible?
I can see similarities between LJAG & Lambeth tho...
they are supposed to be listening to the majority yet act in their own interest hints of Aldus Huxly here, Meeting at the Lambeth Town Hall to clarify what LJAG are about remember it only took 100 objections for LJAG to jump into action (to protect their interests), yet 700+ objections go ignored.
Tonight, Tuesday 25 November, at 7pm in Room 8, Brixton Town Hall, LJAG trustees will put forward residents' concerns about planning applications (Its a real SHAME they don't have any concerns about the residents of Loughborough)
critically critical
critical1
I can see similarities between LJAG & Lambeth tho...
they are supposed to be listening to the majority yet act in their own interest hints of Aldus Huxly here, Meeting at the Lambeth Town Hall to clarify what LJAG are about remember it only took 100 objections for LJAG to jump into action (to protect their interests), yet 700+ objections go ignored.
Tonight, Tuesday 25 November, at 7pm in Room 8, Brixton Town Hall, LJAG trustees will put forward residents' concerns about planning applications (Its a real SHAME they don't have any concerns about the residents of Loughborough)
critically critical
critical1
snowy_again
Slush
That's quite a lot of accusations!
critical1
All views expressed are definitely my own.
Really...
"remember it only took 100 objections for LJAG to jump into action (to protect their interests), yet 700+ objections go ignored."
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I noticed some of those traffic monitoring cables across the road today in Loughborough Road and Akerman Road.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
And Branksome.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
What's happening? Are the traffic engineers getting active in case they suffer mega departmental cuts?
Similar threads
