Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The redevelopment of Loughborough House, Loughborough Junction

leanderman said:
are the builders allowed to do that?
Click to expand...
The previous permission allowed for the removal of the lettering. The question is, did they start before that permission expired. I don't think they did. The only response I ever got from Lambeth was that they were expecting an application from the developers which would attempt to prove the work was lawful (ie it started before expiry). So clearly whether or not the work is lawful is not something that has been established.

I was told I would be notified when this application was recieved. I have not been notified so can only assume the application has not been recieved, which means that they are doing work the lawfulness of which has not been determined.

I also wrote to Lambeth some time ago saying that they were in the process of destroying the facade and asking whether they would do anything to try and stop this before the lawfulness of essentially irreversible work had been decided.

That was one of many emails they didn't respond to at all so I assume that means they decided to do nothing about it.
 
As a side point you'll see in that photo an interesting work method. If you remove a portion of brickwork you need to temporarily prop the area above the hole, before you put in the lintel, for obvious reasons. Usually this is done with some kind of steel prop designed for the purpose. Here, however, it seems that the brickwork is being supported by a plank of wood nailed into the face of it.
 
teuchter said:
Makes me sad too. Was expecting it to happen though.
Click to expand...
Mind if I use your pic for one last pointless rant about the fate of this building? Or would you like to write something? I know it's pissing in the wind but at least we're putting this on record.
 
teuchter said:
As a side point you'll see in that photo an interesting work method. If you remove a portion of brickwork you need to temporarily prop the area above the hole, before you put in the lintel, for obvious reasons. Usually this is done with some kind of steel prop designed for the purpose.
Click to expand...

Yep, commonly known as an Acrow prop after the company that invented and marketed them.

Here, however, it seems that the brickwork is being supported by a plank of wood nailed into the face of it.
Click to expand...

They'd better hope for no high winds, then, because if the brickwork flexes at all, then a plank of wood will be worse than useless in preventing the brickwork from sagging or even failing.

E2A: It looks, from your picture like the lower end of the board is sitting on the same scaffold board that the "builder" is standing on. It's probably not even fixed, just free-standing at the bottom, and with a couple of nails at the top. Scarily-stupid! :facepalm:
 
Last edited:
teuchter said:
As a side point you'll see in that photo an interesting work method. If you remove a portion of brickwork you need to temporarily prop the area above the hole, before you put in the lintel, for obvious reasons. Usually this is done with some kind of steel prop designed for the purpose. Here, however, it seems that the brickwork is being supported by a plank of wood nailed into the face of it.
Click to expand...
Not sure if that's the case. I think there's an existing steel beam running along the top of that opening.
ViolentPanda said:
Just how busy is the rail-line, by the way?
Click to expand...
The railway line immediately behind the building has a train about once every 10 minutes
 
Crispy said:
Not sure if that's the case. I think there's an existing steel beam running along the top of that opening.
Click to expand...
I think there might be a timber under the inner layer of the brickwork but not the outer. And I would guess that it was there as part of the support for the floor joists rather than having been intended to span an opening. Seems unlikely it's a steel given the sag that is very visible if you look at the before pictures. Hard to say for sure though.
 
brixtonblade said:
I dont really understand the ins and outs of planning but I think that this is an application for that site:
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...iveTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=NNXPLBBO02E00
Click to expand...
Well spotted.

Regarding the elevations there seems to be an east and west elevation (facing the railway arches and adjoining property/entrance to Celestial Church)
There is no south elevation - facing the road - which is one of the main causes of complaint.

The "tone" of the application comes across as impatient and contemptuous.
 
Well spotted brixtonblade

I was about to congratulate Lambeth for having finally made them resubmit their application.

But all it is is an application for an amendment to the currently "approved" plans. The changes they are proposing are to the side elevations, not the street elevation, that's why it isn't included.

The drawings are rubbish. I don't think the application should even have been validated.

It seems that they are applying for a non-material amendment which means that if Lambeth accepts the changes as non-material there is no need to consult with neighbours etc - but it seems that it is nevertheless possible to comment on the application.

I noticed in the covering letter some references to new layouts complying with fire regs...which rather suggests that up until now they may have been working to a design that doesn't satisfy them. Hm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CH1
teuchter said:
Well spotted brixtonblade

I was about to congratulate Lambeth for having finally made them resubmit their application.

But all it is is an application for an amendment to the currently "approved" plans. The changes they are proposing are to the side elevations, not the street elevation, that's why it isn't included.

The drawings are rubbish. I don't think the application should even have been validated.

It seems that they are applying for a non-material amendment which means that if Lambeth accepts the changes as non-material there is no need to consult with neighbours etc - but it seems that it is nevertheless possible to comment on the application.

I noticed in the covering letter some references to new layouts complying with fire regs...which rather suggests that up until now they may have been working to a design that doesn't satisfy them. Hm.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't sure what the implications of it being an amendment were and wasn't sure why the street view wasn't included in the plan.
 
The new, all-bland and character'n'history stripped Loughborough House will soon be unveiled.

del.jpg

The before:

coldharbour-lane-loughborough-junc-08.jpg
 
I don't think it's going to be unveiled any time soon. Looks to me like work has simply ground to a halt; I've seen very little going on for the past coupleof months.

Whether this is due to "discussions" with Lambeth or something else I don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

teuchter
New development at Hardess St / Wellfit St, Loughborough Junction: 2024 planning application
2 3 4 5
Replies
126
Views
5K
teuchter
teuchter
V
Southwyck House Community Installation
Replies
18
Views
587
mango5
mango5
editor
Major fire on Loughborough estate
Replies
14
Views
2K
Not a Vet
N
K
House prices in Brixton
Replies
18
Views
2K
Shippou-Sensei
Shippou-Sensei
M
Vision Homes Council Housing Takeover - please sign the petition
Replies
7
Views
509
madshadow
M
Back
Top Bottom