New development at Hardess St / Wellfit St, Loughborough Junction: 2024 planning application

[teuchter]

A new proposal for this site has now been submitted for planning permission.

See this thread for the previous proposal for very tall towers on the same site.

This current proposal is discussed towards the end of that thread but I thought a new one would make sense, now it's actually a live application.

LJAG have decided to oppose this development, mainly on the basis of the "co-living" usage.

I don't have time right now to post much detail about what's actually proposed but here are a couple of images from the planning application (all now available on the Lambeth Planning website).

 

[Tulster218]

NIMBY's gonna NIMBY.

The ONLY way to reduce house prices is to build more housing. It doesn't matter the tenure, just build more houses. The more the better.

 

[Pickman's model]

NIMBY's gonna NIMBY.

The ONLY way to reduce house prices is to build more housing. It doesn't matter the tenure, just build more houses. The more the better.

rubbish. there are many other ways to reduce house prices, like to tax the fuck out of people owning buy to lets for example. but lower house prices aren't the solution to the housing crisis, affordable housing is a problem which gordon brown described in 2007 as one of the great causes of our time. we should introduce eirigi's policy of universal public housing Explainer: Why Universal Public Housing Is NOT The Same As Social Housing — Éirígí For A New Republic

 

[Tulster218]

rubbish. there are many other ways to reduce house prices, like to tax the fuck out of people owning buy to lets for example. but lower house prices aren't the solution to the housing crisis, affordable housing is a problem which gordon brown described in 2007 as one of the great causes of our time. we should introduce eirigi's policy of universal public housing Explainer: Why Universal Public Housing Is NOT The Same As Social Housing — Éirígí For A New Republic

Increasing tax on landlords would reduce supply in the rental market and increase rental prices further.

It's all about demand and supply.

We just need more houses. People moving into the new houses would vacate their old house, ready for someone else to move into. As people move out, landlords would struggle to find tenants, and would be forced to reduce rents.

 

[sleaterkinney]

What is this co-living thing?

 

[Crispy]

What is this co-living thing?

Short-term single room lets.
They are studio rooms with shared kitchens. A bit like university dorm rooms, but larger.



Wellfit and Hardess Streets are being joined together so you can walk through. Looks open to vehicles too, but Wanless is more direct.
Good that they're including light industrial units in the plan (RH side of this drawing).
Partly two floors with a mezzanine. A reduction in overall m² from the existing sheds, but still better than nothing.

 

[CH1]

NIMBY's gonna NIMBY.

The ONLY way to reduce house prices is to build more housing. It doesn't matter the tenure, just build more houses. The more the better.

If you are looking for a back to basics solution how about total revolution? It doesn't matter how many extra house you build - there is a vested interest in keeping the prices high.

The problem is everything has become financialised. I bought my house in Coldharbour Lane in 1985 for £51,000 - 3 times my wages/salary at the time (allowing for the deposit).
In 2019 a house two doors down identical to mine was sold for £1.45 million. And it was a buy-to-let with 8-9 homeless vulnerable people inside - whose rents were on Lambeth Housing contracts (as stated in the auction catalogue).
Even homelesss people are assets in the world of property auctions and buy-to-let. The tenants were sold with the property! It is still buy to let.

I'm kind of interested in the idea of communal living. But do they work - or could they over a period of time degenerate into crime infested rookeries?
When I was a student I was allowed one year in a hall of residence - which was quite enjoyable. Students at that time could be unruly, but there was always the threat of expulsion.
What controls operate in a communal living development designed for 320 people?

As far as I am concerned the area has already been wrecked aesthetically by the Higgs development.
My main concern is improving LJ station - but every one always says section 106 would not yield enough to do that.

 

[teuchter]

I wonder what those "light industrial" units would/will actually end up getting used for. We're yet to see what happens with the Higgs ones on the other side of the viaduct.

 

[Crispy]

I wonder what those "light industrial" units would/will actually end up getting used for. We're yet to see what happens with the Higgs ones on the other side of the viaduct.

At least they're separated from the residential. You often see "business units" like this on the ground floor of a resi tower that don't get let due to noise concerns.

 

[teuchter]

What is this co-living thing?

This is what they say



To me it's a version of what's always been a significant part of the housing mix in zone 2/3 London - accommodation for single people who don't want to, or can't afford to rent or own an independent dwelling.

Traditionally that's been in the form of bedsits or shared houses.

I'd say studio flats are in a slightly different category.

 

[Pickman's model]

Increasing tax on landlords would reduce supply in the rental market and increase rental prices further.

It's all about demand and supply.

We just need more houses. People moving into the new houses would vacate their old house, ready for someone else to move into. As people move out, landlords would struggle to find tenants, and would be forced to reduce rents.

i am not sure you read or consider the posts you submit. you talked of reducing house prices. increasing the supply of houses on the market through making it unaffordable for landlords to rent properties would lead them to sell and therefore lower house prices. you said nothing before about the consequences of such a move, but now you want to move the parameters of debate.

 

[Sue]

What is this co-living thing?

A couple of articles about something similar in Hackney. (The Benyon Estate owns a large amount of land/number of properties in Islington/Hackney and one of them, Richard Benyon, is a very wealthy ex-Tory MP.)

Coronavirus: Benyon Estate urged to shelve ‘co-living’ flats on Kingsland Basin

Hackney Society joins calls for a rethink, arguing that healthy living for residents would be “impossible” during a lockdown

www.hackneycitizen.co.uk

Co-living flats on Kingsland Basin approved despite ‘totally unconvinced’ councillors

Scheme ‘threatens the very characteristics that have created this quiet, tucked-away refuge’, says council’s public realm chief

www.hackneycitizen.co.uk

 

[teuchter]

At least they're separated from the residential.

Sort-of separated!



They are building them higher than the existing sheds and I don't expect people in those houses on Hinton Rd will be too pleased about what will be tight up to their back garden.



Ambulance-chasing Rights-to-Light companies have already started putting their letters through the letterboxes of the surrounding area...

 

[Tulster218]

i am not sure you read or consider the posts you submit. you talked of reducing house prices. increasing the supply of houses on the market through making it unaffordable for landlords to rent properties would lead them to sell and therefore lower house prices. you said nothing before about the consequences of such a move, but now you want to move the parameters of debate.

It seems obvious to me. Increasing the supply of housing will reduce the price. Taxing landlords might change the tenure of some properties (from rented to owner occupied), but won't change the overall price of housing.

The only way to change the overall price of housing is to build more housing.

People who oppose housing developments think that they're making the world better by protecting 'their' part of the world from development, when in fact they are making the world worse by allowing house prices to rise even further.

 

[teuchter]

People who oppose housing developments think that they're making the world better by protecting 'their' part of the world from development, when in fact they are making the world worse by allowing house prices to rise even further.

Sometimes they are defending "their" area from having new development imposed on it disproportionately compared to other, more well-to-do areas.

Those more well-to areas will have (and use) the means to mount substantial and effective opposition. Places like LJ deciding just to accept anything that's proposed, in the interests of the greater good, just further encourages developers (and planners) to follow the paths of least resistance.

Have a look at the locations of all of the "tall building" developments that have been allowed in Lambeth in the past 10-15 years and note how many of them are adjacent to estates. This site is partly bordered by social housing, and any tall development will have an impact on that housing. It won't block out the sky for the more wealthy streets a few blocks up Herne Hill.

 

[Pickman's model]

It seems obvious to me. Increasing the supply of housing will reduce the price. Taxing landlords might change the tenure of some properties (from rented to owner occupied), but won't change the overall price of housing.

The only way to change the overall price of housing is to build more housing.

People who oppose housing developments think that they're making the world better by protecting 'their' part of the world from development, when in fact they are making the world worse by allowing house prices to rise even further.

tosh. utter tosh. the way to increase supply is to ditch the landlords, to bring disused housing back into use - to socialise housing rather than privatise it. running housing as a business has got us into this state, and it needs to be undone to improve the situation. as for additional house building, let us use the unused buildings before we construct more.

 

[Ms Ordinary]

Short-term single room lets.
They are studio rooms with tiny kitchens. A bit like university dorm rooms, but larger.

View attachment 411981

Wellfit and Hardess Streets are being joined together so you can walk through. Looks open to vehicles too, but Wanless is more direct.
Good that they're including light industrial units in the plan (RH side of this drawing).
Partly two floors with a mezzanine. A reduction in overall m² from the existing sheds, but still better than nothing.

View attachment 411980

'Co-living' - it sounds cosy, but it's really just a modern day version of Arlington House .

('Co-housing' is something quite different)

 

[Tulster218]

tosh. utter tosh. the way to increase supply is to ditch the landlords, to bring disused housing back into use - to socialise housing rather than privatise it. running housing as a business has got us into this state, and it needs to be undone to improve the situation. as for additional house building, let us use the unused buildings before we construct more.

Britain has very little unused housing compared with most countries:



In Argentina, which has the sort of socialist policies you're suggesting, one in seven rental houses is empty:
https://www.ft.com/content/18107d79-c208-46d0-8298-584d5a745744

The only way to get more housing is to build more housing. Building more housing will give consumers more choice, decreasing the price, and increasing the quality.

 

[pbsmooth]

Sometimes they are defending "their" area from having new development imposed on it disproportionately compared to other, more well-to-do areas.

Those more well-to areas will have (and use) the means to mount substantial and effective opposition. Places like LJ deciding just to accept anything that's proposed, in the interests of the greater good, just further encourages developers (and planners) to follow the paths of least resistance.

Have a look at the locations of all of the "tall building" developments that have been allowed in Lambeth in the past 10-15 years and note how many of them are adjacent to estates. This site is partly bordered by social housing, and any tall development will have an impact on that housing. It won't block out the sky for the more wealthy streets a few blocks up Herne Hill.

are they higher than the tower blocks that are just the other side of the railway? presume they think it's fair game as the area already has tower blocks.

 

[Tulster218]

Sometimes they are defending "their" area from having new development imposed on it disproportionately compared to other, more well-to-do areas.

Those more well-to areas will have (and use) the means to mount substantial and effective opposition. Places like LJ deciding just to accept anything that's proposed, in the interests of the greater good, just further encourages developers (and planners) to follow the paths of least resistance.

Have a look at the locations of all of the "tall building" developments that have been allowed in Lambeth in the past 10-15 years and note how many of them are adjacent to estates. This site is partly bordered by social housing, and any tall development will have an impact on that housing. It won't block out the sky for the more wealthy streets a few blocks up Herne Hill.

I don't dispute what you say, but my point is that every conversation about housing should be underscored by a recognition that we are in a crisis and urgently need more housing.

 

[teuchter]

are they higher than the tower blocks that are just the other side of the railway? presume they think it's fair game as the area already has tower blocks.

You mean the newly built ones in the Higgs development? They are slightly lower than those. Once the Higgs development got permission, yes of course it set a new precedent for the immediate area.

 

[teuchter]

I don't dispute what you say, but my point is that every conversation about housing should be underscored by a recognition that we are in a crisis and urgently need more housing.

You chose to make your point by making the blanket statement "People who oppose housing developments think that they're making the world better by protecting 'their' part of the world from development, when in fact they are making the world worse by allowing house prices to rise even further."

 

[Pickman's model]

Britain has very little unused housing compared with most countries:

View attachment 412016

In Argentina, which has the sort of socialist policies you're suggesting, one in seven rental houses is empty:
https://www.ft.com/content/18107d79-c208-46d0-8298-584d5a745744

The only way to get more housing is to build more housing. Building more housing will give consumers more choice, decreasing the price, and increasing the quality.

Many thousands of homes have been built in london over the past 15 years. Many thousands of them lie empty, bought as investments. And there's tens of thousands of other empty properties. Why not fill those before building more? I don't know why you fetishise house prices. Those would have to decrease considerably before the people who can't afford today's prices could afford them

 

[Gramsci]

I don't think in this case locals are opposing development.

It's the kind.

Co living is the latest wheeze from developers to maximise income from a site.

It's basically a giant dormitory rather than proper flats for people.

It's aimed at young professionals so not for all.

I will look back at some of my old posts on other thread. I did some on co living. May transfer some here.

teuchter is right to start a new thread as it's a new planning application.

Also co living is new so whatever is decided on this site will affect decisions on any other site if a developer comes forward with co living.

What LJ does need is combination of family sized units and some social housing on any new development in area. As well as smaller flats.

This proposed development offers none of that.

 

[Gramsci]

From what I remember of the consultation event architect said this co living was only way to make it viable development

 

[Gramsci]

Poor developers life's so hard for them

 

[Tulster218]

You chose to make your point by making the blanket statement "People who oppose housing developments think that they're making the world better by protecting 'their' part of the world from development, when in fact they are making the world worse by allowing house prices to rise even further."

Yes. That's exactly what I meant to say. People who oppose new housing think that they're the 'good guys'. They think taht they are in the moral high ground. They think that they are doing the best for society. What I'm saying is that they are not.

If you believe that new housing is built disproportionately in council estates, then the answer is more new housing in posh areas, not less new housing in council estates.

 

[nagapie]

Yes. That's exactly what I meant to say. People who oppose new housing think that they're the 'good guys'. They think taht they are in the moral high ground. They think that they are doing the best for society. What I'm saying is that they are not.

If you believe that new housing is built disproportionately in council estates, then the answer is more new housing in posh areas, not less new housing in council estates.

But this proposal isn't meeting the needs of the area where thousands of families sit on council waiting lists for over ten years because there is no affordable family housing.

 

[Tulster218]

Many thousands of homes have been built in london over the past 15 years. Many thousands of them lie empty, bought as investments. And there's tens of thousands of other empty properties. Why not fill those before building more? I don't know why you fetishise house prices. Those would have to decrease considerably before the people who can't afford today's prices could afford them

I can see where you're coming from. There are about 30,000 empty homes in London, about 1,800 of them are in Lambeth. Link here. That sounds like a lot, but compared with the number of people who live here, it's not very many. It's quite a low proportion. 'Fill the empty buildings' is one of those ideas that sounds good, but once you know the details, it's quite trivial.

The reason I'm concerned about house prices is that as house prices fall, property will be more affordable for everyone. I have a neighbour with two teenage children. A boy and a girl. It's a two bedroom flat. I don't know their sleeping arrangements, but it can't be very pleasant for any of them. I would like them to be able to move out into something bigger. If house prices and rents were lower then they could do that. They aren't unique. Many Londoners live in overcrouded situations. The Centre for London estimates that are over 300,000 London households are on the waiting list for social housing. Link here. I think it's obvious that more, cheaper housing is a good thing.

 

[editor]

At least they're separated from the residential. You often see "business units" like this on the ground floor of a resi tower that don't get let due to noise concerns.

The ones in The Edge got swiftly converted into unpleasant residential units. I imagine these will do the same.