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

[editor]

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.

What great benefits does luxury housing blocks in a poor area bring to the local community, exactly?

 

[editor]

Poor developers life's so hard for them

It wasn't so long ago the multi-multi millionaire landlord Jerry Knight was whining about how tough it was being a developer.

He's now switched his account to private, probably in the face of all the shit reviews his company have been receiving on Trustpilot,

 

[teuchter]

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.

Is your position really that no development should ever be opposed, regardless of its impact on its surroundings, as long as it provides additional housing?

 

[Tulster218]

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.

It would, just not in the way that you think.

Remember that people move around from area to area. people also change tenure. Some renters buy a home, and some owner occupiers sell their home and rent. Maybe not you, but other people do. Everyone who moves into a home leaves another home somewhere else. And someone else moves into that home, and so on. It's obvious, right. When people move into a new home they might move into one slightly more expensive than the one moved out of. It's often called the 'property ladder'. So when large expensive houses are built at the top of the 'property ladder' it reduces the price of large expensive houses, and then all the people in slightly less large expensive houses can move up the ladder, and then the people on slightly less expensive houses than them can move up, and so on and so on. Eventually there is less demand for the very smallest cheapest housing, and hence prices will fall. All house building, no matter the tenure, helps reduce the price of all housing.

If everyone in London could agree to build more housing, then we'd all be much better off. All of us. Rich people, poor people and those in between.

 

[Gramsci]

It would, just not in the way that you think.

Remember that people move around from area to area. people also change tenure. Some renters buy a home, and some owner occupiers sell their home and rent. Maybe not you, but other people do. Everyone who moves into a home leaves another home somewhere else. And someone else moves into that home, and so on. It's obvious, right. When people move into a new home they might move into one slightly more expensive than the one moved out of. It's often called the 'property ladder'. So when large expensive houses are built at the top of the 'property ladder' it reduces the price of large expensive houses, and then all the people in slightly less large expensive houses can move up the ladder, and then the people on slightly less expensive houses than them can move up, and so on and so on. Eventually there is less demand for the very smallest cheapest housing, and hence prices will fall. All house building, no matter the tenure, helps reduce the price of all housing.

If everyone in London could agree to build more housing, then we'd all be much better off. All of us. Rich people, poor people and those in between.

Have you actually read any of this planning application?

 

[Tulster218]

Is your position really that no development should ever be opposed, regardless of its impact on its surroundings, as long as it provides additional housing?

No, just that people who oppose new developments should bear in mind the moral case for more housing.

Lots of people believe in things that don't necessarily advantage them. Lots of people are pro-immigration, when it might have an impact on them, lots of men are feminists even though it might not advantage them. Lots of people do what's best for society, even though it might cost them time and effort. Housing development should be seen in the same light.

 

[teuchter]

No, just that people who oppose new developments should bear in mind the moral case for more housing.

Previously:

"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."

Seems like you need to make your mind up what you actually want to say. Either these "people who oppose" just need to bear in mind the moral case for new housing or they need to shut up altogether and stop making the world worse.

Imagine this: people might exist who are aware of the need for more housing but also want to protect the amenity of existing housing - mind blowing!

 

[nagapie]

It would, just not in the way that you think.

Remember that people move around from area to area. people also change tenure. Some renters buy a home, and some owner occupiers sell their home and rent. Maybe not you, but other people do. Everyone who moves into a home leaves another home somewhere else. And someone else moves into that home, and so on. It's obvious, right. When people move into a new home they might move into one slightly more expensive than the one moved out of. It's often called the 'property ladder'. So when large expensive houses are built at the top of the 'property ladder' it reduces the price of large expensive houses, and then all the people in slightly less large expensive houses can move up the ladder, and then the people on slightly less expensive houses than them can move up, and so on and so on. Eventually there is less demand for the very smallest cheapest housing, and hence prices will fall. All house building, no matter the tenure, helps reduce the price of all housing.

If everyone in London could agree to build more housing, then we'd all be much better off. All of us. Rich people, poor people and those in between.

The proposed development looks nothing more than a way to line developers pockets to me.
All the housing built locally is unaffordable.
This eventually you talk about is the capitalist dream, it's got us into a big hole so far.

 

[pbsmooth]

It does seem a bit unclear what’s wrong with these flats. Some are saying it’s luxury housing some are saying it’s dormitory housing for young people (cheap housing presumably).
It isn’t higher than nearby developments. The immediate area already has lots of tower blocks. It’s smaller than the estates nearby.
The owners may well be arseholes, aren’t they all, but in the grand scheme of inner London development this doesn’t seem a particularly bad one but I’m prepared to be enlightened.

 

[Tulster218]

Previously:

"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."

Seems like you need to make your mind up what you actually want to say. Either these "people who oppose" just need to bear in mind the moral case for new housing or they need to shut up altogether and stop making the world worse.

Imagine this: people might exist who are aware of the need for more housing but also want to protect the amenity of existing housing - mind blowing!

You're so dramatic.

I'm saying that most people only consider how it affects them, and don't give any consideration to the wider benefits of more housing. If they did this then there would be much less opposition.

 

[Tulster218]

The proposed development looks nothing more than a way to line developers pockets to me.

This is how building development (and all commerce) works.

All the housing built locally is unaffordable.

Someone will buy it, and move out of a home somewhere else. People trade up and trade down and move around. All new housing benefits everyone eventually.

This eventually you talk about is the capitalist dream, it's got us into a big hole so far.

No. London is about the sixth most successful city in the world. People literally risk their lives to move here. It's a great city, but we need more housing.

 

[nagapie]

This is how building development (and all commerce) works.


Someone will buy it, and move out of a home somewhere else. People trade up and trade down and move around. All new housing benefits everyone eventually.


No. London is about the sixth most successful city in the world. People literally risk their lives to move here. It's a great city, but we need more housing.

The UK has the sixth largest economy in the world yet about a third of the capital's children live in poverty, of which poor housing is an indicator. That's success by your standards.
This development does nothing to address that.

 

[teuchter]

It isn’t higher than nearby developments. The immediate area already has lots of tower blocks. It’s smaller than the estates nearby.

It is higher than all of its immediate neighbours except the one highest tower on the brand new development on the other side of the railway tracks which is of an unprecedented height for the broader area (it's substantially the highest building for quite some distance around). It's direct neighbours are all 4 storeys high maximum and it's 14 storeys high.

Not sure what you mean by "smaller than the estates nearby".

I'm not going to bother opposing it on height grounds - this is just the new reality now, planning policy has changed and sites like these are considered ok for tall buildings whereas they certainly wouldn't have been 15 years ago.

But it's wrong to say it's not a substantially bigger building than has ever been the norm for the area (until, literally, within the last year or so as the Higgs tower has gone up).

Loughborough Junction is getting a mini-cluster of towers, which will sit in the midst of a wide area of generally 4-5 storey (or lower) buildings. There'll be another one on the corner of Herne Hill Rd / Coldharbour Lane opposite the station, whenever Sureways decides to sell up.

What's not happening is any investment in the transport infrastructure it's being built around...not even a lift for Loughborough Junction station.

 

[pbsmooth]

Not sure what you mean by "smaller than the estates nearby".

I'm not going to bother opposing it on height grounds - this is just the new reality now, planning policy has changed and sites like these are considered ok for tall buildings whereas they certainly wouldn't have been 15 years ago.

But it's wrong to say it's not a substantially bigger building than has ever been the norm for the area (until, literally, within the last year or so as the Higgs tower has gone up).

The Loughborough Estate has towers 11 storeys high and was built 70 years ago?

 

[teuchter]

The Loughborough Estate has towers 11 storeys high and was built 70 years ago?

I don't consider that the "immediate area".

They are also a completely different form of development - they are high-ish buildings but set with a lot of open space between them. This proposal has zero open space adjacent (except for the railway tracks) and is crammed right next to Victorian terrace houses. And it's several storeys higher.

Those post-war developments like the Loughborough estate - they involved knocking down rows and rows of terrace houses but they would clear a wide area and start from scratch, with a mixture of high and low rise, but generally with a lot of space between the higher buildings. There are plenty of arguments to be had about how successful that approach was ... But it's not really a precedent for this. This is applying the city-centre, densely packed high rise approach and it's new for neighbourhoods like LJ.

 

[Crispy]

I don't consider that the "immediate area".

They are also a completely different form of development - they are high-ish buildings but set with a lot of open space between them. This proposal has zero open space adjacent (except for the railway tracks) and is crammed right next to Victorian terrace houses. And it's several storeys higher.

Those post-war developments like the Loughborough estate - they involved knocking down rows and rows of terrace houses but they would clear a wide area and start from scratch, with a mixture of high and low rise, but generally with a lot of space between the higher buildings. There are plenty of arguments to be had about how successful that approach was ... But it's not really a precedent for this. This is applying the city-centre, densely packed high rise approach and it's new for neighbourhoods like LJ.

It's an appropriate density for somewhere this close to the centre of the city (ref: our discussion of Berlin on the Dulwich Hamlet thread the other day)

But the public realm and transport system have to be able to support it, and htere's no sign of any of that. The station desperately needs a major overhaul.

 

[Maggot]

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.

That's worked really well so far.

 

[Gramsci]

It does seem a bit unclear what’s wrong with these flats. Some are saying it’s luxury housing some are saying it’s dormitory housing for young people (cheap housing presumably).
It isn’t higher than nearby developments. The immediate area already has lots of tower blocks. It’s smaller than the estates nearby.
The owners may well be arseholes, aren’t they all, but in the grand scheme of inner London development this doesn’t seem a particularly bad one but I’m prepared to be enlightened.

It's not cheap housing. At the presentation I went to one of the things they said was that it was aimed at young professionals. So no its not going to be cheap.

Unfortunately the developer/ architect made comments about how this sort of person they were trying to attract would be good for the area. Which was a red rag to a bull for me.

It will also contain no affordable housing element.

As these co living schemes for some reason don't have to. Payment can be in lieu. This isn't building mixed communities

 

[Gramsci]

Developers have realised that cramming more units in under the trendy sounding name of co living is potentially profitable.

 

[Gramsci]

Have you actually read any of this planning application?

I forgot I believe Tulster218 has me on ignore as I didn't take to his libertarian ayn rand capitalism.

This thread has been taken up with Tulstar painting people who in the slightest believe in planning as Bolsheviks who will destroy this country with their narrow minded authoritarian views .

If only entrepreneurs could have a free hand and the free market will sort everything out. The trouble with this country is it is held back by middle class nimbys and "socialists" putting a break on enterprise

 

[Gramsci]

Be helpful if at least more than one two on posting here actually read the application.

And it's not taken up by Tulstar posts

 

[WouldBe]

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

Some of those 'flats' would just about fit in my living room and my house is a mid-terrace.

 

[pbsmooth]

It's not cheap housing. At the presentation I went to one of the things they said was that it was aimed at young professionals. So no its not going to be cheap.

Unfortunately the developer/ architect made comments about how this sort of person they were trying to attract would be good for the area. Which was a red rag to a bull for me.

It will also contain no affordable housing element.

As these co living schemes for some reason don't have to. Payment can be in lieu. This isn't building mixed communities

but the planning is those weird studio units. it won't be 'cheap' in real money but by Brixton/London standards this is clearly more affordable housing than the usual, which is why they're so small!

reading the plans and this thread, not sure I see much issue with this tbh.

 

[pbsmooth]

I don't consider that the "immediate area".

They are also a completely different form of development - they are high-ish buildings but set with a lot of open space between them. This proposal has zero open space adjacent (except for the railway tracks) and is crammed right next to Victorian terrace houses. And it's several storeys higher.

Those post-war developments like the Loughborough estate - they involved knocking down rows and rows of terrace houses but they would clear a wide area and start from scratch, with a mixture of high and low rise, but generally with a lot of space between the higher buildings. There are plenty of arguments to be had about how successful that approach was ... But it's not really a precedent for this. This is applying the city-centre, densely packed high rise approach and it's new for neighbourhoods like LJ.

I disagree. it's a good area to build this sort of housing. I agree local facilities should improve but that's true in lots of areas in London already, so not a reason to not build or we'd never get any new housing.

 

[teuchter]

I disagree. it's a good area to build this sort of housing. I agree local facilities should improve but that's true in lots of areas in London already, so not a reason to not build or we'd never get any new housing.

I've not actually said it's good or bad. Just that it is unprecedented in this location.

 

[MickiQ]

It strikes me as co-living isn't really meant to supply housing as to supply somewhere to put a workforce as cheaply and profitably as possible. It's fine for students to live like this since they (for the most part) will have parents who will continue to warehouse their stuff whilst they are away and of course they are working towards an end date. Expecting people past their early twenties to live like this doesn't strike me as attractive. Once you start work you want to start acquiring interests and associated stuff and keep that stuff close to hand. (and that stuff/interests might very well include a partner with their own interests/stuff). It would have been a lot better if these blocks were built as a mix of 1 and 2 bed flats so the inhabitants could start thinking in terms of the future rather than just the present but of course if all you care about is warehousing workers rather than providing somewhere for people to live then you can get a lot more of them into the same space with co-living,

 

[teuchter]

It strikes me as co-living isn't really meant to supply housing as to supply somewhere to put a workforce as cheaply and profitably as possible. It's fine for students to live like this since they (for the most part) will have parents who will continue to warehouse their stuff whilst they are away and of course they are working towards an end date. Expecting people past their early twenties to live like this doesn't strike me as attractive. Once you start work you want to start acquiring interests and associated stuff and keep that stuff close to hand. (and that stuff/interests might very well include a partner with their own interests/stuff). It would have been a lot better if these blocks were built as a mix of 1 and 2 bed flats so the inhabitants could start thinking in terms of the future rather than just the present but of course if all you care about is warehousing workers rather than providing somewhere for people to live then you can get a lot more of them into the same space with co-living,

Pretty common for people to rent a room in a shared house well into their 30s and beyond, in London. In that scenario you don't have much space for "stuff" either. For many people, this co-living model might be more attractive. Especially as remote working becomes more commonplace.

 

[WouldBe]

Pretty common for people to rent a room in a shared house well into their 30s and beyond, in London. In that scenario you don't have much space for "stuff" either. For many people, this co-living model might be more attractive. Especially as remote working becomes more commonplace.

Don't see how. They are little more than bedsits with barely room to put a desk let alone things like wardrobes.

 

[MickiQ]

Pretty common for people to rent a room in a shared house well into their 30s and beyond, in London. In that scenario you don't have much space for "stuff" either. For many people, this co-living model might be more attractive. Especially as remote working becomes more commonplace.

I know it is but that doesn't make it a good thing, My sister's son who is 33 (the same age as my own) returned from London to Crewe last year after living in a room in a shared house for a decade and finally realising that he would never be able to get on the housing ladder no matter how hard he worked or saved. He has effectively had to return back to live with his Mum and Stepdad and start all over again.

 

[teuchter]

They are not smaller than a typical bedroom in a shared house in a typical victorian terrace.

They will be warmer and better soundproofed, you get your own bathroom and some minimal cooking facilities, plus you can use the communal spaces in the building. You'd not be subject to the whims of non-professional private landlords nor have to engage in negotiations with housemates, worry when a room is vacant if you are renting jointly and so on. The shared house model will suit some people better, and this kind of model will suit some other people better. Yes of course it's rubbish that owning/renting one's own place is out of reach of so many people now. Refusing to provide things for people in that position isn't going to solve that problem. If it's wrong to provide this kind of accommodation then should we also disallow the renting of shared houses, HMOs and bedsits?

There are plenty of slum landlords in LJ renting out very poor quality housing.