The redevelopment of Loughborough House, Loughborough Junction

[CH1]

I would think Lambeth have been in touch with the owners for an explanation.

As you know they (Lambeth Planning and Enforcement officers) are allergic to paperwork or anything at all that might cost the council money, so further pressure until they actually do something is the only tactic.

The building owners are lucky they did not try this on in the 1950s when planners had balls and budgets - the result could have been anything from a dangerous structure notice and compulsory demolition to a CPO.

Come to think of it wouldn't that have fitted the "aspirations" of the Loughborough Junction Plan?

 

[teuchter]

CPOs for planning infringements. That would make things more interesting.

 

[CH1]

CPOs for planning infringements. That would make things more interesting.

They threatened 316 Coldharbour Lane with a CPO for disrepair. Unfortunately the only effect so far has been to get them to put up 5 estate agent "For Sale" boards. If you threaten you have to be willing to carry out the threat to get the result.

 

[goldengraham]

My experience of Lambeth is that they do eventually reply, but often answering a totally different question to the one you first asked

 

[thatguyhex]

I don't understand what they are doing. They seem to have left some of the pitched roof structure intact.

I worked it out. Those cowboy shitheads couldn't be bothered (or afford) to scaffold up and over the building to erect a temporary roof. They just used the old roof as shelter for as long as they could while building the new walls, at which point they cut it down.

 

[Rushy]

They have done a lot of stupid stuff. Keeping the old roof as shelter for a long as they can does not sound particularly outrageous in the general scheme of things.

 

[teuchter]

Finally a response from the planning officer, after nearly two months (only happened after I emailed a local councillor).

As you may be aware the property was granted planning permission in 2008, ref: 07/04824/FUL for Conversion of existing 4 flats to provide 7 self contained flats (1 x 1 bed 3 x 2 bed and 3 x 3 bed) involving the erection of a mansard roof extension and a hip to gable roof extension, the erection of a 3-storey rear extension to 204 Coldharbour Lane and alterations to doors and window.


Initial site visit established that works had commenced in relation to the above approved application. The owner was advised about the technical concerns raised in relation to the implementation of the planning permission. In order to find a resolution the owner will submit an LDCE for formal confirmation that the works are lawful. I expect a valid application within the next 21 days. Once received you will be notified, should you have any comments.

I will be watching out for the Lawful Development Certificate application. I'm not actually sure exactly what the procedure is as far as comments/objections are concerned, and to what extent they can affect the outcome.

 

[Rushy]

Finally a response from the planning officer, after nearly two months (only happened after I emailed a local councillor).



I will be watching out for the Lawful Development Certificate application. I'm not actually sure exactly what the procedure is as far as comments/objections are concerned, and to what extent they can affect the outcome.

You can't really object to lawful development unless it is on the grounds that info provided by the application is incorrect e.g. submitted plans do not match what is built.

 

[Crispy]

You can't really object to lawful development unless it is on the grounds that info provided by the application is incorrect e.g. submitted plans do not match what is built.

Which they don't

 

[Rushy]

Which they don't

They don't meet planning drawings. They have not submitted the lawful Dev application yet.

 

[teuchter]

They don't meet planning drawings. They have not submitted the lawful Dev application yet.

Do you mean that if they submit LDCE which has drawings matching what they're building, you can't really object?

 

[Rushy]

Do you mean that if they submit LDCE which has drawings matching what they're building, you can't really object?

Objections don't really count. There is not a lot of room for interpretation or weight of opinion. On the facts, either it is lawful or out is not. You can of course point out the facts but the planning officer should be aware of those and the onus is on the applicant to provide evidence that the work is lawful.

 

[teuchter]

I reckon it will come down to "interpretation", though. It looks like they are going to claim the 2008 permission is valid (I guess they will say they "started" work within the validity period), and then that the changes from the approved drawings are "interpretable" as non-material amendments or suchlike and seek retrospective permission for them. And while Lambeth could probably argue against both points, they won't be bothered to and will give them what they want to save hassle.

 

[Rushy]

Yes. You are probably right. Worth writing to building control and getting details of when the building control notice of commencement was issued. They should be able to share that with you. It would not be definitive as they don't have to be meeting building regs requirements in order be considered to have started work for planning purposes - but if the commencement date on the building notice is post expiry it will increase the onus on them to prove they started on time.

 

[CH1]

I noticed on my nocturnal foray to Costcutter that the front of Loughbrorough House has now been boarded up and a site safety notice is (fairly) prominently displayed. Wonder if Building Control have finally taken an interest?

 

[teuchter]

Probably just means that they are now moving on to trash the facade

 

[boohoo]

It'll be a shame to see that lost. In one of the local history books I was reading about Norwood, it said that of the 800 substantial detached house demolished, 58% were by developers in the 1960s and 1970s.

 

[teuchter]

Sadly it looks like the building is done for, as they are now proceeding with blocking up the windows, to match the drawings which also show the lettering and other facade elements removed.

 

[editor]

Sadly it looks like the building is done for, as they are now proceeding with blocking up the windows, to match the drawings which also show the lettering and other facade elements removed.

View attachment 63873
View attachment 63874

This is awful. Mind if I use the pics for a B Buzz feature in the vain hope that this act of vandalism might prompt some fucker in Lambeth planning to act before it's too late?

 

[teuchter]

Was writing you a PM as you typed that, editor

 

[teuchter]

Is it ok to post the email address for the planning officer dealing with the case on here?

 

[Rushy]

Planning is a pretty small bunch of people. Not sure that referring to them as fuckers is a great way of demanding support. Worth editing out?

It's been a while since I looked at the approvals. They have already approved these alterations to the front facade haven't they?

 

[editor]

Was writing you a PM as you typed that, editor

On the case!

 

[editor]

Piece posted here: Historic Loughborough House façade faces destruction as the council drags its heels over the legality of the work

 

[teuchter]

Planning is a pretty small bunch of people. Not sure that referring to them as fuckers is a great way of demanding support. Worth editing out?

It's been a while since I looked at the approvals. They have already approved these alterations to the front facade haven't they?

They were approved but in the permission that expired in 2013.

 

[Rushy]

They were approved but in the permission that expired in 2013.

What are you hoping planning will do right now which they have not already? They are following their standard procedure by asking the applicant to submit an ldce application. The thing to keep an eye on is how long they give the applicant to submit it. I am following an enforcement case at the moment which was opened in September 2013. The owner was not contacted until March when it was decided that an ldce or planning application would be required. 8 months later... Nothing.

 

[teuchter]

Ideally I'd like them to tell the developers not to carry out any destructive work until it has been resolved. They may not have the power to do this.

Also to revise history such that they have been strict with previous enforcement cases such that the developer actually gives a toss about what the rules say.

 

[Rushy]

Ideally I'd like them to tell the developers not to carry out any destructive work until it has been resolved. They may not have the power to do this.

Also to revise history such that they have been strict with previous enforcement cases such that the developer actually gives a toss about what the rules say.

I think they can serve a temporary stop notice for a month to give themselves time to investigate a breach where they think it is justified. I've never come across one. They're pretty exceptional I suppose and given that the council had already permitted the works to the front and roof, it seems that the decision was made long ago that they aren't worth protecting. I guess that would explain a lack of urgency.

 

[Manter]

They really have made a mess of that poor building, haven't they?

 

[Crispy]

Obstructing development is not the job of Lambeth Planning