editor
hiraethified
Loughborough House looks completely different. It has been stripped of all its architectural character. I'm not interested in the shop next door.
The redevelopment of Loughborough House, Loughborough Junction
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
teuchter
je suis teuchter
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):
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.
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):
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.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
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).
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I must come down and have a look.
Sounds like the architectural equivalent of Lilly Savage.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
One wonders if there will be the demand for bedsits with no view post Brexit?
Harbourite
Eggnog
LJ's answer to the Sagrada Familia
goldengraham
Well-Known Member
The scaffolding costs must have exceeded the actual value of the building by now
happyshopper
Well-Known Member
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.
ChrisSouth
Well-Known Member
I know, I think it's great to see how South London out-speeds developers.
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
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
[EDIT] Oh, Harbourite has already beaten me to it in the other thread
editor
hiraethified
By fuck that is one dull, bland, soulless slab of meh.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.
View attachment 90930
View attachment 90932
editor
hiraethified
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
One wonders if ultimately - in several years time no doubt - they will get an Enforcement Notice like this little 7 page beauty served on the London Hotel 413 Colharbour Lane. Note the British Virgin Islands address of the London Hotel company secretary.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
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).Lambeth are actually enforcing planning restrictions on someone who isn't a small scale householder?
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.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Why do you say that?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
It's bland bog standard architecture. Adds nothing to the area.
editor
hiraethified
What a surprise. An application has been made to turn the one retail unit into a flat. The illustration is right up to the standard we expect from these developers.
17/01411/P3M | Application for Prior approval for the change of use of the ground floor from Retail (Use class A1) to 1 flat (Use class C3), together with the installation of an additional window to the east elevation. | 202A Coldharbour Lane London SW9 8SA
17/01411/P3M | Application for Prior approval for the change of use of the ground floor from Retail (Use class A1) to 1 flat (Use class C3), together with the installation of an additional window to the east elevation. | 202A Coldharbour Lane London SW9 8SA
teuchter
je suis teuchter
"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.
Similar threads
