Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The redevelopment of Loughborough House, Loughborough Junction

Work seems to be happening again now.

Thought I'd check the latest on the planning history, and it's still a complete mess.

In May this year they applied for a "non-material amendment". The amendment sought was basically a statement that the work is to be carried out according to the initial permission "for the avoidance of doubt".

So seems to be a way of letting them get away with starting the work after the expiry date. Anyway, it is formalised that they shoudl be building according to the original permission. There was another variation a couple of months later which allowed them to make changes to internal layout and side elevations.

However, they should be building the front facade according to the original permission. The original permission had a condition on it that they should submit further details of the front facade for approval. This happened in December 2010, and this is the drawing that was approved (it's the same one I put on the first page of this thread):


Screen Shot 2015-10-28 at 15.15.44.jpg
Pretty clear that what they are building doesn't match in the details though. Supposed to be painted brickwork. But the infills have been done in concrete block and the signs on the scaffold suggest the whole thing is going to be rendered (ie will probably be done on the cheap and look rubbish in a few years time). Also, no sign of the brick arches on the repositioned windows and no sign of any attempt to recreate the decorative string course indicated on the drawings.

Lambeth is fairly much letting them build what they want. Why bother spending money on planning fees eh? You don't really need planning permission after all.
 
In the post above I complained that the decorative string courses and brick arches over the new windows that were promised in the planning application were not apparent. However against expectations I note they have now appeared, I assume faked up and glued onto the new render (which was supposed to be painted brickwork).
 
In the post above I complained that the decorative string courses and brick arches over the new windows that were promised in the planning application were not apparent. However against expectations I note they have now appeared, I assume faked up and glued onto the new render (which was supposed to be painted brickwork).
I must come down and have a look.
Sounds like the architectural equivalent of Lilly Savage.
 
The scaffolding costs must have exceeded the actual value of the building by now
That's not how scaffolding works. The main cost that is incurred is putting it up and taking it down. It can sometimes be difficult to persuade a scaffolding company to take it away; presumably because it's not needed immediately for another job.
 
Don't know what you're all complaining about, it only took two years to produce this uplifting work of architectural wonderment for us all to enjoy.

IMG_3045.JPG

IMG_3044.JPG

:rolleyes:
 
I like how they've used strips of Oreos for the decoration. Tbf, I think it looks alright.

[EDIT] Oh, Harbourite has already beaten me to it in the other thread
 
Maybe the smashing up of the old Loughborough House signage was part of lambeth's much publicised plan to give the area a strong 'sense of identity'. By replacing it with pvc windows.
 

Attachments

  • EnforcementNotice.pdf
    215.6 KB · Views: 24
Lambeth are actually enforcing planning restrictions on someone who isn't a small scale householder? :eek::eek:
Oddly enough if you look at the original planning proposal back in 2008 the officer who gave pre application advice was Doug Black (now Interim Head of Planning).

Maybe he feels he has been misled? It's about time some of those officers take their responsibilities seriously I reckon - and this appears to be an unexpected but welcome move in that direction.
 
Most new housing these days looks like office blocks from Blandsville. So many have these daft, full height windows which tenants swiftly block up.
 
It's bland bog standard architecture. Adds nothing to the area.
"Bog standard" is subjective but the wraps are mostly off the one on the S side and it doesn't look too bad. I can only comment on the external appearance but to me it looks like considerably more thought and care has gone into the construction detailing than the horrible botch job that is Loughborough House. I don't agree that it's as bad as LH.
 
Back
Top Bottom