Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The redevelopment of Loughborough House, Loughborough Junction

I notice an article has appeared on the LJAG website.
http://www.loughboroughjunction.org/loughborough-house-redevelopment
They seem to think the 2008 permission expired in 2011 rather than 2014 (hadn't we established it was a 5 rather than 3 year validity?).
It's over 7 weeks now since the enforcement officer told me he was expecting a valid LD application "within the next 21 days" and that I would be notified when it was recieved. I have heard not a thing from him since.

(The LJAG article is a litte misguided in talking about the "narrow slit windows" by the way. The current state of the front facade is an intermediate stage - they have blocked up the bits of the old windows that are to become walls but haven't knocked out the new window openings yet. The new openings will be at a different level to the old ones.)
Thank you for highlighting this. I thought the article rather imaginative - shame my engineering and office admin background has stultified the brain and eliminated such flights of fancy.

Haven't been back over the thread - but according to the Planning Portal http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/decisionmaking/permissiongranted permission granted before 2010 had to be implemented within 3 years - but a 2 year extension could be applied for.

There seems no evidence that an extension has been applied for.

It seems that LJAG have been trying (via Ward Councillors) to get the affair raised as a complaint.

Not sure where that is going - I am not close to the Herne Hill ward councillors.

In my opinion the councillors have a civic duty to make known what has been going on about this issue within planning and enforcement (if anything at all).

The impression I have of enforcement in Lambeth is they come out and visit the site, maybe talk to the owners and try to resolve it verbally and amicably. If not the officers don their tin hats and hide under the desk until it goes away.
 
Haven't been back over the thread - but according to the Planning Portal http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/decisionmaking/permissiongranted permission granted before 2010 had to be implemented within 3 years - but a 2 year extension could be applied for.

Having checked back through thread...
Having double checked though, it doesn't seem they have current planning permission. It was granted in 2008 with a three year limit.

Not sure why I'd got it into my head that it had a five year validity. I can't find any evidence of an extension application either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CH1
The impression I have of enforcement in Lambeth is they come out and visit the site, maybe talk to the owners and try to resolve it verbally and amicably. If not the officers don their tin hats and hide under the desk until it goes away.

From a few previous issues I've observed in London, it may not be a Lambeth specific thing. Or even a London thing.

One memorable one took about four years of networked, educated and well off residents to get Southwark to move into enforcement on a development that had gone beyond it's remit.

A few years back, I did a couple of evening classes at a planning law charity. They were ex planning officers, wanting to explain how the system works. The outlook was grim, at least as far as enforcement went. They said the odds were stacked against the planners. The developers could appeal over and over, through every tier, and chances are - for legal costs reasons - the council would end up having to fold. :(

Planning enforcement appears to be a poker game. It's not necessarily about your hand, it's about bluff and money. :(
 
Did they explain how the "don't bother to reply to emails" part of the system works?

*chortle*

No. The charity was trying to educate ordinary people in the general mechanics of the planning process. In two evenings, we skipped statistics on email response rates of various relevant parties ;)
 
Last edited:
Lambeth enforcement was on the ball back in 2009 on the corner of Clapham Road and Crewdson Road.

Absolutely NO planning permission applied for. But a greedy landlord added an extra floor.

Before:

1.jpg


And after when Planning got involved ;)

1.jpg
 
Oh right, I totally misunderstood. I thought they were adding a floor on top of the "before" photo.
 
Council press release put out today:

"Council Planning Enforcement officers tackled a wide range of problems from ‘beds in sheds’, unauthorised house conversions and extensions, houses being used for multiple occupancy and unauthorised shop fronts to the wrong type of windows and intrusive advertising hoardings.

In one case, the defendants were not only fined £26,000 and ordered to pay the council’s £7,000 costs, but under the Proceeds of Crime Act, were also ordered to pay back the money they had made breaching the terms of the notice (over £143,000) of which 37.5% comes back to the council to be used for future planning enforcement activity.

Building Control officers tackled a wide range of problems associated with unauthorised house conversions, extensions and structural alterations as well as houses being used for multiple occupancy. They also dealt with the installation of windows, boilers and undertaking electrical works without consent, some of which are being pursued through enforcement action."
 
Relevant blog post on enforcement costs (is it ok to cut and past a whole article like this?)

Martin Goodall's Planning Law Blog
Financial incentives to be offered for injunctions

Posted: 13 Jan 2015 08:23 AM PST


Enforcement action against breaches of planning control has always been the Cinderella of the planning service in most planning authorities, and the squeeze on council budgets has only served to further weaken local councils’ exercise of their enforcement powers. It can be a very expensive exercise, especially if the enforcement action is simply ignored by a recalcitrant developer, so that the council has to resort to applying for an injunction.

Now, however, albeit rather late in the day, De-CloG has announced a new fund to give LPAs some financial help in dealing with proceedings for injunctions in planning cases. Of course, if local authority funding had not been cut in the first place, this extra financial support might not have become necessary, but no doubt it will be welcomed by any hard-pressed authority having to go for an injunction against a persistent breach of planning control, or at least it may be until they read the small print.

The fund provided by De-CloG is £1 million, of which £200K will be available between now and 31 March this year, and the remaining £800K will be available until 31 March 2016. However, this funding is not as generous as it sounds. The maximum grant for any one case is limited to not more than half the council’s estimated costs, but is limited to a maximum payment of £10K.

So the maximum amount of grant that an LPA can apply for is £10,000 (or 50% of their estimated legal costs, whichever is the lesser) towards the cost of securing a Court Injunction in the High Court or County Court. The authority is required to provide a costs estimate setting out details of anticipated legal costs likely to be incurred in preparing and issuing legal proceedings and attending court, but this estimate is not to include non-legal specialist officer time. The LPA must take responsibility for any legal costs incurred in excess of £10K or in excess of any lesser sum that may be granted.

The fund is solely for use by LPAs in England, towards the cost of securing a Court injunction (High or County Court), under Section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, against actual or apprehended breaches of planning control to be restrained. Funding is only available where other enforcement options have been, or would be, ineffective, or where there have been persistent breaches of planning control over a long period.

Funding will not be available for court proceedings which have already been started, or where an appellant lodges an appeal under section 174 against an enforcement notice that the LPA has issued. The criteria refer to an appeal made “within 28 days of receiving the notice”, but as the notice will usually come into effect within a fairly short time after the minimum 28-day period, it seems a little odd that an LPA could be deprived of funding for injunction proceedings where an enforcement notice is timed to come into effect (say) 35 days after service, and the developer appeals after 28 days but within the 35-day period.

LPAs will have to jump through hoops to get the funding they are seeking. Before a grant is made, they will have to demonstrate why the action is in the general interest, explain the degree and flagrancy of the breach of planning control, set out the enforcement history for the site (e.g. what other measures have failed over a long period of time), explain any urgency needed to remedy the breach, set out the planning history of the site, provide details of previous planning decisions in relation to the site, set out consideration of the Public Sector Equality Duty (section 149 of the Equality Act 2010) and Human Rights Act 1998, and demonstrate that an injunction is a proportionate remedy in the circumstances of the individual case, in addition to stating the amount of funding requested, including a breakdown of estimated legal spend on legal costs in 2014-15 and 2015-16. And all of this must be written in no more than 1,000 words, writing on one side of the paper only in the Head of Planning’s best joined-up handwriting. Deductions from funding will be made for untidy handwriting, poor grammar and spelling errors. (OK – I made the last bit up, apart from the thousand-word limit, but you get the general drift.)

And that’s not all. To qualify for consideration, the authority is required to confirm that it has adopted the enforcement best practice recommended in paragraph 207 of the National Planning Policy Framework and published its plan to manage enforcement of breaches proactively. The authority’s enforcement plan must have been published at least three months prior to applying for grant and the authority is required to confirm adherence to the recommendations of the National Planning Policy Framework with regard to the way in which the authority monitors the implementation of planning permissions, investigates alleged breaches of planning control; and takes enforcement action whenever it is expedient to do so.

Finally, to support the application for funding, the authority will be required to provide an active web link for their published local enforcement plan together with written confirmation that they are adhering to the objectives of the plan in a positive, pro-active and proportionate way and have been doing so for at least the previous three months.

Contractors engaged by De-CLoG (Ivy Legal) will assess applications for funding against the eligibility criteria in January, April, July and October, and applications for grant must be received no later than the last working day of the relevant application month.

You might think that someone in De-CLoG is trying to make it difficult, if not practically impossible, for local authorities actually to get their hands on this money! I wonder what level of take-up there is going to be when the amount of work involved in applying for funding, and the sum that is likely to be doled out, are taken into account. Getting funding might prove to be more difficult than getting the injunction itself, and many LPAs may conclude that it’s not worth the hassle.

© MARTIN H GOODALL


Rwttvv0ySnw
 
I have spoke to planning and dangerous buildings dept and they are going to go and have a look. I have sent them some photos aswell

They know full well what's going on as I reported it to them about 3 months ago and a formal enforcement case was opened. No evidence they are doing anything about it though. They don't even reply to my emails.
 

It seems a bit hypocritical of LJAG to fret about this “refurbishment" when barely a year ago they wanted Loughborough House and the neighbouring buildings knocked down to make “the new public space at the heart of Loughborough Junction”. [See page 52 et seq in the Loughborough Junction Plan - September 2013].
http://lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Loughborough_Junction_Framework_Plan8.pdf.

Perhaps LJAG would have been wiser to calmly pursue that idea instead of upsetting so many people with an alternative (and hastily contrived) plan to close Loughborough Road.
See http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...mprovements-consultation-begins.327812/page-5

Can anybody explain what went on behind the scenes to bring about the change of tack?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CH1
I seems a bit hypocritical of LJAG to fret about this “refurbishment" when barely a year ago they wanted Loughborough House and the neighbouring buildings knocked down to make “the new public space at the heart of Loughborough Junction”. [See page 52 et seq in the Loughborough Junction Plan - September 2013].
http://lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Loughborough_Junction_Framework_Plan8.pdf.

Perhaps LJAG would have been wiser to calmly pursue that idea instead of upsetting so many people with an alternative (and hastily contrived) plan to close Loughborough Road.
See http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...mprovements-consultation-begins.327812/page-5

Can anybody explain what went on behind the scenes to bring about the change of tack?
This about Loughborough House:
My opinion here is as follows.
I think there are 2 strands of LJAG thinking.

1. the attempt to use strategic planning to improve the environment - they say they want public spaces/squares (called "Yards" page 35 - proposed top look like page 53 in the document) and they also want more "permeability". This implies major clearance of existing buildings, including residential/shops and industrial.

2. LJAG are clear that buildings with features should be retained and protected.

As you so rightly point out there is a clash here, and I would suggest the Loughborough House case is the most obvious case of clash (so far).

Ironically IMHO the activities of the owner of Loughborough House are rapidly making the case for clearance!
 
I seems a bit hypocritical of LJAG to fret about this “refurbishment" when barely a year ago they wanted Loughborough House and the neighbouring buildings knocked down to make “the new public space at the heart of Loughborough Junction”. [See page 52 et seq in the Loughborough Junction Plan - September 2013].
http://lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Loughborough_Junction_Framework_Plan8.pdf.

Perhaps LJAG would have been wiser to calmly pursue that idea instead of upsetting so many people with an alternative (and hastily contrived) plan to close Loughborough Road.
See http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...mprovements-consultation-begins.327812/page-5

Can anybody explain what went on behind the scenes to bring about the change of tack?

I'm not sure why this is hypocritical.
 
It seems a bit hypocritical of LJAG to fret about this “refurbishment" when barely a year ago they wanted Loughborough House and the neighbouring buildings knocked down to make “the new public space at the heart of Loughborough Junction”. [See page 52 et seq in the Loughborough Junction Plan - September 2013].
http://lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Loughborough_Junction_Framework_Plan8.pdf.

Perhaps LJAG would have been wiser to calmly pursue that idea instead of upsetting so many people with an alternative (and hastily contrived) plan to close Loughborough Road.
See http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...mprovements-consultation-begins.327812/page-5

Can anybody explain what went on behind the scenes to bring about the change of tack?
It did at least occur to me that if the owners of the properties in the space in front of the station had been consulted and involved in drafting of the Framework plan that it might have ended up with upgrading those buildings.

As it is, it seems the owners were either not consulted or they did not want to be involved. Anyway the architects have fallen back on the traditional approach beloved of urban planners in the 1970s and before - if it doesn't fit in - CPO it and demolish!

As you say this is hardly conducive to co-operation. The owners of property in front of the railway station will see LJAG and Lambeth council as the enemy if they have seen any of this framework documentation.

If there is going to be a further "Masterplan" because of the Higgs controversy interested parties should raise the station yard. Its all very well proposing a Parisian public square, but what happens if your sidewalk cafes have been demolished? It could end up being a square that needs 24 hour CCTV monitoring because of the local propesnity to drink Special Brew, urinate etc.
 
It did at least occur to me that if the owners of the properties in the space in front of the station had been consulted and involved in drafting of the Framework plan that it might have ended up with upgrading those buildings.

As it is, it seems the owners were either not consulted or they did not want to be involved. Anyway the architects have fallen back on the traditional approach beloved of urban planners in the 1970s and before - if it doesn't fit in - CPO it and demolish!

As you say this is hardly conducive to co-operation. The owners of property in front of the railway station will see LJAG and Lambeth council as the enemy if they have seen any of this framework documentation.

If there is going to be a further "Masterplan" because of the Higgs controversy interested parties should raise the station yard. Its all very well proposing a Parisian public square, but what happens if your sidewalk cafes have been demolished? It could end up being a square that needs 24 hour CCTV monitoring because of the local propesnity to drink Special Brew, urinate etc.


I thought you supported this public space?
 
I thought you supported this public space?
The LJAG AGM before last I queried this part of the plan - asking how they proposed to get rid of existing buildings. The response I met with was to not answer the question.

Why are you saying I supported it? I think there might be something on the thread to do with Loughborough Hall - in particular the fact that the Framework document does not even identify correctly the ownership and current used of a building it proposes to demolish.
 
Back
Top Bottom