Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins

[cuppa tee]

Sounds rather like conspiracy theory to me.

It is something that I am hearing in the area, perhaps if the council had done a more comprehensive consultation, presented other alternatives, or even acknowledged the petition from reidents
then they might not feel this way, just like other projects that are underway in Brixton and Lambeth generally.

 

[Up the junction]

It is something that I am hearing in the area, perhaps if the council had done a more comprehensive consultation, presented other alternatives, or even acknowledged the petition from reidents
then they might not feel this way, just like other projects that are underway in Brixton and Lambeth generally.

There is this consultation - fwiw,it does consider two petitions:

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/def...alm-improvements-consultation-report-2015.pdf

 

[bolgerp]

Hmmm... a 5.75% response rate to their questionnaires (or 2.7% response rate from those in the affected postcode area) should be a massive warning sign to them that they didn't go about the consultation in the right way. I would get fired if I based any of my work or planning on a response rate so low.

 

[Up the junction]

Hmmm... a 5.75% response rate to their questionnaires (or 2.7% response rate from those in the affected postcode area) should be a massive warning sign to them that they didn't go about the consultation in the right way. I would get fired if I based any of my work or planning on a response rate so low.

I see a leaflet distribution of 10,991.

And I see a consultation process involving 4 events, at which 633 questionnaires were completed.

The former is to inform about the latter happening?

 

[teuchter]

It is something that I am hearing in the area, perhaps if the council had done a more comprehensive consultation, presented other alternatives, or even acknowledged the petition from reidents
then they might not feel this way, just like other projects that are underway in Brixton and Lambeth generally.

The people that signed the petition - had they not responded to Lambeth's consultation questionaires, or did they not recieve the leaflets?

 

[CH1]

The people that signed the petition - had they not responded to Lambeth's consultation questionaires, or did they not recieve the leaflets?

How were they distributed? If not by Royal Mail, did the contractor have access to all those concierge-guarded flats - many of whose porters (for want of a better word) are often not available.

 

[LadyV]

Hi Lady V - I live on LR, actually facing the road and so get the full effect of air and noise pollution. It’s made somewhat worse by needing a window open as the building, even with the central heating turned off, is not otherwise bearable. This scheme would make so much difference to me personally..

Understood – your concern is safety. Fwiw, your argument reminds me of the rationale for not fully pedestrianising the Brixton end of Effra Rd (alongside St Marks) which I regret every time I walk through there but, equally, I’m a well-built bloke and there are easier targets …

Is it your view that LJ is unique or at least very different to elsewhere because pedestrianisation and schemes like lie the one proposed have been commonplace for many years now – Herne Hill is the classic local example?


Just to add … the most common terms used by respondents to the survey to describe the current situation were ‘dirty’ ‘dangerous’ and ‘busy’, so it’s widely accepted there are problems now.

What I would say to you – and this is based on my experience in November – just as a lumpy bloke needs to appreciate your position, try also to think how it is for school kids coming out of school or playing with their friends – I’m talking about the ‘dangerous’ characterisation. Fwiw, my bumper touched the leg of a girl who’d run out, her hand went on my bonnet and I can see her looking through the screen at me now. Another ½ second…. And then she ran off across the rest of the road without even looking … it's the Primary school, of course.

So, if we are talking about safety, please also think of school kids running down LR, with their friends lost in their excitement. Or how kids never seem to understand 4-way junctions... the maj view is very much that it is dangerous as it is.

Do you not think effective CCTV coverage, good lighting, etc, can address your concerns?

I don't know Herne Hill well enough to be able to comment on what happened there. And I don't think effective CCTV would help tbh, so much of what happens right now is right next to the local Safer Neighbourhoods Team office and it makes no difference so I can't see more CCTV making a difference, maybe we should have it anyway, regardless of the whether the junction closes or not.

The closure certainly won't help with the "dirty" or "busy" concerns about the junction itself as rubbish collections will be harder to carry out on the junction and there are no plans to further control the speed of traffic going down Coldharbour Lane so it will still be dirty and busy.

I think closures can work on small roads, the closure of Cambria Road for instance but this is not a little cut through, this is a quite a big road and a necessary artery. As for the kids, all of my schools, from primary through to sixth form were based on far busier roads than Loughborough Road and there are ways of managing that, barriers nearer to the school, better road safety teaching and ultimately parents taking responsibility for looking after and teaching their kids. Plus the closure is going to cause more traffic to go down all the little side roads as people find their own rat runs to get round it, this will mean cars going down roads where kids are not used to seeing as much traffic, there's more chance of accidents in those situations. For me it's better to have traffic going down a main road and managing that properly.

I think we might have to agree to disagree, I do appreciate your personal reasons for wanting it but I don't think it's the right answer for this area. I do like the theory behind what they're trying to achieve at the Junction but sadly a lot of money will be spent appeasing the views of the few who wish to gentrify the area and I don't believe the general masses in the area will either appreciate it or look after it, bit like the little farm, great idea but used by probably 100 or so people, if that, a tiny percentage of the population of the area.

For me, the money could be spent much better on seriously cleaning up the area, more rubbish collections, better traffic management and cameras, some parking restrictions, better crossing facilities and better lighting. All those things could achieve similar result without the mass disruption this is going to cause.

 

[Gramsci]

You obviously live in the area Up the Junction, I'm not exactly sure where but I don't feel overly polluted where I live, which is 2 minutes away from the junction in question. However at the moment I do feel safe, something I can't see continuing if the road is blocked off. I know from previous comments, you don't believe it but traffic moving through the area is a form of deterrent to crime and anti social behaviour and in the past when the junction has been blocked for roadworks, there has been more drunks and groups of youths than normal hanging around at the junction and trust me as a woman walking through the area on her own, I certainly didn't feel safe, they may seem harmless but they're very intimidating, which doesn't make for a happy life. At the moment, they can only hang out by Save More but this plan will give them seats so they can sit whilst they heckle and abuse people as they go past and presumably also nice planters that they can then use as a toilet!

They may seem harmless because they are harmless. This reads as your perception of them rather than about crime.

Has it occurred to you that youths hanging about might have no where else to go? That groups of youths are socialising with each other on street corners as they have done for generations?

You complain that the plans are about gentrification then you also want the streets cleared of groups that you find "intimidating".

Had these arguments about street drinkers etc in central Brixton.

Having been around LJ recently a lot more recently unlike central Brixton its dead in the evening. Just food shops. Central Brixton has a lot more going on at all times of day. This makes it feel safe.

The main argument imo to oppose the road closures is affect on business. LJ is still centre of light industry despite Higgs.

 

[Up the junction]

via the LJAG:

The Loughborough Junction master planners are out and about talking to everyone who lives and works in Loughborough Junction about the future of our neighbourhood.

Here are the dates so please pop along and have a chat. We need your ideas:

Wednesday 8 April
12 noon to 3pm - Shakespeare Business Centre, entrance on Shakespeare Road.
5pm to 7pm - Outside Loughborough Junction station

Saturday 11 April
11am to 2pm - Loughborough Road, outside the shops by the Hero of Switzerland pub

Friday 17 April
8.30am to 10am Milkwood Community Park, Milkwood Road, close to entrance to Jessop School
11am to 1.30pm - Harry Caddick Centre, Lilford Road
3pm to 4pm - St Saviour's School, Herne Hill Road.

 

[Beasley]

The questionnaire handed out at the Masterplan event yesterday evening contained no reference to the Loughborough Road "Public Space" proposals, apparently because Lambeth has not yet decided about them.

 

[Gramsci]

I went on Saturday to see the LJ masterplanners.

I did say the light industrial should be protected. This was not on the lists of principles for the masterplan.

Looking at some of the proposals for the arches I was concerned. The arches were the artists studios "Warrior Studios" are there is proposed to be a public access as a pedestrian route. I know that those who use the arches are not happy with that idea.

There are proposals for the arches in Belinda road ( behind Tescos). The arches on the Wyck Gardens side are to be opened up through from Wyck Gardens to Belinda road. It appears the existing business to be relocated. I asked what this would be used for. The officer present said bars etc.

These arches are where the car repair business are. So they may go.

After looking at the proposals I thought this is stage towards giving the area a "Brixton Village" makeover. A step towards gentrification. Hope I am proved wrong as masterplan develops. The officer did say they are revisiting some of the original ideas. I think because of the furore over the road closures.

Which is why I said I wanted existing light industrial to be protected in the masterplan. It was telling that this was not. Officer did say he would note this.

There was a resident from Myatts Fields area there who said the LJAG/ had extended the area covered to near Myatts Fields without consultation. Do not know if this is accurate.

 

[Gramsci]

The questionnaire handed out at the Masterplan event yesterday evening contained no reference to the Loughborough Road "Public Space" proposals, apparently because Lambeth has not yet decided about them.

Do you mean the road closures? As the officer there told me that is going ahead as an experiment.

 

[editor]

There are proposals for the arches in Belinda road ( behind Tescos). The arches on the Wyck Gardens side are to be opened up through from Wyck Gardens to Belinda road. It appears the existing business to be relocated. I asked what this would be used for. The officer present said bars etc.

That sounds terrible.

 

[LadyV]

So it's happening, http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/06/...ollowing-flawed-lambeth-council-consultation/

 

[CH1]

So it's happening, http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/06/...ollowing-flawed-lambeth-council-consultation/

Don't know who observed "Loughborough Junction should be seen as a destination in its own right." in that article, but I can't see how this scheme makes LJ more of a place in its own right at all. The Loughborough Estates, old and new will be like those cafés you used to see by A roads that had been turned into dual carriageways. Forlorn and kettled and only accessible to those in the know.

Surely LJAG can see they are just wasting £28,000 of their public realm money?

 

[Beasley]

The decision made on 23/6/15 to go ahead with experimental road closures was "called-in" by Cllr Matt Parr on 30/6/15.

See here for more info: http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=3462

The call-in form (under Accompanying Documents at foot of page) gives the background.
See: http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s75671/Call-in Form - Experimental Road closures in Loughborough Junction and Myatts Field Neighbourhoods.pdf

 

[bolgerp]

Ooohhh..... interesting.

 

[CH1]

LJAG have the following news:

A decision on the public realm improvements at the junction of Coldharbour Lane and Loughborough Road and the experimental road closures will be taken at the Overview and Scrutiny committee on Tuesday 21 July at 6pm. Emails in support of the proposals should be sent to the chair: Councillor Edward Davie edavie@lambeth.gov.uk and to councillor Jennifer Brathwaite jbrathwaite@lambeth.gov.uk.

If you support these proposals we would love to see you at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee which will take place in Room 8 at the Town Hall on Tuesday 21 July. LJAG hopes to address the committee in support of these proposals. And please tweet your support to us @LJAGgers1.

Ten reasons to support the public realm improvements at the junction of Coldharbour Lane and Loughborough Road, and the experimental road closures are set out below.

• The road closures aspect of these proposals is experimental for six months and two thirds of the people who responded to Lambeth council’s consultation were in favour.

• Improving public spaces encourages people to walk and cycle more.

• More people walking and cycling means more people on the streets which promotes trust, neighbourliness and public safety.

• Lower levels of pollution from rat-running vehicles from outside the area through our neighbourhood which has the lowest level of car ownership in Lambeth.

• There will not be a total dispersal of vehicles as some people will opt to walk, cycle or take public transport especially for short journeys.

• A better town centre for Loughborough Junction so it becomes a place we are proud to call home.

• Loughborough Junction – with the exception of the train service during the morning rush hour – has an excellent train and bus service.

• All businesses remain easily accessible.

• In the longer term our cities are only sustainable if more people, who can, make the decision to walk, cycle or take public transport, especially for short journeys, and LJAG shares this vision of the future of our cities.

• LJAG will hold Lambeth council to account for the quality of its consultation during the period of the road closures and encourage adjustments during the experimental closure period if aspects clearly are not working or causing obvious hardship.

I guess if people oppose the proposals they could email the councillors too.
Pity those councillors have nothing to do with Loughborough Junction or Coldharbour Ward - but this seems to be part of the Scrutiny process.

 

[prunus]

View attachment 74154 LJAG have the following news:

A decision on the public realm improvements at the junction of Coldharbour Lane and Loughborough Road and the experimental road closures will be taken at the Overview and Scrutiny committee on Tuesday 21 July at 6pm. Emails in support of the proposals should be sent to the chair: Councillor Edward Davie edavie@lambeth.gov.uk and to councillor Jennifer Brathwaite jbrathwaite@lambeth.gov.uk.

If you support these proposals we would love to see you at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee which will take place in Room 8 at the Town Hall on Tuesday 21 July. LJAG hopes to address the committee in support of these proposals. And please tweet your support to us @LJAGgers1.

Ten reasons to support the public realm improvements at the junction of Coldharbour Lane and Loughborough Road, and the experimental road closures are set out below.

• The road closures aspect of these proposals is experimental for six months and two thirds of the people who responded to Lambeth council’s consultation were in favour.

• Improving public spaces encourages people to walk and cycle more.

• More people walking and cycling means more people on the streets which promotes trust, neighbourliness and public safety.

• Lower levels of pollution from rat-running vehicles from outside the area through our neighbourhood which has the lowest level of car ownership in Lambeth.

• There will not be a total dispersal of vehicles as some people will opt to walk, cycle or take public transport especially for short journeys.

• A better town centre for Loughborough Junction so it becomes a place we are proud to call home.

• Loughborough Junction – with the exception of the train service during the morning rush hour – has an excellent train and bus service.

• All businesses remain easily accessible.

• In the longer term our cities are only sustainable if more people, who can, make the decision to walk, cycle or take public transport, especially for short journeys, and LJAG shares this vision of the future of our cities.

• LJAG will hold Lambeth council to account for the quality of its consultation during the period of the road closures and encourage adjustments during the experimental closure period if aspects clearly are not working or causing obvious hardship.

I guess if people oppose the proposals they could email the councillors too.
Pity those councillors have nothing to do with Loughborough Junction or Coldharbour Ward - but this seems to be part of the Scrutiny process.

That's a really weak list of reasons, I have to say. Sounds pretty desperate.

 

[CH1]

That's a really weak list of reasons, I have to say. Sounds pretty desperate.

Twee rather than desperate IMHO.

If this is like planning committee it may be that LJAG win because they put up speakers, whereas the opposition to the scheme don't. I don't know if people opposing this scheme have are going to speak to the Scrutiny Committee.

 

[Up the junction]

That's a really weak list of reasons, I have to say. Sounds pretty desperate.

Which sounds most desperate - and, in your opinion, why?

• Improving public spaces encourages people to walk and cycle more.

• More people walking and cycling means more people on the streets which promotes trust, neighbourliness and public safety.

• Lower levels of pollution from rat-running vehicles from outside the area through our neighbourhood which has the lowest level of car ownership in Lambeth.

• There will not be a total dispersal of vehicles as some people will opt to walk, cycle or take public transport especially for short journeys.

• A better town centre for Loughborough Junction so it becomes a place we are proud to call home.

• In the longer term our cities are only sustainable if more people, who can, make the decision to walk, cycle or take public transport, especially for short journeys, and LJAG shares this vision of the future of our cities.

• LJAG will hold Lambeth council to account for the quality of its consultation during the period of the road closures and encourage adjustments during the experimental closure period if aspects clearly are not working or causing obvious hardship.

 

[teuchter]

Making cities better for pedestrians and cyclists - worse than the Nazis. We need to stamp these dangerous ideas out immediately.

 

[cuppa tee]

Making cities better for pedestrians and cyclists - worse than the Nazis. We need to stamp these dangerous ideas out immediately.

Do you think that the scheme is now best not viewed in isolation as Network Rail's plans change the
context drastically, that the sum of the two parts will mean the whole character of the area will change ?

 

[teuchter]

Something like this should never be viewed in isolation, of course.

Network Rail's plans may well change the area, regardless of whether this scheme happens or not.

Do you feel that prioritising pedestrians and cyclists is, intrinsically, an act of gentrification and if so why?

 

[CH1]

Do you feel that prioritising pedestrians and cyclists is, intrinsically, an act of gentrification and if so why?

You are setting up a straw man.
The issue is that the scheme was proposed by a local activist group whose members live in gentrified parts of Loughborough Junction.
The pedestrianisation does not affect these people themselves - they live some way away.
The people who are affected live around Loughborough Road in social housing.
Loughborough estate and Styles Gardens residents did not ask for the pedestrianisation scheme, and say they don't want it.

If you insist that the scheme is valid - you are actually saying that social housing tenants must submit to the whims of their gentrified "betters" living in different streets altogether.

This is what grates - it is class war in reverse!

Regarding the businesses in the arches - I think they would be affect adversely by the pedestrianisation. Network Rail have now marked their card. If you think that means the arch businesses no longer matter I would say that is cynical. I also think it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Network Rails' gentrification of Loughborough Junction arches may hit the buffers. I sincerely hope so.

 

[Gramsci]

Do you feel that prioritising pedestrians and cyclists is, intrinsically, an act of gentrification and if so why?

That is how its seen. I am not saying I agree with that position.

I spend more time in LJ now than before. Here are some observations.

Having talked to both sides on this (LJAG and LETRA) I have been sitting on the fence over the issue of road closures. I have had both sides onto me about this.

The opposition to the road closures is bound up with views on LJAG as being middle class do gooders. I think this is a bit simplistic.

One issue is that any improvements to an area , as living in Brixton has made me realise, end up being used by property developers etc to up house prices and shop rentals. In central London the new Crossrail is putting up house prices along the route. The Evil Standard keeps doing articles salivating over this. Not sure what to to about this. Its something ordinary people have cottoned onto. Which explains some of the hostility to LJAG. Its now a rational view, correct imo, that any participation in improving an area will end up with danger of gentrification. Given the way present society works.

LJ seems to me much more divided by class than Brixton. Geographically the division is stark. Much more than Brixton. In Brixton issues like the shops in arches will get support across class for example. Also central Brixton is much more mixed than LJ- middle class home owners and working class social housing tenants living on same street.

On the broader issue:

There is a lot of hostility to moving away from car culture. Which I as a non car owning cyclist and pedestrian would welcome. I do not own a car as I cannot afford it. Car culture is not sustainable in long term. Nor is it desirable.

Unfortunately this issue is regarded as something that middle classes promote. Something which is not relevant to the lives of the working class but is hobby horse of the well to do. How this happened over the years I am not sure. It was not always the case. Take the Reclaim the Streets protests ( one of which was in Brixton) and opposition to road building back not the long ago. These were part of anti Capitalist protests.

There is a lot of opposition to improvements to cycling in London. For example the opposition to the improvements to the super highway that is going on at Vauxhall and across London. Where at one point the cab drivers rep compared cyclist groups to ISIS. The upgrading of the super highway will affect car traffic. It will take longer on same journey when the works are finished. So a lot argument that this will affect business in central London.

My view is that its not progressive just to support motorised traffic on the roads.

 

[Gramsci]

Twee rather than desperate IMHO.

If this is like planning committee it may be that LJAG win because they put up speakers, whereas the opposition to the scheme don't. I don't know if people opposing this scheme have are going to speak to the Scrutiny Committee.

Cllr Matt Parr was at the LJ masterplan meeting. I got the impression that he will speak to and has been listening to the small business in arches.

 

[Beasley]

LJAG's 10th reason is…
"LJAG will hold Lambeth council to account for the quality of its consultation during the period of the road closures and encourage adjustments during the experimental closure period if aspects clearly are not working or causing obvious hardship."

Now that suggests to me that while still backing their original proposal they are starting to get uneasy about it and want a dignified way of getting out if it all goes wrong.

 

[Beasley]

Cllr Matt Parr was at the LJ masterplan meeting. I got the impression that he will speak…

Presumably it would be normal for Matt Parr to speak as the councillor who made the call-in. But…will other opponents of the scheme be allowed to speak -- how do call-ins normally work?

 

[Beasley]

I just discovered a new ePetition about this on change.org:
https://www.change.org/p/jbrathwait...th-gov-uk-say-no-to-loughborough-road-closure