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

[WouldBe]

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

My living room, dining room and 2 bedrooms in my Victorian mid terrace are 16M^2 each. If you then take out room for a bathroom and basic cooking facilities there's barely enough room left for a sofa bed let alone things like wardrobes and you think you could squeeze a WFH desk in as well.

 

[teuchter]

My living room, dining room and 2 bedrooms in my Victorian mid terrace are 16M^2 each. If you then take out room for a bathroom and basic cooking facilities there's barely enough room left for a sofa bed let alone things like wardrobes and you think you could squeeze a WFH desk in as well.

These units seem to vary in size between 20 and 30m2. You can probably subtract about 4m2 for the bathrooms.

As I said, not smaller than a typical bedroom in a Victorian mid terrace, which is what you commonly get in a house share.

 

[WouldBe]

These units seem to vary in size between 20 and 30m2. You can probably subtract about 4m2 for the bathrooms.

Some of the ones on the above plans are less than 16M^2.

I suppose you could always put in one of those child's bunk beds with a desk underneath.

 

[teuchter]

Some of the ones on the above plans are less than 16M^2.

I suppose you could always put in one of those child's bunk beds with a desk underneath.

Smallest I can see is 18m2.

 

[WouldBe]

Smallest I can see is 18m2.

Must have misread it. I thought the smallest was only 15.8M^2.

Even still 18M^2 - your estimated 4M^2 for the bathroom leaves only 14M^2 for everything else.

 

[teuchter]

Here's a terrace house on nearby Wingmore Rd. Happens to be on Rightmove just now. Fairly typical layout.

Bedroom sizes
3.63x4.42 = 16m2
3.46x4.66 = 16m2
3.12x3.41 = 10.5m2

 

[WouldBe]

Here's a terrace house on nearby Wingmore Rd. Happens to be on Rightmove just now. Fairly typical layout.

Bedroom sizes
3.63x4.42 = 16m2
3.46x4.66 = 16m2
3.12x3.41 = 10.5m2

View attachment 412193

And they don't have a bathroom taken out of them.

 

[nottsgirl]

How many people share the communal spaces?

 

[Crispy]

How many people share the communal spaces?

All 320

 

[nottsgirl]

All 320

That’s a bit different to living in a flat share. Effectively your only private space is your room. In a house or flat share you might have private space shared with 2/3 other people.

 

[MickiQ]

Youngest Q's bedroom (here) is 17.9m2 (just worked it out) and that contains a fitted wardrobe that takes up one entire wall, a single bed, a desk and chair, a free standing set of four drawers, a small bedside set of 3 drawers and an ottoman with a padded top that seems to contain mostly shoes. The only thing it doesn't currently contain is Youngest Q herself who is in a much smaller room in a house she shares with 6 other students. She is careful what clothes she takes with her over term time, when she comes home for the holidays she rotates her summer/winter/autumn wardrobe by selecting clothes she'll want for the next term and leaving things like winter clothing here. She gets on well with the other 6 girls but does complain about lack of privacy and storage space sometimes. Visualizing her room with a bathroom which will be tiny (a shower cubicle with a slimline khazi and small sink and no cupboards) laid over it I can imagine a separate bed would have to go and be replaced with a fold out sofa. The mini-kitchen is going to be one worktop with a fridge under, a cupboard over, a kettle and a microwave. Probably have to use the sink in the bathroom.
There's also a lot of things that a person living in such a room would have to store somewhere, what about spare bedding? There is a spare set in the airing cupboard that doesn't eat into her room allowance, she keeps her coats and some footwear in the hallway. In her current lodgings she share 2 fridges with the others and trusts them enough to leave her coat and her beloved Doc Martens by the front door. In a building with 320 other people you would have to keep everything in your room since you can't possibly get the same degree of connection with such a large group.

 

[Jimbeau]

Brixton co-living 90 years ago?

 

[MickiQ]

Here's a terrace house on nearby Wingmore Rd. Happens to be on Rightmove just now. Fairly typical layout.

Bedroom sizes
3.63x4.42 = 16m2
3.46x4.66 = 16m2
3.12x3.41 = 10.5m2

View attachment 412193

That wouldn't suit me, at my age I would need a potty in the bedroom since I'm not coming downstairs for a pee twice a night.
But that is plenty of space for a couple or a family with 1 or 2 kids.
There's even space for Wfh if they stick a desk in one corner of the big room on the ground floor. It's accommodation of this size they should be building not a glorified barracks

 

[teuchter]

That wouldn't suit me, at my age I would need a potty in the bedroom since I'm not coming downstairs for a pee twice a night.
But that is plenty of space for a couple or a family with 1 or 2 kids.
There's even space for Wfh if they stick a desk in one corner of the big room on the ground floor. It's accommodation of this size they should be building not a glorified barracks

Why?

 

[MickiQ]

Why?

Why what?

 

[teuchter]

Why what?

Why should they be building 3 bedroom houses, instead of co-living units, on this site?

 

[nagapie]

Why should they be building 3 bedroom houses, instead of co-living units, on this site?

Because there is a shortage of family housing in the area to the extent that so many families are leaving London that the schools are closing down and many who remain live in unsuitable housing such as a 4 person family in a one bedroom flat.

 

[teuchter]

Because there is a shortage of family housing in the area to the extent that so many families are leaving London that the schools are closing down and many who remain live in unsuitable housing such as a 4 person family in a one bedroom flat.

But there's also a demand for housing for young single people. Many of those people currently live in bedsits and house-shares, occupying housing stock that could instead be used for families.

 

[MickiQ]

Why should they be building 3 bedroom houses, instead of co-living units, on this site?

Not houses flats, I'm cool with the building itself but believe it should be laid out as a mixture of 1, 2 and 3 bed flats (say 60/30/10 as a proportion, I'm sure someone can come up with a better ratio as needed) Unlike some posters I'm not arsed if there isn't the token 10% affordable housing included since I think that isn't so much a solution to the housing crisis in the bottom rungs of society as an attempt to conceal it and pretend it doesn't really exist, there are better ways of tackling that.
Building flats of different sizes will eventually become a community of young people/couples/families even older individuals with all the social benefits (Mum is just going to leave you with the nice Mrs Jones for 10 mins whilst she pops out DON'T give her any trouble) that will result from that. And of course even with properly self-contained flats there is no reason why there can't be some common spaces such as a gym, a cafe, a work area with desks and free tea/coffee or even a pool.
Co-living offers none of that it is literally just somewhere workers can be stored when they're not working. You might get to know a couple on your floor nearby but 320 single people is never going to be any kind of community. Taking my own daughter as an example once more I know she works on her laptop on the kitchen table confident that one of her 6 housemates won't nick it if she needs a pee, in a common room where 320 strangers have access she would either have to take it the khazi or only use it in her room.

But there's also a demand for housing for young single people. Many of those people currently live in bedsits and house-shares, occupying housing stock that could instead be used for families.

Yes but this isn't offering them something better is it? It's just offering them more of the same but without the friendships and relationships they can build in bedsits and house-shares.

 

[editor]

Brixton co-living 90 years ago?

Now being fucked over by Lexadon.

 

[teuchter]

Not houses flats, I'm cool with the building itself but believe it should be laid out as a mixture of 1, 2 and 3 bed flats (say 60/30/10 as a proportion, I'm sure someone can come up with a better ratio as needed) Unlike some posters I'm not arsed if there isn't the token 10% affordable housing included since I think that isn't so much a solution to the housing crisis in the bottom rungs of society as an attempt to conceal it and pretend it doesn't really exist, there are better ways of tackling that.
Building flats of different sizes will eventually become a community of young people/couples/families even older individuals with all the social benefits (Mum is just going to leave you with the nice Mrs Jones for 10 mins whilst she pops out DON'T give her any trouble) that will result from that. And of course even with properly self-contained flats there is no reason why there can't be some common spaces such as a gym, a cafe, a work area with desks and free tea/coffee or even a pool.
Co-living offers none of that it is literally just somewhere workers can be stored when they're not working. You might get to know a couple on your floor nearby but 320 single people is never going to be any kind of community. Taking my own daughter as an example once more I know she works on her laptop on the kitchen table confident that one of her 6 housemates won't nick it if she needs a pee, in a common room where 320 strangers have access she would either have to take it the khazi or only use it in her room.

Yes but this isn't offering them something better is it? It's just offering them more of the same but without the friendships and relationships they can build in bedsits and house-shares.

As I've now said several times, the co-living model will suit some people best; the house or flat-share model will suit others best. I don't think developers would be building it if there wasn't a demand - ie. people that would prefer this to other options.

You can write about all the positive things that can come out of a development of flats of different sizes (which is what the larger development the other side of the viaduct is) - you don't need to explain this to me, I'm aware of the pros and cons of different types of development, the question is whether there's an argument that we should be building one housing type rather than another. A development of 1/2/3 bed flats doesn't provide any housing for those people who are single, can't afford a 1-bed flat, and don't want to live in a house-share.

And I don't think a mix of 1/2/3 bed flats and also some type of co-living arrangement would really work on this site; it's not such a big site and I can see that the co-living arrangement works best at a certain scale, that is, enough individual units to justify a decent amount of communal facilities.

Essentially the decision, borough or London-wide, about how much of each housing type should be built needs to be made at that level, that is at borough or city-wide planning policy level.

Unless you think that zero amount of this type of co-living housing should be built in London, then the argument has to be why that type of housing shouldn't be built in this specific site. Is there some reason that this specific site is an unsuitable one for a co-living development? I don't see that there is. On the contrary (living pretty close to the site and knowing its context very well) I can see arguments about why it's better suited to co-living than family housing.

 

[Gramsci]

From going to the developers open evening this co living is not aimed at students or working class people.

It's aimed at young professionals. Which as I've said the developer at the open evening thought was reason to support the development.

Ignoring the class based assumptions behind this it is not going to be cheap.

Another point of view is that if middle class young professionals can't afford a proper flat in London then something is wrong with housing in London.

I now a young couple both are relatively good money whose landlord decided to just up their rent by 20percnt. They spent ages looking for somewhere else. And told me a lot of it when viewed was in poor condition despite the high rental price. And several times they were told to make decision on the spot. As others were after it.

Their are numerous things wrong with the private rented sector.

Main one is that all the power is in landlords hands. Not the renters.


Do I think this proposed development is good for the site in LJ. No.

Are their worse properties in area? Yes.

Do I want to make life difficult for developers? Yes

This co living development isn't for benefit of area or renters. It's about maximising the rental income from a small site.

 

[teuchter]

From going to the developers open evening this co living is not aimed at students or working class people.

It's aimed at young professionals. Which as I've said the developer at the open evening thought was reason to support the development.

Ignoring the class based assumptions behind this it is not going to be cheap.

Another point of view is that if middle class young professionals can't afford a proper flat in London then something is wrong with housing in London.

I now a young couple both are relatively good money whose landlord decided to just up their rent by 20percnt. They spent ages looking for somewhere else. And told me a lot of it when viewed was in poor condition despite the high rental price. And several times they were told to make decision on the spot. As others were after it.

Their are numerous things wrong with the private rented sector.

Main one is that all the power is in landlords hands. Not the renters.


Do I think this proposed development is good for the site in LJ. No.

Are their worse properties in area? Yes.

Do I want to make life difficult for developers? Yes

This co living development isn't for benefit of area or renters. It's about maximising the rental income from a small site.

So, the question is, what is your suggested response to the planning application and what do you aim for it to achieve?

When I say response to the planning application, I mean a specific response that can be made as part of the planning application process, rather than a statement of general opinion.

 

[editor]

I think it might be worth reposting this link. The planning process is completely stacked against local residents.

How to object to a planning application – an essential guide to getting your voice heard

With developers pushing through huge changes to the Brixton landscape and Lambeth Council doing very little to engage local residents in these hugely important decisions, it’s never been so i…

www.brixtonbuzz.com

 

[Jimbeau]

Now being fucked over by Lexadon.

I didn’t know that. I saw that they bought the Quadrangle in HH last year. Do they have Tudor Close too now?

 

[editor]

I didn’t know that. I saw that they bought the Quadrangle in HH last year. Do they have Tudor Close too now?

Ah, my mistake. I thought it was the Quadrangle.

 

[Gramsci]

So, the question is, what is your suggested response to the planning application and what do you aim for it to achieve?

When I say response to the planning application, I mean a specific response that can be made as part of the planning application process, rather than a statement of general opinion.

You as well as I know planning isn't set up to give much of a say.

Planning is at best s slight hindrance to developers.

Even though people like Tulster218 think planning is the problem.

It would have been better if this land had been protected for light industrial use.

As you know we don't have a master plan for LJ as the officers didn't get their way on the playground so didn't finish it.

I think the loss of light industrial space to be replaced by blocks of flats with " workspace" below isn't a great idea. It's not workspace that can be used for much.

But there you go.

Unlike the free market libertarian Tulstar I think planning should go further.

In my experience of planning over the years it's heavily weighted in favour of developers.

I also think general comments are worth putting in.

Our elected representatives should get this

I'm also against this idea that only those who scrutinise every detail of an application and look for every tiny bit of planning rules to object are only those whose comments are worth acknowledging.

Planners and Cllrs on committee should look at residents comments and question an application. Including local feeling.

To often I see planning officers basically decide on an application and push planning committee to accept it.

As happened with Hondo tower.

This is not imo how local democracy should work.

 

[JSR]

I attended the developer's presentation for this planning application and understood that the aim was to rent to young professionals. None of the units are for sale. It sounded a bit like an upmarket very expensive Premier Inn. When I asked about the volume of new residents on existing infrastructure I was informed that tenants wouldn't be making any demands on the local area and wouldn't need local facilities such as a GP or school because they are young and healthy and single and wouldn't be spending any time in the area apart from getting on the train to go to work. Much was being made of the proximity to LJ station and there was no recognition of the impending impact of the recent massive Higgs triangle development.

It was explained to me that the 'co-living' concept means that the individual units could be smaller than the normal requirement because they don't need proper cooking facilities due to being able to cook in a communal area in the building if they felt like it. They were rather vague about how that worked.

No landscaping or outside amenity was required to be provided, except a roof terrace along the south side of the 12th floor.

I was confidently assured by one of the representatives that the height (14-16 storeys) and the bulk, (running the length of Wanless Rd which is terraced family homes - many of which are social housing properties), would not affect local resident's light or privacy.

It would great if anyone can advise in this forum on the key ways to object. I don't really appreciate people who are not going to be affected by this development making nimby kind of comments - see how you would feel if this massive development is built alongside your home, bringing zero benefit or involvement in your community and blocking off all sight of the sky; whilst possibly being overlooked by multiple people glumly staring out of their windows. I doubt any of us LJ residents are against housing being built but this is not an investment in the area at all, from what I can tell

 

[JSR]

I think it might be worth reposting this link. The planning process is completely stacked against local residents.

How to object to a planning application – an essential guide to getting your voice heard

With developers pushing through huge changes to the Brixton landscape and Lambeth Council doing very little to engage local residents in these hugely important decisions, it’s never been so i…

www.brixtonbuzz.com

Thank you very much for this - I hadn't looked at before I just wrote my post - this is really helpful

 

[CH1]

Brixton co-living 90 years ago?

some positive reminisces of Tudor Close here, but by all account spacious grounds, gardens etc. Hardly a London vernacular sardine job.