Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins
- Thread starter Leo Chesterton
- Start date
cuppa tee
Well-Known Member
we got ours, it's a black and white A5 flyer delivered with Lambethtalk
Burn:Cycle
Active Member
We've got ours. Although with only a week to go before close, I don't think they'll have much time to service, fulfill (and receive back) any requests made for the paper copies......
Well done Lambeth. Again.
Well done Lambeth. Again.
critical1
All views expressed are definitely my own.
Request a paper copy and see if it arrives exactly on the 6th Nov or after...
critical1
All views expressed are definitely my own.
Burn:Cycle
Active Member
Maybe, but they didn't all disappear overnight and with horses came stable yards and horse-shit on the road - and you'd still take your life in your hands if you crossed in front of one of them. Maybe we should try and get them back. The saddlers could make handbags for well-heeled LJAGgers, and the blacksmiths make fancy gates and railings - or bespoke kitchen cupboard handles for the same crowd.
As LadyV says, LJ is a light-industrial area with a bias towards the motor industry. Lots of car/taxi repair workshops, car wash services, petrol station etc. You, LJAG and now the council may find them unsightly and not compatible with the transformation of LJ into a cafe society. Closing roads and the "gentrification" of LJ will kill these businesses and force these people to move away.
If that is the intention, then the Council, Network Rail (and LJAG) need to be upfront and clear that this is their vision.
Go slowly, consult properly and compensate where necessary. Bring people with you.
Burn:Cycle
Active Member
Good idea. Just called and requested. Voicemail for someone in Transport dept. Left a message requesting a paper copy be sent to my address.
I'll let you all know when it turns up....
bimble
floofy
Yes. At a guess I'd say well over half the arches in the area (incl camberwell station road) are currently in use as car workshops of some kind.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Odd application on the same agenda (16th November Karibu 7.00 pm) to change to disused toilets at Clapham Old Town Polygon into a restaurant with ancillary toilets for TFL staff, disabled people and baby changing.
Anything to avoid serving the general public. I hope Robert Goacher gets the chance to catch the planners short.
critical1
All views expressed are definitely my own.
critical1 said: ↑
Request a paper copy and see if it arrives exactly on the 6th Nov or after...
I'm also going to do this once I receive a flyer notification, as yet non through my mailbox as I left home this morning, I may receive it on my return.
Most folk wont see it till they return home Friday evening... then comes Monday....
Request a paper copy and see if it arrives exactly on the 6th Nov or after...
I'm also going to do this once I receive a flyer notification, as yet non through my mailbox as I left home this morning, I may receive it on my return.
Most folk wont see it till they return home Friday evening... then comes Monday....
Last edited:
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Have you had Pravda yet? It came with that this morning at mine.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Regarding the comments about handbags and fancy handles ... the car repair workshops near me often have an impressive colection of Rolls Royces, vintage sports cars and the like parked up waiting for attention.
Anyway, I don't want the workshops and light industrial to disappear and be replaced by cafes. They define what the locality is, and they provide employement. I don't spend very much time in cafes myself. I spent a fair bit of time arguing against the Higgs redevelopment for this reason. I want the industrial uses to stay but I also think the public realm at the heart of LJ could be much improved.
I recognise the potential for road alterations to affect these light industral uses. However my belief is that it doesn't need to be an either/or situation, which is what many are presenting it as. The road alterations can be designed in such a way that effects on these businesses are minimised. Ideally we would have the experimental period, gather some meaningful data on its effects, and then have a calm discussion about what those are, and make adjustments as necessary. If the results indicate that the proposals just can't be designed such that there are not unreasonable negative effects on local business then fair enough - I would not support them further.
Unfortunately there is probably zero chance that the above will be possible, partly because Lambeth have done everything in such a shambolic way, and partly because certain people have wound up the levels of hyperbole in the opposition so much that the whole thing has become too polarised for a proper discussion to take place. The opposition, or at least its most vocal proponents are not interested at all in any level of discussion, as was plainly clear at the recent meeting.
The LJroadmadness lot are actively making this a gentrification issue. My opinion is that if gentrification is going to occur (and it's probably inevitable) it's going to be driven by much more powerful forces than the effects of a partially pedestrianised area and some streetfront cafes. As with so many other issues in the gentrification debate, the symptoms are confused with the causes just because they are visible.
If the cafes and the rest of it are going to happen it'll be because of the current housing pressure and its financial implications. Refusing a traffic calming scheme isn't going to stop that happening. We'll still end up with the cafes and the increased prices - but with the same traffic-riven town centre when there could have ben a chance to change that.
The realistic way to protect the existing industry and associated employment is through planning policy. Response to planning applications, the masterplan currently in development. Argue for the expansion of the existing KIBAs.
concerned1
behind the small print
Designated loading bays oh yeh and then the ignorant morons who think they have every right to park in disabled bays, spaces for vehicles carrying children, etc etc who are blatantly NOT one of those allowed to park there will take over those spaces, they are not scared of parking tickets.
Just received a leaflet and a pdf of the leaflet but the first part of the pdf file version is for the businesses not that it requires name company postcode etc etc. Plus there are drop boxes at the end that are pointless on the hard copy version and no where to send them.
Just received a leaflet and a pdf of the leaflet but the first part of the pdf file version is for the businesses not that it requires name company postcode etc etc. Plus there are drop boxes at the end that are pointless on the hard copy version and no where to send them.
concerned1
behind the small print
Would love to know where teuchter has the idea ljroadmadness are putting this forward as a gentrification issue, don't see that on their leaflet or implied by them at their public meeting. Latest leaflet is by "Friends of Loughborough Junction" NOT ljroadmadness.
ljroadmadness are about "road closures" and the severe effectsbeing caused by them on many lives.
Get your facts right teuchter tsk tsk
ljroadmadness are about "road closures" and the severe effectsbeing caused by them on many lives.
Get your facts right teuchter tsk tsk
LadyV
Well-Known Member
Sadly I think you're right. My annoyance at the closure itself has pretty much gone, I still don't agree with the closure and long term would prefer the road open but at this stage I would be ok to see out the trial period as tbh there's won't be much of it left by the time all the relevant parties have faffed around.
Whatever anger and frustration I feel now is towards the way the whole thing was handled, you use the word shambolic and I think that sums it up so well. I doubt the idea of closures would ever have had a resounding yes from local population but now a good number of people are so wound up about the whole thing that there's no chance of a rational discussion. Added to that the waters have become so muddied with claims of gentrification and social cleansing that it puts any future support for non road related improvements in the area in jeopardy.
You refer to closing roads as a traffic calming measure, I imagine there are people at the council who think the same but traffic calming isn't closing roads in my mind, it's widening pavements, reducing parking or introducing CPZs, it's slowing the roads down with speed bumps etc. If we had just been looking at a traffic calming scheme, there still would have been moaners but they would have got on with it and moved on and then after a while they could have introduced closures if they were still necessary but we've gone beyond that now and I don't know how the council can pull back any form of support.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
The leaflet imprint: Friends of Loughborough Junction doesn't give an address/contact - on the other hand there are contact details (twice over) for LJ Road Madness.
If this were an election I think they would be assumed (by the returning officer) to be either the same thing - or campaigning jointly and therefore their expenses would be aggregated.
Just saying.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
LadyV
Well-Known Member
Does anyone have a contact at the Angell CCTV Partnership? Or know who runs it? I'm curious to know if they've sold out our one CCTV camera on the area by Ridgway Road and Wyck Gardens to Lambeth for the purpose of catching people driving through the pedestrian area. There are no new cameras in the area and that camera used to move around every few days to get different angles but it's been firmed angled in the direction of the CHL end of the pedestrian zone for the last 3 weeks.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
It's probably being used as a decoy. Doubt they've got the appropriate OCR software on that.
LadyV
Well-Known Member
You might be right but it's annoying that it's being used in such a way when it's supposed to be making us feel safer etc. Plus it plays further into my general annoyance of the sheer incompetence of Lambeth Council. Just to satisfy my own curiosity, well If I can get my arse in gear and sort it out, I'm going to do a FOI request to Lambeth about the people they've caught and the fines they've given out, the times they've zapped people, how many have appealed due to appalling signage etc, I do think they've been completely negligent in doing all of it. I'm sure that they have missed out on thousands of pounds because they can't organise anything.
Burn:Cycle
Active Member
Indeed, but I doubt (based on Lambeth demographics and car ownership stats) that all of them (or maybe any of them) are owned by LJ residents. They're more likely the toys of owners from Dulwich/Herne Hill and further afield.... bringing much needed employment to LJ
Agree totally with LadyV on this.
This is how it appears to me: The original consultation presented woolly open questions about improvements to the local environment. I expect very few people (had they received the document) would have rejected the concept of "improvements" to their neighbourhood and environment. It did NOT propose closure of roads.
The responses were then interpreted and manipulated by LJAG and George Wright into developing a plan for their vision of a new LJ. The biased nature of the original response (all those LCC respondents from outside the area), coupled with the highly-charged public meeting at Longfield Hall in October 2014 where Mr Wright admitted they had done no traffic analysis which they could use as a benchmark for measuring changes or the success of the plan - and had no money to do so, should have been a warning to the Council on the flawed nature of the plan and its implementation.
They are reaping what they sowed.
I would welcome streetscape improvements, raised tables, making junctions more pedestrian friendly, slowing traffic, managing parking.
Road closures, as I have said in the past, are too blunt an instrument.
critical1
All views expressed are definitely my own.
Interesting to note that this leaflet/flyer was not printed by LJ Road Madness it says clearly at the bottom FRIENDS OF LOUGHBOROUGH JUNCTION
I suppose this is how communities and alliances start by rallying for a cause.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Not sure about that. There are plenty of comments on this thread that equate "improvements" with gentrification and therefore to be resisted.
Also, if, say, the proposals had been to remove on-street parking, to allow bus/cycle lanes to be added, many people would still be up in arms. Again, as seen in comments in this thread.
The folk making these objections might not have been in the majority. But they might have been as vocal as the current ones. And we still have no way of knowing if those current complainers are really in the majority.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Maybe you should bring this to the attention of LJ Road Madness, so that they can clarify that they did not approve this leaflet, and do not wish to associate the road closures with gentrification?
Interesting to note that this leaflet/flyer was not printed by LJ Road Madness it says clearly at the bottom FRIENDS OF LOUGHBOROUGH JUNCTION
I suppose this is how communities and alliances start by rallying for a cause.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I understand that many of the Labour leaflets delivered in Ferndale Ward when I stood there in 1982 were delivered by the WRP activists.
Interesting to note that this leaflet/flyer was not printed by LJ Road Madness it says clearly at the bottom FRIENDS OF LOUGHBOROUGH JUNCTION
I suppose this is how communities and alliances start by rallying for a cause.
Nothing new here mate.
concerned1
behind the small print
They are NOT ljroadmadness, the leaflet says at the bottom "Produced by Friends of Loughborough Junction"
I repeat
They are NOT ljroadmadness
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
To clarify - if the Friends of Loughborough Junction are a separate entity they should put a contact for themselves on the Imprint to avoid confusion. At least that is what happens in elections.
For the record:
Using imprints
What is an imprint?
1.25 An imprint must, by law, be added to campaign material to show who is responsible for its production. It helps to ensure that the campaign is transparent.
What do you need to include?
1.26 On printed material, such as leaflets and posters, you must include the name and address of:
the printer
the promoter
any person on behalf of whom the material is being published (and who is not the promoter)
1.27 The promoter is the person who has authorised the material to be printed. If the promoter is acting on behalf of a group or organisation, the group or organisation’s name and address must also be included.
1.28 You can use either home or office addresses.
1.29 If you are putting an advert in a newspaper, your advert does not need to include the printer’s details.
Example of an imprint
1.30 A standard imprint for independent candidates should look like this:
Printed by [printer’s name and address].
Local elections > England and Wales > Candidates and
agents > Part 4 of 6
10
Promoted by [agent’s name] of [agent’s address], on behalf of [candidate’s name] of [candidate’s address].
1.31 If the candidate is also the promoter of the material, the ‘on behalf of’ part of the imprint is not required.
1.32 In all cases, you must make sure that the imprint lists all the promoters and organisations involved.
Where do you put the imprint?
1.33 If your material is single-sided – such as a window poster – you must put the imprint on the face of the document. If it is multi-sided, you must put it on the first or last page.
Websites and other electronic material
1.34 You should also put an imprint on electronic material, such as websites and emails. The imprint should include the name and address of the promoter and the organisation on whose behalf it has been produced.
For the record:
Using imprints
What is an imprint?
1.25 An imprint must, by law, be added to campaign material to show who is responsible for its production. It helps to ensure that the campaign is transparent.
What do you need to include?
1.26 On printed material, such as leaflets and posters, you must include the name and address of:
the printer
the promoter
any person on behalf of whom the material is being published (and who is not the promoter)
1.27 The promoter is the person who has authorised the material to be printed. If the promoter is acting on behalf of a group or organisation, the group or organisation’s name and address must also be included.
1.28 You can use either home or office addresses.
1.29 If you are putting an advert in a newspaper, your advert does not need to include the printer’s details.
Example of an imprint
1.30 A standard imprint for independent candidates should look like this:
Printed by [printer’s name and address].
Local elections > England and Wales > Candidates and
agents > Part 4 of 6
10
Promoted by [agent’s name] of [agent’s address], on behalf of [candidate’s name] of [candidate’s address].
1.31 If the candidate is also the promoter of the material, the ‘on behalf of’ part of the imprint is not required.
1.32 In all cases, you must make sure that the imprint lists all the promoters and organisations involved.
Where do you put the imprint?
1.33 If your material is single-sided – such as a window poster – you must put the imprint on the face of the document. If it is multi-sided, you must put it on the first or last page.
Websites and other electronic material
1.34 You should also put an imprint on electronic material, such as websites and emails. The imprint should include the name and address of the promoter and the organisation on whose behalf it has been produced.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Strange that this mysterious group didn't discuss the contents of their flyer with LJ road madness before printing "Loughborough Junction Road Madness" at the top of it. Maybe they hadn't heard of them and just coincidentally came up with the title?
Anyway, as I say this needs to be brought to the attention of LJRM so they can disassociate themselves with the messages in the leaflet.
Similar threads
