Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins

[Gramsci]

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?

I do know that LJAG will be speaking to support the scheme.

I presume its like planning committee and you have to put your name down.

 

[Gramsci]

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

Well this is all getting unpleasant.

According to petition letter its outside agitators who are supporting this:

Nonetheless cycling campaigners have latched onto it and are canvassing support from outside the area and across London.

That was uncalled for.

 

[CH1]

For my part I am not going to the meeting - much as I would like to see how it pans out. Those who are directly affected do have the chance to speak out now - assuming they feel confident enough to speak to the meeting.

Although I do think it would be a bad move to do the pedestrianisation I do accept that Loughborough Road is a cut through and that it would be good to reduce rush hour traffic - but I have suggested how to consultations several times.

I hope the scrutiny committee produces a suitable compromise.

 

[ChrisSouth]

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.

I was wondering what the gentrified parts of Loughborough Junction are? Could you let me know please. Just so I can check if I live in one. And could you also advise the rubric you're applying when you say something is a gentrified area. Just so that there's a transparent set of ground rules. Thanks!

 

[CH1]

I was wondering what the gentrified parts of Loughborough Junction are? Could you let me know please. Just so I can check if I live in one. And could you also advise the rubric you're applying when you say something is a gentrified area. Just so that there's a transparent set of ground rules. Thanks!

If you are pressing me about specific areas I would say the most obviously gentrified part of LJ is that on either side of Herne Hill Road - namely that part which is in SE24 and the part in SE5 at the back of Ruskin Park.

What does a "rubric" bring to the table?

The thread is about the consultation on "Loughborough Junction public space improvements" - which a significant number of residents have opposed. The issue is whether these "improvements" are helpful or unhelpful to local people and businesses.

 

[ChrisSouth]

If you are pressing me about specific areas I would say the most obviously gentrified part of LJ is that on either side of Herne Hill Road - namely that part which is in SE24 and the part in SE5 at the back of Ruskin Park.

What does a "rubric" bring to the table?

The thread is about the consultation on "Loughborough Junction public space improvements" - which a significant number of residents have opposed. The issue is whether these "improvements" are helpful or unhelpful to local people and businesses.

Your point was, I think, that those who live in the gentrified areas (which you'e now identified, although not explained why you think they are gentrified) are imposing their will on people who live in social housing.

"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."

So your position quite simply put is, if someone supports traffic calming measures in and around Loughbrough Junction, even if they have lived here for many years, then you are oppressing social housing residents. You also think that it's twee to support traffic calming measures.

Quite simply, you are wrong on this.

 

[teuchter]

I'm aware there's a feeling among some that LJAG represents LJ's middle classes and that this scheme is being imposed on people that don't want it. I have also heard similar said about the "farm".

But it's unclear how widespread the opposition is. A petition doesn't necessarily mean much. Lambeth say their consultation found a majority in favour. Who knows - as I understand it forms were delivered to all residents on the Loughborough estate. Is someone lying and that did not actually happen?

I don't think it is fair to oppose this scheme on the basis of it being supported by a group who you suspect of not being fully representative of locals. The scheme should be assessed on its own merits - something which an experimental period ought to allow.

 

[CH1]

I'm aware there's a feeling among some that LJAG represents LJ's middle classes and that this scheme is being imposed on people that don't want it. I have also heard similar said about the "farm".

But it's unclear how widespread the opposition is. A petition doesn't necessarily mean much. Lambeth say their consultation found a majority in favour. Who knows - as I understand it forms were delivered to all residents on the Loughborough estate. Is someone lying and that did not actually happen?

I don't think it is fair to oppose this scheme on the basis of it being supported by a group who you suspect of not being fully representative of locals. The scheme should be assessed on its own merits - something which an experimental period ought to allow.

I think it is unwise because it threatens the viability of small business in that immediate area. And also because more limited traffic control measures in the gentrified part of LJAG's area (i.e. south of Coldharbour Lane) would have the beneficial effect but not the adverse effect in terms of traffic control.
What is not to like? It still looks like the Ubermensch of SE24/5 stamping their imprint on us plebs in SW9!

 

[CH1]

Your point was, I think, that those who live in the gentrified areas (which you'e now identified, although not explained why you think they are gentrified) are imposing their will on people who live in social housing.

"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."

So your position quite simply put is, if someone supports traffic calming measures in and around Loughbrough Junction, even if they have lived here for many years, then you are oppressing social housing residents. You also think that it's twee to support traffic calming measures.

Quite simply, you are wrong on this.

No - my position is that people should support traffic calming in their own area - not impose it on a different area because it would look nice to them, whatever the inconvenience cause to residents of the "colonised" area.

 

[Gramsci]

Your point was, I think, that those who live in the gentrified areas (which you'e now identified, although not explained why you think they are gentrified) are imposing their will on people who live in social housing.

"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."

To support CH1 here I was talking to a couple of peope who live on the Loughborough Estate and what CH1 posted up is how they feel. It more the feeling that the middle classes are trying to tell them whats best for them. There is imo mutual lack of any understanding between both sides.

The opposition to the road is the battle where this is being fought out.

Also one of the users of the arches said to me that whilst LJAG mean well the plans they have will encourage the gentrification of the area.

 

[ChrisSouth]

No - my position is that people should support traffic calming in their own area - not impose it on a different area because it would look nice to them, whatever the inconvenience cause to residents of the "colonised" area.

Given that the so-called gentrified postcode area of SE5 does in fact partly fall into the area under consideration, I'd argue that these people have a right to have a voice on these measures. It may well also be that living halfway along Colharbour Lane means that you are physically further away from the road closures than some people in the "gentrified" postcodes of SE24 and SE5.

But what I find puzzling is that by using words such as Übermensch (your missed the umlaut) you are likening people who support traffic calming measures to Nazis. Very disappointing.

 

[teuchter]

Well, I am a middle class nazi gentrifier living on the other side of the tracks. I don't want to impose something on people if they really don't want it. But is it really true that Loughborough estate residents don't want it? I'm not sure we actually have evidence of this. Anything restricting car owners tends to draw fervent opposition from a certain proportion of people and this happens everywhere including places that are as middle class as you like (read the stories on here about opposition to introducing bike hangars or road closures for street parties).

I wonder if the best way of resolving this would be for Lambeth to re-do the postal consultation and see what the yes and no votes add up to?

To be honest, from a totally selfish point of view I'd be fine with Loughborough rd remaining full of cars and my road being fully pedestrianised

 

[teuchter]

I think it is unwise because it threatens the viability of small business in that immediate area.

Which businesses and how?

There often seems to be an irrational fear about anything that restricts car access.

Are there really businesses who get a significant amount of their trade from passing motorists?

 

[LadyV]

I wonder if the best way of resolving this would be for Lambeth to re-do the postal consultation and see what the yes and no votes add up to?

To be honest, from a totally selfish point of view I'd be fine with Loughborough rd remaining full of cars and my road being fully pedestrianised

I live on Styles Gardens, which is one of the closest residential roads to affected area and I think that redoing the consultation in a paper format might be useful, I know that I didn't receive a postal consultation form, I remember a general leaflet talking about the plans, which arrived along with the mountain of junk mail we all receive, but I don't remember it being explicit about the closure of the junction, more the general pretty-fying. I only found out about the online consultation through my neighbour. I'm probably wrong but I thought the consultation was online only.

I think this kind of plays into why when someone went knocking on doors around the Loughborough Estate, albeit a little late, they got so many signatures on a petition against the closure.

 

[teuchter]

I think this kind of plays into why when someone went knocking on doors around the Loughborough Estate, albeit a little late, they got so many signatures on a petition against the closure.

I can't now remember where I saw the numbers but although there were quite a few signatures on the petition, I don't think they actually represented a majority of the total number of residents on the estate did they?

 

[LadyV]

I can't now remember where I saw the numbers but although there were quite a few signatures on the petition, I don't think they actually represented a majority of the total number of residents on the estate did they?

Here are some details of the petition and a couple of exchanges between LETRA and Jennifer Braithwaite

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

 

[CH1]

Given that the so-called gentrified postcode area of SE5 does in fact partly fall into the area under consideration, I'd argue that these people have a right to have a voice on these measures. It may well also be that living halfway along Colharbour Lane means that you are physically further away from the road closures than some people in the "gentrified" postcodes of SE24 and SE5.

But what I find puzzling is that by using words such as Übermensch (your missed the umlaut) you are likening people who support traffic calming measures to Nazis. Very disappointing.

Have only just got access to the council report. As you say there are minor implications for SE5 - but it is not that we are arguing about, it is specifically Loughborough Road, SW9.

Regarding Übermensch I was tired and could not bestir myself last night to look up the alt-code for U umlaut at the time. Sorry about that - but I thought Übermensch were creatures invented by Friedrich Nietzsche (commonly called Superman in English). Neitzsche's supermen were above the concerns about good and evil of ordinary people. They were a law unto themselves and served higher cultural purposes.

I am sorry you thought I was alluding to Nazis. I am not an educated person, but I did German at school, and have a copy of Also Sprach Zarathustra somewhere (in English).

 

[teuchter]

Here are some details of the petition and a couple of exchanges between LETRA and Jennifer Braithwaite

700 names on the petition; wikipedia tells me 3000 families living on the estate ... not saying that number of 700 is insignifiant but it should be seen in context.

Maybe Lambeth should commit to holding another, properly advertised consultation at the end of the experimental period (if it goes ahead).

 

[CH1]

The council report to be considered at Scrutiny Committee at 7 pm tonight is here:

Para 4.6 states: "Design development on the Loughborough Junction Public Space Improvement Project and associated road closures started in early 2014. Updates on the evolving designs were fed back to LJAG’s Planning Forum."

I would suggest that taken as a whole the report clearly indicates that the road closure was conceived by LJAG and driven forward by them. Moreover the council are treating LJAG as if they are a sort of representative body speaking for the whole area.

Those of us who know LJAG intimately see it not as a democratically representative body, but a pressure group able to influence the council through personal connections at councillor and officer level, and by claiming a stake in local TAs.

LJAG's modus operandi is top down rather than bottom up - so when they want to do something many people in the community disagree with it is difficult to call this into question.

 

[SpamMisery]

I've always loved the 'Thus Spake Zarathustra' construction of the phrase - don't really know why

However, I automatically think of Nazis before Nietzsche when I hear ubermensch or untermensch. Can't really explain why that is either. Maybe it's a bit like associating the swastica with the Nazis or Hinduism/Buddhism depending on the context you first learned about it?

 

[CH1]

I've always loved the 'Thus Spake Zarathustra' construction of the phrase - don't really know why

However, I automatically think of Nazis before Nietzsche when I hear ubermensch or untermensch. Can't really explain why that is either. Maybe it's a bit like associating the swastica with the Nazis or Hinduism/Buddhism depending on the context you first learned about it?

My mum had a collection of Rudyard Kipling books which had the swastica on the spine. Kipling apparently adopted the swastica as an emblem in his India days - many years before Hitler.

I suppose that makes me look even more dubious!

 

[ChrisSouth]

Have only just got access to the council report. As you say there are minor implications for SE5 - but it is not that we are arguing about, it is specifically Loughborough Road, SW9.

But Loughborough Road SE5 aren't allowed to comment?

 

[ChrisSouth]

Have only just got access to the council report. As you say there are minor implications for SE5 - but it is not that we are arguing about, it is specifically Loughborough Road, SW9.

But Loughborough Road SE5 aren't allowed to comment, just Loughborough Road SW9?

 

[CH1]

Not sure what you are getting at. Loughborough Road is all in SW9.

 

[LadyV]

The council report to be considered at Scrutiny Committee at 7 pm tonight is here:

Para 4.6 states: "Design development on the Loughborough Junction Public Space Improvement Project and associated road closures started in early 2014. Updates on the evolving designs were fed back to LJAG’s Planning Forum."

I would suggest that taken as a whole the report clearly indicates that the road closure was conceived by LJAG and driven forward by them. Moreover the council are treating LJAG as if they are a sort of representative body speaking for the whole area.

Those of us who know LJAG intimately see it not as a democratically representative body, but a pressure group able to influence the council through personal connections at councillor and officer level, and by claiming a stake in local TAs.

LJAG's modus operandi is top down rather than bottom up - so when they want to do something many people in the community disagree with it is difficult to call this into question.

Have just read the report going to the committee, did you see this line?
"At the moment Loughborough Junction is dominated by traffic – Loughborough Road sees an incredible 13,000 vehicles pass through on a typical weekday." Is this true? Where has this number come from? I find that hard to believe!

Also talking of LJAG, apparently "Its members work with many local organisations, such as tenants’ and residents’ associations,", I think not!

And does anyone know who Jennifer Braithwaite spoke to? "The Cabinet Member for Environment and Sustainability has met additionally with a number of resident representatives over recent months and chaired a meeting of all interested ward councillors."

 

[ChrisSouth]

Not sure what you are getting at. Loughborough Road is all in SW9.

Horle Walk (Loughbrough Road) is SE5

 

[CH1]

Horle Walk (Loughbrough Road) is SE5

You mean the council flats behind the former White Hart public house?
Have they not been consulted then?

 

[ChrisSouth]

You mean the council flats behind the former White Hart public house?
Have they not been consulted then?

You tell me. But it doesn't matter if they've been consulted or not, because they are in SE5, and to you, their views would not be relevant because they are not in SW9.

 

[CH1]

Have just read the report going to the committee, did you see this line?
"At the moment Loughborough Junction is dominated by traffic – Loughborough Road sees an incredible 13,000 vehicles pass through on a typical weekday." Is this true? Where has this number come from? I find that hard to believe!

Also talking of LJAG, apparently "Its members work with many local organisations, such as tenants’ and residents’ associations,", I think not!

And does anyone know who Jennifer Braithwaite spoke to? "The Cabinet Member for Environment and Sustainability has met additionally with a number of resident representatives over recent months and chaired a meeting of all interested ward councillors."

I think it is a case of what I said - the emotive language of the report - "incredible 13,000 vehicles a day" suggests that this is an LJAG documents which the officer(s) have simply lifted and put into their report.

Very unprofessional IMHO and not only that - as you say it does suggest caution is required. The 13,000 could be a finger in the wind estimate by LJAG rather than a proper measuremnt by a traffic engineer.

 

[CH1]

You tell me. But it doesn't matter if they've been consulted or not, because they are in SE5, and to you, their views would not be relevant because they are not in SW9.

You are twisting my meaning. I am sick and tired of the barrister tendency.
Their view are more important than those of Cambria Road for example - because they are nearer. But not as important as those of Styles Gardens or Woolley House, who are right on top of the issue.

What is difficult to understand about that?