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

[Jimbeau]

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

Striking similarities in many ways though. 25m2 studios designed for rental to young singles, in a complex with communal facilities. In the 1920s these took the form of a restaurant, swimming pool and tennis courts rather than a gym, laundry and roof terrace.

This thread makes me think of Kibwe Tavares and his short film Robots of Brixton from a few years back. He's just directed a new movie with Daniel Kaluuya called The Kitchen which appeared on Netflix last week - similar themes again. Very much worth a watch. Great cast, including Kano and Ian Wright, among others.

 

[Rushy]

Striking similarities in many ways though. 25m2 studios designed for rental to young singles, in a complex with communal facilities. In the 1920s these took the form of a restaurant, swimming pool and tennis courts rather than a gym, laundry and roof terrace.

This thread makes me think of Kibwe Tavares and his short film Robots of Brixton from a few years back. He's just directed a new movie with Daniel Kaluuya called The Kitchen which appeared on Netflix last week - similar themes again. Very much worth a watch. Great cast, including Kano and Ian Wright, among others.

Oh! Thanks for that. I had not made the connection.

 

[CH1]

Striking similarities in many ways though. 25m2 studios designed for rental to young singles, in a complex with communal facilities. In the 1920s these took the form of a restaurant, swimming pool and tennis courts rather than a gym, laundry and roof terrace.

This thread makes me think of Kibwe Tavares and his short film Robots of Brixton from a few years back. He's just directed a new movie with Daniel Kaluuya called The Kitchen which appeared on Netflix last week - similar themes again. Very much worth a watch. Great cast, including Kano and Ian Wright, among others.

The film was brilliant. Thanks for recommending it.
I had forgotten there is a much more local development for young singles - Iveagh House in Loughborough Road was designed for single young ladies pursuing occupations such as secretaries/typists in the civil service. Built by the Guinness Trust 1952. It had a restaurant and 166 small flats.
Can't find any suitably opulent photos right now - but it seems that in the last 70 years the block has changed (probably due to local authority nominating rights) to one with single women with families - and if you Google it there are the usual horror stories in the South London Mercury about mould, collapsing ceilings etc.
Clearly what was fit for working single women with no kids out all day eating in the restaurant is not fit for family use and heavy duty cooking etc.

In a way I asked this sort of question of the design in for Hardess Street. Will the design stand up to all eventualities?

 

[Gramsci]

Been looking at the planning application.

They are very long and tedious.

This one in particular.

Reading some of the planning statements and records the meetings with planners.

There is a Lambeth site allocation development plan (draft ) for this site. Site 22

Recommends self contained residential accommodation with some social housing. Along with workspace.

So this scheme does not provide the housing in site allocation plan.

This site has PTAL rating of 3. This is how well connected it is to public transport. Scheme like this should have rating of 4 / 5

Long discussions with planners on this. With developer criticising the underlying methodology of PTAL rating. Developer thinks people should walk cycle more. PTAL is based on transport like access to trains. Nice of developer to support green modes of transport to overcome this problem.

Developer is pushing it putting a scheme like this with transport links of LJ

I notice developer is saying they would support section 106 money going to lift at LJ station.

So they know this is a problem.

Discussions with planners over design revolved around this being to slab like block next to low rise Victorian housing. Sounds like they have tweaked the design.

But it's height and proximity to a different streetscape is an issue.

Discussion of amenity space on site came up more than once

So Id say PTAL rating/ not following the draft site plan are possible planning issues to comment on

A development like this needs to be in area of PTAL 4/5. Criticising the methodology of PTAL just dies not cut it.

Also the height / design/ proximity to low rise streetscape is an issue. But a value judgement rather than specific issue.

In the meetings with planners the most sceptical ( to my surprise) were Lambeth planners. Not GLA.

I notice there have been a lot of meetings with a Design Review Panel. Clearly high building like this is difficult to design in a site like this

 

[Gramsci]

Only have until 27th February to put in comments.

I do find this to short.

There are loads of planning application documents.

I don't have time to go through.

I tend to look for a planting statement doc. As it has summary of main info

 

[Gramsci]

Been looking at the comments already made

Lot about more people increasing pressure on services. Such as transport in particular.

With several saying transport services should be upgraded before new residential housing. A lift at LJ station.

People also comment that at peak times the station is already very full.

Several comments say there is no social housing in this proposed development

 

[teuchter]

Only have until 27th February to put in comments.

I do find this to short.

There are loads of planning application documents.

I don't have time to go through.

I tend to look for a planting statement doc. As it has summary of main info

Gramsci the design statement is on the planning website in multiple parts (which makes it very awkward to read) but I have a copy with them assembled together into a single document. I can try and upload it if you like.

I agree there is not really enough time to comment properly on what is quite a large proposal.

 

[teuchter]

There is a Lambeth site allocation development plan (draft ) for this site. Site 22

Yes. Lambeth have already earmarked this site for a high rise development and for certain use types. This draft plan is still in "consultation" but they seem to be treating as if it's already been adopted as policy - which it hasn't.

Something similar happened with the Higgs application - it clearly didn't comply with density requirements in the London Plan but that was dismissed as an object because the then draft london plan said something different. They talked about it as "emerging policy" or something like that. Doesn't seem right to me - either something is policy yet or it isn't.

 

[Gramsci]

The draft Lambeth planning document for site 22

Vision: Proposed Site 22: 1 & 3–11 Wellfit Street, 7–9 Hinton Road &
Units 1–4 Hardess Street SE24
Redevelopment of this site presents an opportunity to provide new, purpose-built
light industrial accommodation in an accessible location close to Loughborough
Junction local centre and transport links and within the Brixton Creative
Enterprise Zone. This will offer ‘maker-space’ for small and growing businesses,
particularly in the creative and digital industries, in a location where many
businesses of this type already exist. There is potential for this to be provided
as part of a sustainable, mixed-use development with new housing, including
affordable housing, to complement that on the adjacent Higgs site and contribute
to Loughborough Junction as a residential neighbourhood.
A well-designed, locally distinctive scheme will enhance townscape and improve
pedestrian access and the public realm around and through the site, with
potential to connect to Loughborough Junction’s other characteristic yards and
railway viaducts.

 

[Gramsci]

Lambeth Local Plan says this:

Policy H13: Large-scale purpose-built shared living

A. Development proposals for large-scale purpose-built shared living will be
supported where they meet both the requirements of London Plan policy
H16 and the following additional Lambeth-specific requirements:
i. each private unit includes at least 15m2
functional living space separate
from the communal facilities;
ii. communal space meets the minimum requirements for houses in
multiple occupation;
iii. the location has good or excellent public transport accessibility and is
well-served by local services; and
iv. includes a management plan that, to the satisfaction of the Council, will
appropriately mitigate potential harm to residential amenity

B. A development proposal for large-scale purpose-built shared living will not
be permitted where:
i. it would result in the loss of existing self-contained residential
accommodation (C3);
ii. it is proposed on a site allocated or protected for other uses;
iii. it is proposed on a site with an extant planning permission for C3
housing; and/or
iv. it would result in an over-concentration of similar uses, including
purpose-built student accommodation, which may be detrimental to
the balance and mix of uses in the area or place undue pressure on
local infrastructure.
C. Affordable housing contributions should be made in accordance with
London Plan policy H16 in the form of a single upfront payment to Lambeth
based on 50 per cent discount to market value of 35 per cent of the units
(or 50 per cent of the units where the London Plan threshold applies), to be
secured through a section 106 legal agreement.

Supporting text

5.101 In Lambeth, large-scale purpose-built shared living developments are generally
considered to consist of at least 30 non-self-contained units.
5.102 Given the very high density nature of this type of accommodation, proposals
should be located in parts of the borough with good or excellent public
transport accessibility levels and well-served by local services. An appropriate
management plan will be required to mitigate potential harm to neighbouring
residents and monitoring of this plan will be secured as a planning obligation.
Car and cycle parking standards set out in the London Plan and Local Plan
policies T7 and T3 will also apply.
5.103 Large-scale purpose-built shared living schemes may be able to help meet
housing need among single-person households in Lambeth by adding to the
stock of rooms available for rent in the borough.
5.104 15m2
is the minimum personal living space considered acceptable in a large-
scale purpose-built shared living development in Lambeth. A smaller area
per person would not provide an adequate living environment for the health
and well-being of people in the borough. Each personal room should include
windows to provide natural daylight. Community space should meet the
minimum standards expected of houses in multiple occupation (including
at least one set of cooking facilities for every 2-5 persons and two sets for
every 6-10 persons). Storage space should be provided in both private and
communal areas.
5.105 Proposals for large-scale purpose-built shared living should not compromise
delivery of self-contained housing to meet Lambeth’s London Plan housing
target. When considering whether a proposal for large-scale purpose-built
shared living would compromise capacity to meet the need for conventional
dwellings in the borough the council will have regard to:
• whether a proposal would displace existing C3 residential accommodation
• whether a site has been identified in the London SHLAA and/or Local Plan
housing trajectory as having capacity for conventional housing
• whether a site has an extant planning permission for C3 housing
5.106 Several schemes of this nature in close proximity, and/or in proximity with
student housing schemes, could adversely affect the mix and balance of
population in a neighbourhood or result in particular local pressures on
services and infrastructure given their very high-density characteristics. The
policy therefore would not support proposals with potential to result in an
over-concentration of such uses in a neighbourhood. Over-concentration,
including purpose-built student accommodation, will be assessed on a
case by case basis, having regard to the location of the site and local
circumstances. Generally two uses of this nature, including purpose-built
student accommodation, will not be permitted on adjacent sites

 

[Gramsci]

So this proposed development does not meet Lambeth requirement A iii

iii. the location has good or excellent public transport accessibility and is
well-served by local services; and

The developers says this can be made up by "active travel" ( cycling / walking) and that the site is adjacent to area with higher PTAL rating. Also the developer does not agree with the methodology of PTAL ratings.

The Lambeth Local Plan is clear its not about active travel. The requirement is public transport.

I think this is planning issue backed up by Lambeth own planning requirements

Accepting this proposal in a lower PTAL area on basis of "active travel" sets a precedent for any future schemes of this kind in other parts of Lambeth and should be resisted by planning committee. As it weakens already agreed planning guideline set out in Local Plan

The PTAL rating for this site is 3. Adjacent sites are 4/5

So this site is not rated good/ excellent

 

[Ruskin25]

One of the reasons they criticise the PTAL methodology is that Denmark Hill station is just outside the PTAL walking radius from the site. They are effectively saying “people can just walk an extra five minutes and they’ll be able to use that station too”. However they don’t mention the fact (probably because they are not aware) that Ruskin Park closes at sunset so for half the year it would actually be a much longer walk around the park to get to Denmark Hill.

 

[teuchter]

One of the reasons they criticise the PTAL methodology is that Denmark Hill station is just outside the PTAL walking radius from the site. They are effectively saying “people can just walk an extra five minutes and they’ll be able to use that station too”. However they don’t mention the fact (probably because they are not aware) that Ruskin Park closes at sunset so for half the year it would actually be a much longer walk around the park to get to Denmark Hill.

Yup. The previous application made the same error and it was pointed out at the time.

I wish we could have an after-hours walking route through the park. It's been discussed in the past. There are actually street lights along the path that runs along the bottom edge of the park but they are all broken.

 

[Gramsci]

Here is from page 24 of planning statement the developers reasoning about the PTAL.

7.12 The site has a PTAL rating of 3, equivalent to a ‘moderate’ level of accessibility to public transport services.
However, it is considered that the PTAL rating underplays the true accessibility of the site, partly due to the
inherent limitations of the PTAL methodology (e.g., the arbitrary walk distances it assumes), but also the fact
that the PTAL rating only takes into account public transport modes i.e., it does not include journeys solely by
active modes or the destinations accessible by those modes. Several discussions have taken place in
relation to this during pre-application discussions and both the GLA and Lambeth itself acknowledge the
good level of accessibility the site has. Lambeth Officers also commented now the site borders PTAL 4 and 5.
This predominately relates to the excellent bus and cycle link available from the site towards central London
and the availability to utilise Loughborough Junction, Brixton and Denmark Hill stations for train and
underground travel. Consequently, it has been agreed by all parties that the site is indeed well-connected to
local services.

So what the developer is saying is that PTAL methodology is wrong. It should take into account "active" travel.

That is the developer is telling planners what it thinks the methodology of PTAL should be.

That is all very well but the fact is the PTAL rating is 3 for this site.

So its a legitimate reason to oppose application.

What annoys me is that a developer can think they can re write planning guidance.

Its difficult enough for a resident to oppose application and find a legitimate planning reason.

Then find the developer in the extensive pre application chats they have with planners appear to think they have talked them around.

I do not have that luxury as a resident.

Planners should resist dilution of planning guidelines.

Developer also says its on border with higher PTAL ratings areas. So what? Its a border. That is how it works. In effect developer is saying its not fair.

 

[Gramsci]

I posted up and read the planning guidelines. This site does not have high enough PTAL rating for a development of this sort. Period.

 

[teuchter]

The daylight & sunlight report deserves some attention too.

 

[teuchter]

The worst affected properties include 9-23 Wanless Rd (which is social housing).




I'm not really an expert on this stuff but that's saying that various rooms fail the BRE guidelines. They then, I think, try to say, well they fail but not by much.

("Vertical Sky Component" basically means how much sky is directly visible to a point in a room. It's not about direct sunlight but the light you get from the sky generally)

Note the reference to "inner-city context".

This means they are suggesting that different standards should be applied to this site, that the expectations shouldn't be the normal ones for a street of 3-storey terrace houses, because of the "inner city context".

This is Wanless Rd. The social housing is on the right. The houses on the left will lose daylight as well. Is this an "inner city context"?



I think that "inner city context" is intended to mean this kind of street:

 

[teuchter]

Of course the development itself would create something looking like an "inner city context" - something that's so far (in the form of the Higgs development) confined to the other side of the viaduct when you look down Milkwood Rd towards the corner of Wanless Rd.

Current view (with new Higgs tower):


Proposed view:


I've put these images in because they give some impression of the relative scale of what's proposed, and the existing houses on Hinton Rd & Wanless Rd. One potential objection to this is just the visual one.. which I don't think that's considered a valid objection now. But this also shows why it's not surprising that those houses will lose a significant chunk of their view of the sky.

 

[CH1]

Of course the development itself would create something looking like an "inner city context" - something that's so far (in the form of the Higgs development) confined to the other side of the viaduct when you look down Milkwood Rd towards the corner of Wanless Rd.

Current view (with new Higgs tower):
View attachment 413744

Proposed view:
View attachment 413745

I've put these images in because they give some impression of the relative scale of what's proposed, and the existing houses on Hinton Rd & Wanless Rd. One potential objection to this is just the visual one.. which I don't think that's considered a valid objection now. But this also shows why it's not surprising that those houses will lose a significant chunk of their view of the sky.

Yes well what you've got there is the destruction of a Victorian village streetscape by the intrusion of 21st century New London Vernacular cheapskate architecture which is totally out of scale.

I got this long-view of the Coldharbour Lane side from Google maps - the picture is dates around March 2023, before the Higgs Tower was fully finished.

The focus of the view is now the carbuncle rather than the fine Victorian warehouse [described in the Lambeth heritage register: Erected in1887.Former corn merchant’s premises on corner with Shakespeare Road. Includes offices and shop. Queen Anne style in stock brick with red brick and stone dressings. Sash windows. Warehouse3 storeys with gables and loading doors to each street. Shop with recessed entrance corn in the capitals.]

I see LJAG have their flyer-designers at work to prevent further degradation on the Hinton Road side (from Twitter this morning)

 

[Tulster218]

Abdi Duale, who sits on Labour’s NEC, says that homeowners who block development in their neighbourhood will be made to feel 'shame' under a Labour government.

Quite right too.

 

[editor]

If anyone fancies writing something up I'll be happy to publish it on Brixton Buzz.

 

[Gramsci]

Abdi Duale, who sits on Labour’s NEC, says that homeowners who block development in their neighbourhood will be made to feel 'shame' under a Labour government.

Quite right too.

Home owners can't block development.

The process is that a developer puts in a planning application. Groups and individuals can comment on that. It then goes to a planning committee made up of local Cllrs. Who make the final decision.

I haven't looked up what Abdi Duale said.

But if he did say that he's wrong. It's not how the planning system works.

Local communities do have a say in local planning policies.

Either through consultation or by using their right to make a neighborhood plan.

 

[Gramsci]

Abdi Duale - used to work for homes for Lambeth. On Communications

 

[CH1]

Abdi Duale, who sits on Labour’s NEC, says that homeowners who block development in their neighbourhood will be made to feel 'shame' under a Labour government.

Quite right too.

Mr/Ms Tulster218 I assume your stirring goes along with Daily Mail reading - this being the only source of your comment this morning on Google

Labour will 'shame Nimby homeowners who block housing developments'

Abdi Duale, who sits on the influential National Executive Committee and is one of the 'architects' of its housing policy, launched a broadside on so-called Nimbys.

www.dailymail.co.uk

"You and others like you" - including Abdi Duale - are deluded if you think building large blocks of New London Vernacular flats will bring down house prices.
What Adbi and Rachel Reeve should be doing is working out a strategy to expand social housing NOT by getting private developers to build towers rented at commercial rents subsidised by the taxpayers.
Meanwhile if Mr Andrew Western - Abdi's advocate/minder and reputed to be Britain's most YIMBY politician - were to move in next to me I'd be off. His policies are matched by his thug-like appearance.

Interview: Is Andrew Western parliament's most YIMBY politician? - LabourList

Andrew Western has a good claim to being the Parliamentary Labour Party’s most committed YIMBY. LabourList talks housing, planning and generational inequality with the MP for Stretford and Urmston, Greater Manchester.

labourlist.org

 

[Gramsci]

Abdi supposed comments are reported in DM.

To add See CH1 beat me to it. I couldn't stomach putting DM article up

 

[Gramsci]

When asked what they will do about economy Starmer , Reeves etc are saying growth will solve the problems. That includes changing planning.

I'm assuming Tulster218 is keen on this approach.

 

[Tulster218]

Mr/Ms Tulster218 I assume your stirring goes along with Daily Mail reading - this being the only source of your comment this morning on Google

Labour will 'shame Nimby homeowners who block housing developments'

Abdi Duale, who sits on the influential National Executive Committee and is one of the 'architects' of its housing policy, launched a broadside on so-called Nimbys.

www.dailymail.co.uk

"You and others like you" - including Abdi Duale - are deluded if you think building large blocks of New London Vernacular flats will bring down house prices.
What Adbi and Rachel Reeve should be doing is working out a strategy to expand social housing NOT by getting private developers to build towers rented at commercial rents subsidised by the taxpayers.
Meanwhile if Mr Andrew Western - Abdi's advocate/minder and reputed to be Britain's most YIMBY politician - were to move in next to me I'd be off. His policies are matched by his thug-like appearance.

Interview: Is Andrew Western parliament's most YIMBY politician? - LabourList

Andrew Western has a good claim to being the Parliamentary Labour Party’s most committed YIMBY. LabourList talks housing, planning and generational inequality with the MP for Stretford and Urmston, Greater Manchester.

labourlist.org

There is no solution to the housing shortage except to build more housing.

In Bradford you can buy a 2 bedroom semi-detached house for £65,000. That's what I call affordable. We could have that here in London too, if only we built enough housing.

Beautiful housing is better than ugly housing, and we should fight for that, but lack of beauty isn't even mentioned in the LJAG flyer. That's not their complaint.

 

[Gramsci]

There is no solution to the housing shortage except to build more housing.

In Bradford you can buy a 2 bedroom semi-detached house for £65,000. That's what I call affordable. We could have that here in London too, if only we built enough housing.

Beautiful housing is better than ugly housing, and we should fight for that, but lack of beauty isn't even mentioned in the LJAG flyer. That's not their complaint.

Not sure what your argument is here.

The leaflet isn't opposing new housing.

It's the kind of housing.

I don't see that this constitutes Nimbyism.

The LJAG leaflet says LJ needs affordable family homes.

 

[Gramsci]

There is no solution to the housing shortage except to build more housing.

In Bradford you can buy a 2 bedroom semi-detached house for £65,000. That's what I call affordable. We could have that here in London too, if only we built enough housing.

Beautiful housing is better than ugly housing, and we should fight for that, but lack of beauty isn't even mentioned in the LJAG flyer. That's not their complaint.

Also saying things like "we" could build housing elides the power relationship here.

 

[Gramsci]

LJ Neighborhood forum on Wednesday will cover this planning application amongst a few other people

LJ Neighbourhood Forum Wednesday 27 March 2024 at 7pm