The redevelopment of Loughborough House, Loughborough Junction

[teuchter]

So, the "Loughborough House" building, opposite the end of Herne Hill Road, which used to look like this:



and to which there's been building work going on...today they were taking the scaffolding down to reveal....




Top work there folks - looks way better now, doesn't it?

I think they should be commended for their contribution to the public domain and the LJ streetscene.

 

[teuchter]

Here's what they appear to have planning permission for

 

[Crispy]

Spot the difference

 

[ChrisSouth]

Spot the difference

I'd be surprised if it ends up looking like anything from the plans. I'd be even more surprised if it stays up after the first winter storms. Looking at the construction techniques whilst standing on the platform at LJ, I'd not wish Urbnan 75's worst gentrification enemy to live there. It makes those conversations about Brady's look like a tea party.

 

[CH1]

Here's what they appear to have planning permission forView attachment 60728

The planning application appears to be 2007 approved 2008. Isn't there a rule about permission lapsing? - although maybe the applicant just has to argue that "work started" within the approved period.

The officers report is very detailed: http://planning-docs.lambeth.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00426806.pdf

Seems that Brixton Society and Herne Hill Society didn't pick up on the application when originally advertised - and LJAG probably didn't exist at that time.

I believe LJAG had recently reported the work to enforcement over the poor quality of the back extension - but presumably the reaction from Lambeth Planning is going to be "What can we do? They've scaled it down from their plans anyway!"

 

[editor]

So, the "Loughborough House" building, opposite the end of Herne Hill Road, which used to look like this:

View attachment 60726

and to which there's been building work going on...today they were taking the scaffolding down to reveal....


View attachment 60727

Top work there folks - looks way better now, doesn't it?

I think they should be commended for their contribution to the public domain and the LJ streetscene.

That looks more like vandalism.

 

[editor]

In a different world, Loughborough House would have been converted into something of a local landmark. It's a striking building that could have looked amazing given some sensitive refurbishment.

Oh well. Sigh....

 

[teuchter]

I'd be surprised if it ends up looking like anything from the plans. I'd be even more surprised if it stays up after the first winter storms. Looking at the construction techniques whilst standing on the platform at LJ, I'd not wish Urbnan 75's worst gentrification enemy to live there. It makes those conversations about Brady's look like a tea party.

Yup, the whole job has a look of shoddiness to it.

 

[CH1]

Yup, the whole job has a look of shoddiness to it.

I've done photos. Apologies for repetition - I have an urgent engagement and no time to make a proper selection.

teuchter you are right - it is shoddy - and unfinished. The guy at the station says the scaffolding has been up and down before by the way.

They are definitely removing the scaffolding at the moment, but as you can see the job is nowhere near finished.

I wonder what will become of the ridge roof - it seems to serve no finction now. Maybe the plan is to bring the roof extension fully forward as in the plan you put up earlier.

 

[editor]

Breaks my heart to see such a lovely building being fucked up in this manner.

Do you think it's worth spinning this off into a separate thread to attract more attention to the matter?

 

[teuchter]

I've done photos. Apologies for repetition - I have an urgent engagement and no time to make a proper selection.

teuchter you are right - it is shoddy - and unfinished. The guy at the station says the scaffolding has been up and down before by the way.

They are definitely removing the scaffolding at the moment, but as you can see the job is nowhere near finished.

Yes, the rear is unfinished so it may be that they are not finished with the front facade either.

Having double checked though, it doesn't seem they have current planning permission. It was granted in 2008 with a three year limit. But as someone else said, maybe they "started" work within that time.

I wonder what will become of the ridge roof - it seems to serve no finction now. Maybe the plan is to bring the roof extension fully forward as in the plan you put up earlier.

According to the plans it won't come right forward, it will be set back a bit. The ridge roof wil disappear entirely.

 

[CH1]

Breaks my heart to see such a lovely building being fucked up in this manner.

Do you think it's worth spinning this off into a separate thread to attract more attention to the matter?

Could do. I'm gonna email the LJAG guy later on with the photos and see if he had any response from planning/enforcement.

 

[teuchter]

side elevation (ie facing the railway line just to the east)

 

[Rushy]

Yes, the rear is unfinished so it may be that they are not finished with the front facade either.

Having double checked though, it doesn't seem they have current planning permission. It was granted in 2008 with a three year limit. But as someone else said, maybe they "started" work within that time.

They need to be able to prove that on a balance of probabilities work associated with execution of the changes approved in the permission had materially begun before the expiration. The work does not have to be particularly extensive to be considered material - but they would have to be able to provide some proof. Also, if there were any pre commencement conditions (e.g. approval of materials) these would need to have been met for the works to count as commencement.

 

[leanderman]

Any likelihood of enforcement action?

 

[editor]

Incidentally, this piece explains the historic connection between Loughborough and Lambeth.

 

[teuchter]

Any likelihood of enforcement action?

I am tempted to make a complaint and see what happens.

 

[Manter]

Here's what they appear to have planning permission for

View attachment 60728

I'm surprised they got permission for that because if they had built to plan they'd have removed the loughborough house sign- thought planners were usually a bit protective over things like that

 

[Rushy]

Any likelihood of enforcement action?

Enforcement, if it happened, would be a long way off. I think what would happen would be that the council would write telling them that they thought there had been a breach and inviting them submit an application for a lawful development certificate proving that works meet the approved plans and were commenced on time and all pre-conditions had been met.

Pre conditions (needing to be met before works commence) are those numbered 4, 6,7,8,9 and 11.
4,6,7 and 9 have been satisfied.
Details to satisfy Condition 8 (window details) appear to have been submitted twice but I cannot find any record of approval.
I can't see any record of an application in relation to satisfying pre-condition 11 (noise assessment).

 

[teuchter]

I'm surprised they got permission for that because if they had built to plan they'd have removed the loughborough house sign- thought planners were usually a bit protective over things like that

The plan approved by Lambeth seems to be to essentially erase all the features of the "Loughborough House" building and replicate the one to the left of it (note in the drawings the window positions and heights are completely altered in order to achieve this.

 

[teuchter]

Here's what the planning officer says about the design (taken from the report CH1 linked to earlier)



It's pretty badly written, full of typos and confused.

"It is considered that this particlular pocket of buildings has no unique characteristics along this particular row of buildings and the current site has its on[sic] design"

eh?

"although the proposed extension would be excessive in size it is considered that the proposed application would vastly improve the existing building, which is in existence"

It seems very strange to me that amongst the discussion of whether the building has any notable features, nothing at all is said about the "Loughborough House" text and nothing is said about the overhanging gable-end roof which is quite unusual and which is clearly going to be obliterated by the mansard type roof (and by the way, it's not a mansard roof).

They talk about the fenestration (planner-speak for windows) being substantially altered and involving significant demolition and seem to say they're not entirely happy about this buit then say it can just be sorted out in a condition which is only to do with the type of window installed into the new openings.

The whole thing reads a bit like "oh, yeah you're changing it quite a lot but, whatever, just stick in some sash windows so we can tick a box, that'll do"

 

[editor]

I strongly disagree that this building has 'no unique characteristics'. In fact, I'd argue that it's one of the few buildings in the immediate area that has any kind of unusual architectural merit.

 

[leanderman]

With planning officers like this, it is no surprise that our streetscapes have been so trashed

 

[Rushy]

With planning officers like this, it is no surprise that our streetscapes have been so trashed

There is not much scope to do anything about it either as once permission is granted, that's it. And the complaints process does not help improve matters.

A recent planning application to make a hard standing for parking on a Rush Common garden was granted permission and the only reason stated for approval was that the works were clearly in line with policy as set out in Rush Common guidance. In fact, the guidance specifically states that a) hard standing parking areas will not be granted consent b) because the parking of cars on the land either individually or collectively are deemed to have a detrimental effect on the open nature of the common land and c) when assessing a proposal ONLY the effect on the open nature of Rush Common can be considered and no other matters.

I raised a complaint saying that the reasons given for approval were inaccurate and that the approved works were contrary to policy. My complaint was overturned on the grounds that the officer had granted consent after making her own assessment that the parking of cars on the land is not in itself detrimental to the open nature of the common (the policy states that it is) and that she had also considered other matters such as the need to improve bin storage facilities and need for more parking (the policy states that these are not valid considerations) and decided on balance to give permission.

There is a clear failure up the chain to understand simple policy. Whilst there are no doubt some competent individuals at the top, these matters simply don't reach them and inexperienced junior planners don't seem to be particularly accountable.

 

[CH1]

I strongly disagree that this building has 'no unique characteristics'. In fact, I'd argue that it's one of the few buildings in the immediate area that has any kind of unusual architectural merit.

With planning officers like this, it is no surprise that our streetscapes have been so trashed

Seems to me that the planning officer at the time was considering the shop fronts and viability thereof but not paying any attention to the quality of the façade above the shops - which is the main attraction visually, including as it does (did) a view of contrasting styles mid-late Victorian period.

There is also another issue about over-development to the rear - and apparently poor/illegal building quality.

I would expect that the façade has now gone for a burton, but possibly the council might review the building quality.

The LJAG guy was chasing planning, in view of what we have been saying here.

 

[teuchter]

Was there a specific concern about the construction quality or just a general impression of bodgedness?

 

[teuchter]

I've made a report to planning enforcement.

Note that the building is in a conservation area which means that there are extra controls on any kind of demolition without planning consent.

 

[editor]

I'm writing a piece now. Does anyone know the date of the building? By the shape of the gabled roof, I'd say early Victorian (1850ish).

 

[teuchter]

here's what it looks like from the railway station platform at the moment.

 

[editor]

View attachment 60891here's what it looks like from the railway station platform at the moment.

Do you think it would have been possible to build anything cheaper? It appears devoid of any architectural detail.