# Higgs Triangle Loughborough Junction redevelopment



## andrewdroid (Aug 28, 2014)

Not sure if this is good news or not and not sure if I can go to any of the consultations.
(reposted from an email)

CONSULTATION ON HIGGS TRIANGLE FROM DEVELOPER PARRITT LENG

Developer Parritt Leng is about to put in a planning application for the Higgs Triangle - this is the large site between Coldharbour Lane and Herne Hill Road up to the railway bridge.

This is the most important planning proposal in recent years for Loughborough Junction and Parritt Leng has organised a couple of consultation events at the *Sureway Church, 1 Higgs Industrial Estate, Herne Hill Road, SE24 0UA on:*

*Friday 29 August from 2pm to 4pm and

Monday 1 September from 3pm to 5pm.  *

LJAG (loughborough Junction Action Group) thinks this is very short notice but very much hope that this is just the start of Parritt Leng's conversation with the community.

LJAG  
Parritt Leng

Some good news the former pub The Mucky Duck is now not going to be a Sainsburies  not sure what it will be but we dont need another supermarket around here.


----------



## andrewdroid (Aug 28, 2014)

gonna repost this in
*Loughborough Junction chitter-chatter*
so maybe Ed you wanna scrap it


----------



## andrewdroid (Aug 28, 2014)

Not sure if this is good news or not and not sure if I can go to any of the consultations.
(reposted from an email)

CONSULTATION ON HIGGS TRIANGLE FROM DEVELOPER PARRITT LENG

Developer Parritt Leng is about to put in a planning application for the Higgs Triangle - this is the large site between Coldharbour Lane and Herne Hill Road up to the railway bridge.

This is the most important planning proposal in recent years for Loughborough Junction and Parritt Leng has organised a couple of consultation events at the *Sureway Church, 1 Higgs Industrial Estate, Herne Hill Road, SE24 0UA on:*

*Friday 29 August from 2pm to 4pm and

Monday 1 September from 3pm to 5pm. *

LJAG (loughborough Junction Action Group) thinks this is very short notice but very much hope that this is just the start of Parritt Leng's conversation with the community.

LJAG 
Parritt Leng

Some good news the former pub The Mucky Duck is now not going to be a Sainsburies not sure what it will be but we dont need another supermarket around here.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 28, 2014)

Nah, this deserves a thread of its own. That's a huge site.

EDIT: Parritt Lang are architects, not developers.


----------



## Thaw (Aug 28, 2014)

Is the Higgs Triangle the bit that includes OIS removals and the Whirled studios?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 28, 2014)

It's where MDM props and OIS etc are I think. Not surprised someone has their eye on it for redevelopment now. I think it would be a loss to LJ if it just became more housing, instead of light industry as it is now.

Certainly very late notice for a consultation, and excludes anyone with 9-5 job.


----------



## prunus (Aug 28, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Certainly very late notice for a consultation, and excludes anyone with 9-5 job.



Yes, that's taking the living piss.  It's almost as if they don't *want* to consult any locals....   I mean, like actually telling anyone about it*

I will try to get to tomorrow's one, will report back.  I agree wholeheartedly that more 'luxury flats' would be a definite step in the wrong direction for the area.

*Bottom of stairs, locked filing cabinet and leopard notwithstanding.


----------



## goldengraham (Aug 28, 2014)

The Higgs Triangle, where overpriced accommodation and particle physics collide


----------



## goldengraham (Aug 28, 2014)

I think it could be good if they are farsighted enough to open up the space around the pavements, especially on Coldharbour Lane itself. But I suppose we shouldn't get our hopes up


----------



## Thaw (Aug 28, 2014)

I suppose if all the light industrial units were replaced by shops/empty office and luxury flats then it wouldnt be too long before the taxi garages in the arches across the road went as well. Probably replaceed by cafes and micro-breweries and the like.


----------



## TBrooks (Aug 28, 2014)

Hi - unfortunately I can't make it to either of the consultations, but would appreciate if any information on the proposals could be posted here afterwards. 

Seems like a good opportunity to make something of a massive site (and a terrible frontage to Coldharbour Lane at present). Not so sure about Parrett Lang. There's a lot of nonsense on their website ("This juxtaposition is further complemented by an organic expression to the sky...") but have they actually built anything?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 28, 2014)

goldengraham said:


> I think it could be good if they are farsighted enough to open up the space around the pavements, especially on Coldharbour Lane itself. But I suppose we shouldn't get our hopes up


Yes, although I'd be in favour of trying to hang on to the light industrial uses, getting rid of the unit immediately across the road from the station and opening that area up a bit would make a big difference.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 28, 2014)

It's quite a large piece of land. You could fit the Barratts Brixton Square development in there about 3 times over, in terms of area.


----------



## brixtonblade (Aug 28, 2014)

Thanks for the picture - was struggling to get my bearings right from the description.

Is there any indication what the plans are for the site?


----------



## nagapie (Aug 28, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Certainly very late notice for a consultation, and excludes anyone with 9-5 job.



Lambeth have form for holding consultations at times that the majority cannot attend.


----------



## goldengraham (Aug 29, 2014)

Monday's consultation on the Higgs Triangle plans at at the Sureway Church, 1 Higgs Industrial Estate, Herne Hill Road, has been extended until 8.30pm


----------



## High Definition (Aug 30, 2014)

I went along on Friday.

The venue isn't early to find and there are no signs up.  I started off by trying the main entrance to the Sureway Church on the corner or Coldharbour Lane and Herne Hill, but no sign of the exhibition, and nearly gave up at this point.   However, I remembered that the info circulated by LJAG referred to the Higgs Triangle industrial estate,so I wandered down Herne Hill Road for a bit and found the entrance to the estate.  Again, no signs up to let you know you might be in the right place.  I eventually found the exhibition by going to the far side of the industrial estate where there is an entrance to the Church tucked away at the back.   No sign up on the door but could glimpse people in a room looking at floor plans and guessed this might be the right place.  

I finally made my way in at around 2.20 and stayed for around an hour.  Another 5 members of the public turned up.  Even compared with other planning consultation events in Lambeth I thought this was pretty abysmal.  Maybe others tried to find the venue and got lost?

Main points to emerge were

1.  The developers intend to submit a planning application next Wednesday 3rd September.  As they must have the plans and supporting documents pretty much finalised by now, this seems to be just a case of the developer going through the motions so they can report to Lambeth that they have "consulted" the local community.

2.  The site consists of a church, a collection of purpose built industrial buildings and an area in the middle used for loading/unloading and vehicle parking by tenants of the light industrial units.  All the units appear to be occupied.  Largest occupier (has 3 units) makes scenery.

3.  The application is to keep the church, demolish everything else and put up half a dozen or so new buildings all be 6/7 storeys high.  Two of the blocks will have commercial units on the ground and first floor, but everything else, including all the upper floors, will be be residential.  There will be approx 3,500 sqm employment floorspace (which we were told was the same as the existing B1 floorspace) and 8,000 - 10,000 sqm residential.

4.  Main issues discussed when i was there were

a.  What will happen to existing businesses on the site?  We were told they had all "agreed" to relocate.  

b.  Will the new business space be suitable for industrial use?   It was clear from the answers to our questions that the new space is intended for office use only and won't be suitable for the kinds of businesses which operate out of the Higgs Triangle now.  Floor to ceiling heights in the new commercial units will be just two metres - this is standard for new offices, but not acceptable for industrial and studio space, and much less than the existing units on the site where floor to ceiling heights looked to me to be between 4 and 5 metres.  There will be no dedicated loading/unloading/parking space for the business units - so loading and unloading will have to take place on the highway.  And all the units will have flats above, with potential for complaints re noise, vibration and fumes from neighbours (not an issue now as the industrial site isn't near residential properties)

c.  Someone asked about the number and affordability of the residential units.  We were told there will be around 160 flats, a mix of three bedroom, two bedroom and one bedroom units, but were;t able to glean any information about the percentage of affordable/market flats.  

What we saw today pretty much confirmed my worse fears.  If the application is approved, then we'll lose yet another site in Lambeth which provides accommodation to creative industries.  Existing tenants will move out, probably beyond the south circular, and the skilled jobs they provide will be lost to local residents, including young people.   

I will sending an objection when the planning application is submitted.  Key issue I think is loss of employment. Appreciate that the quantum of employment space in the proposed development may be similar to existing, so the argument would need to be about the poor quality of the replacement floor space (floor to ceiling heights, lack of large doorways with shutters, closeness to residential occupiers, lack of yard space for loading/unloading).


----------



## teuchter (Aug 30, 2014)

Thanks for the summary. I'm going to go along on Monday.


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2014)

Given the scale of this development and the short notice of the meetings, I've posted up High Definition's report on Brixton Buzz in the hope that more people will hear about it and perhaps come along to the meeting and get involved. The article title is a bit excitable but - hey! - sometimes you have to do that to get people to take notice!

Have your say about the redevelopment of Higgs Triangle, Loughborough Junction before it’s too late

If anyone wants to post any further reports on B Buzz, please drop me a line.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2014)

editor said:


> Given the scale of this development and the short notice of the meetings, I've posted up High Definition's report on Brixton Buzz in the hope that more people will hear about it and perhaps come along to the meeting and get involved. The article title is a bit excitable but - hey! - sometimes you have to do that to get people to take notice!
> 
> Have your say about the redevelopment of Higgs Triangle, Loughborough Junction before it’s too late
> 
> If anyone wants to post any further reports on B Buzz, please drop me a line.



That's good, the more visibility the better.

For the same reason, it deserves its own thread on here, and there's one already:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/loughbourough-junction-redevelopment.326915/

Maybe the Brixton Buzz article could point to that one instead?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2014)

dp


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Maybe the Brixton Buzz article could point to that one instead?


*Done and all posts merged into this dedicated thread.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2014)

editor said:


> *Done and all posts merged into this dedicated thread.


Good work editor and the title made more specific too.


----------



## Leo Chesterton (Sep 1, 2014)

goldengraham said:


> Monday's consultation on the Higgs Triangle plans at at the Sureway Church, 1 Higgs Industrial Estate, Herne Hill Road, has been extended until 8.30pm



If it's open until 8.30pm I'll go at 7.30pm this eve. Ed - you might want to update the Brixton Buzz article with the later time.


----------



## editor (Sep 1, 2014)

Leo Chesterton said:


> If it's open until 8.30pm I'll go at 7.30pm this eve. Ed - you might want to update the Brixton Buzz article with the later time.


Done! Look forward to hearing your feedback.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Sep 1, 2014)

When EDF wanted to develop Bengeworth Road at LJ, they were not granted permission. Some of the reasons were given relate to the Greater London Authority Planning report.

The key reason for refusal was that it was contrary to Lambeth Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policy S3 (a) which safeguards Key Industrial Areas for business.

http://planning-docs.lambeth.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00289999.pdf

Do people, more knowledgeable than I, have any views on whether this policy would also apply to this development site?


----------



## leanderman (Sep 1, 2014)

With our house price madness/failure to build enough homes, every commercial site is vulnerable to residential development.

So you have to hope the council can hold the line here.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2014)




----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2014)

In brief -

- Parrit Leng are architect *and* developer, so they design it but also remain in control of the construction phase

- As far as I could make out, the site is in dual ownership - the larger portion they would have outright control over, but the corner facing onto CHL is owned by Sureways Church. Parrit Leng would be employed by them to develop this section of the site, although the whole thing would read as one development.

- Basically, housing blocks arranged around central courtyard as you can see from the plan. Courtyard would be public ie. no gates etc.

- They propose opening up access route immediately along railway arches on S boundary. (At the moment the industrial units are attached onto the viaduct here.

- Block along Herne Hill Rd 4/6 stories.

- Block along S side 8 stories

- 10 story office block in the SW corner of the site.

- They claim heights have already been scaled back to minimum to make feasible scheme

- They are proposing "light industrial use" on ground floor (and partially basement) of some of the blocks. Although they are trying to say that this would allow some of the "light industry" to return, there was some scepticism amongst attendees about this and rightly so as you can see from the floorplan that like is not being replaced with like at all

- To be fair to them they are governed somewhat by Lambeth policy as well as their commercial incentives. Lambeth require workspace to be "flexible" ie potentially usable as office space as well. They say that with a different "brief" from Lambeth planning, they could have provided a different kind of workspace. That's their line anyway.

- It's quite obvious the scheme is driven by the housing element. They were fairly open about this. ie. without a certain amount of housing redevelopment is unviable. They are also implying that there is a pressure planning policy wise to provide housing on this site.

- Proposal is for 40/60 ratio affordable housing/private. ("as per lambeth policy")

- I think he said around 150 housing units (?) 

- There is a general intention to proivide permeability through the site, also allowing possibility of links under the railway arches to the site on the other side of the Thameslink line (ie running along W side of site) if it also becomes redeveloped.

- This permeability does not extend to the Coldharbour Lane facade, which remains relatively blank. When asked about this they seemed to say this was down to ownership (ie Sureways church)

- The corner of CHL/Herne Hill Rd is entrance to "community space" which in reality would be the Sureways church.

- It woudl be a "car-free" development. There was vague talk of s106 money and upgrades to the train station (don't get your hopes up for an overland station though). Apparently Lambeth are currently doing their transport impact study. I think there would be a genuine issue about impact of teh extra numbers on the train service because even as it is, often you can't get onto the morning peak services at LJ. This can't be solved with a station upgrade - needs longer/more frequent trains.

- As you can see, architectural style is fairly much standard current London housing block style...neither offensive nor particularly interesting. 

- The facade along Herne Hill Road doesn't look too bad to me, and with the varying height isn't too oppressive. However, the highest parts of the development are the block along the S edge of the site and the office tower in the corner, which conveniently aren't too visible in the images they provided.

- Some people asked why no shops/cafes etc. Apparently the guidance from Lambeth is that the site should not include retail - commercial space to be office/light industrial instead. It seems PL would be happy to include retail etc if Lambeth allowed it.

- There were maybe 8-12 people there when I went in around 7ish. It seems this is an informal consultation run by Parrit Leng and there will be an official Lambeth-led one in due course. The chap representing Parrit Leng (he's the project architect) was friendly, open to discussion, answered questions mostly fairly honestly and seemed genuinely willing to take people's thoughts on board (presumably particularly those ones that would help them to negotiate favourably with Lambeth!)

- I can confirm the words "vibrancy" and "regeneration" were used although the former was from an audience member, not part of the presentation.


In summary - it's a housing-led scheme. There is a nod to the "light industrial" use but I doubt companies like MDM would return if the currently proposed scheme was built, because the space and access would be inadequate and having loads of flats above would rule out noisy/smelly/dusty work (ie genuine light industrial). The general message was that unless there's a substantial amount of housing, no redevelopment would be viable.


----------



## editor (Sep 1, 2014)

Eeurgh. That is ugly.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 1, 2014)

bit brutal that middle pic!


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2014)

To be fair the middle one has been slightly distorted by the angle I held my cameraphone at (not intentional)


----------



## editor (Sep 1, 2014)

teuchter said:


> In brief -
> 
> - Parrit Leng are architect *and* developer, so they design it but also remain in control of the construction phase
> 
> ...


Interesting report. 

Do you want me to post this up as a report on B Buzz? It would seem that the more people who get to hear about this _thing_, the better.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2014)

I don't mind you using it on B Buzz, along with andrewdroid 's one from earlier, obviously it's no more than an informal report though!


----------



## Rushy (Sep 1, 2014)

teuchter said:


> In brief -
> 
> - Parrit Leng are architect *and* developer, so they design it but also remain in control of the construction phase
> 
> ...



I was wondering why someone paid 1,900,000 for the photography studio with permission for 6 flats. Now it makes sense!


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I was wondering why someone paid 1,900,000 for the photography studio with permission for 6 flats. Now it makes sense!


Hmm


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2014)

Setting aside the specifics of the currently proposed scheme, by the way, I think it would be good to discuss a bit the whole issue of whether the "light industrial" current usage is something we should try to (or can) keep.

One of the things I like about LJ (and which makes it what it is) is the fact that during the day there's a lot of stuff happening. The prop makers and other businesses in the Higgs estate, the steel fabricators and pizza factry the other side of the railway line, the VW van repair emporium, the metal scrapyard, the other scrap/waste processing place, Mickalos fast food factory, numerous car washes and of course all the car mechanics including the enclave on Padfield Rd where they fix black cabs. There's constantly stuff going on, stuff being made and a lot of visible activity.

So, I feel like resisiting anything that threatens this (and building a lot of residential will - not just by displacing the stuff immediately in the Higgs estate but in the follow-on process where an increased residential population means an increasing lack of tolerance of things that generate noise and all the rest of it).

But it could be argued this is a kind of aesthetic motivation, and I should be careful to bear that in mind.

The other arguments for keeping the light industry are related to employment. All of these businesses provide employment at various skill levels, of a different kind to office work. It keeps a good range of employment available, locally, to people who live nearby.

The arguments against: firstly, housing, for which there's an obvious need. Local people also need affordable housing (of course, we can argue about whether or not what will be provided really will be affordable). The other point, mentioned by a couple of people at teh thing this evening, was that the industrial usage makes for an unfriendly street atmosphere especially at night. It's true that that stretch of road can feel deserted at night and to some people unsafe. So it makes the central part of LJ unwelcoming.

Is the employment argument strong enough to negate these other points - the need for housing, and the idea of making the area feel safer and more inhabited?

If we want to keep the light industry then the whole scheme should be opposed in principle, because it will effectively eradicate it. (In which case the argument really is about Lambeth planning policy rather than the design of this scheme)

If it's either justifiable or inevitable that the light industry will go, then we should concentrate on judging the scheme on the basis of the quality of housing it will provide, and it's impact on the street and central part of LJ.


----------



## TBrooks (Sep 2, 2014)

A good summary - just to clarify the point below, by "official Lambeth-led" consultation, I think he meant the statutory consultation period once the planning app is registered (usually 21 days I think), when you can respond with comments on the Lambeth Planning Portal.



teuchter said:


> - There were maybe 8-12 people there when I went in around 7ish. It seems this is an informal consultation run by Parrit Leng and there will be an official Lambeth-led one in due course. The chap representing Parrit Leng (he's the project architect) was friendly, open to discussion, answered questions mostly fairly honestly and seemed genuinely willing to take people's thoughts on board (presumably particularly those ones that would help them to negotiate favourably with Lambeth!)


----------



## teuchter (Sep 2, 2014)

Yes - I got the impression there may be another face-to-face consultation as well though. There was a Lambeth councillor there last night who seemed keen to organise something.


----------



## editor (Sep 2, 2014)

There's a summary on B Buzz: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/09/...ugh-junction-reveals-10-storey-housing-block/


----------



## Crispy (Sep 2, 2014)

strictly speaking, it's the office part of the development that's 10 storeys...


----------



## goldengraham (Sep 2, 2014)

I was at the same consultation as teuchter - thanks for the comprehensive report/notes

Not much more to add really, except that the opening up of the road past the arches seems a dead sure sign that the units on the other side of the railway line facing onto Hinton Road (carpet shop, garage, Islamic school etc) won't be long for redevelopment too. The arches could offer some nice retail sites, assuming Network Rail renovates them properly and doesn't charge the earth for the rental.

Of the existing 'light industrial' tenants, I could see it being viable for the clay footprints people and the antiques shop, and possibly the portuguese church, to stay, but none of the others (the architect claimed some of the tenants had willingly offered to sell up)

While I also think the Sureways church has every right to keep its place in the new scheme, I was disappointed with the dullness of its redevelopment plans, basically to maintain the same curved building (with a few access/window modifications) right on the corner of Herne Hill Road/Coldharbour Rd. It must be one of the ugliest buildings in the entire area and they have missed a chance to do something more creative on a prime bit of high street. 

It also struck me that there was no provision to widen pavements on Herne Hill Road/Coldharbour Lane - with c500 new residents, that would surely need to be done as they are already uninvitingly narrow especially on CH lane.


----------



## Leo Chesterton (Sep 2, 2014)

I must have been at the same thing at the same time as teuchter and goldengraham. They have covered things very well. I surprised myself by coming out rather more positive about this development than I thought I would.

In the hour or so I was there 20-25 different people must have come through which means it was not the worst attended planning event I've seen. Jim Dickson was there which gave me some reassurance that a sensible council eye would be kept on things.

The developers were basically playing lip service to a Lambeth Council requirement that they consult locally before submitting to Planning, but they are also now in a council process where they have to submit by the end of this week which is why they're in a rush. Sounds like a bit of disorganisation due to bureaucratic whirl but not like the combination of slap-dash incompetence and cynical stealth that characterised the EDF proposals for the Bengeworth Road site a couple of years ago, which I vehemently oppposed.

Parrit Leng are much more professional than the EDF lot, perhaps because they encompass architecture, development etc. I forgave Chris the Architect for the hipster ZZ-top beard after listening to him speak intelligently and take questions for nearly an hour. They have considered many of the issues I had such as permeability.

I don't think they'll replace the current industry at the site like-for-like- but I also don't think it is possible. Some of the industry there is just there because it is unchoosy and the low-grade light industrial units with parking for rusting vehicles are cheap rather than unique in the area. It was interesting that MDM, the props company, are outgrowing the site and moving on anyway. In fact I think Parrit Leng are working on some other site options for them. I don't know if any of the other businesses will move back in but the developers and council have given thought to spec'ing out the industrial units in the proposal including 4m ceiling heights so it is not just a matter of keeping the floor area. 

I don't think these B1 industrial units will ever be redesignated as residential because they are too close to the existing railway arches to pass light and sound planning requirements. They may slip from light-industrial/office mix to generic office-space in a couple of years time but they also will not turn into straight retail for two reasons: firstly (in my opinion) because it would a less attractive site than the existing under-used "high-street" sites on Coldharbour Lane but also, explicitly, because under current planning rules Loughborough Junction does not count as a "Town Centre" (vs Brixton & Camberwell) so Lambeth will not allow these units to have change of use to retail.

i think realistically they are already at a reasonable point of compromise between residential, B1 industrial and public space. 

I'm also in favour for the following reasons:

* The 160 housing units are a sensible mix, arrived at in agreement with council including a larger proportion of 3-beds than many developments.
* Opening up the rear of the arches could unlock interesting opportunities for those arches e.g. for Whirled, the boxing gym, Austin's Garage and potentially for opening up one or more arches to the west to make the site foot/bike permeable.
* The development did not look quite as ugly on the sci-fi pictures on display as they appear in teuchter's admirable photos but there is really no way that anything they do would not be an improvement on the hideous blight in the centre of LJ.   I'm not a fan of power-churches but I'd rather have one with windows than a windowless diarrhea coloured brick wall.
* The landscaping, public space and partial permeability is in line with LJAG's redevelopment framework, quite close in fact to the idea of developing around existing "yards" and will make the area more pleasant but also more interesting.
* The impact on existing housing would seem to be minimal.

When the plan is submitted I will make the following broadly supportive points:

* There needs to be a covenant about parking permits.
* The industrial units might need more temporary parking and turning space to be viable e.g. for deliveries etc. They say they've considered this and that the gaps between units and arches are 7m but it did not look adequate to my untrained eye on the plans.
* There should be something in the contract about permanent public right of way and something to make increasing permeability an objective/obligation for whichever housing association takes this on.
* There should be some commitment to provide lighting by the arches.
* There should be something about road crossings and pavement improvements. Maybe more council's dept.
* They should consider any impact on the potential development of a LJ / Brixton East station on the London Overground.
* They should consider getting a commitment from Thameslink for increased services to LJ at peak hours / spending money to do this. No idea how that could work though.
* They should include bike frames for the industrial units and enclosed bike sheds for the residential units.

What are other people going to say? If there are a few similar points made they might have more impact on the council's response.

Cheers,
Leo


----------



## teuchter (Sep 2, 2014)

Leo Chesterton said:


> I don't think they'll replace the current industry at the site like-for-like- but I also don't think it is possible. Some of the industry there is just there because it is unchoosy and the low-grade light industrial units with parking for rusting vehicles are cheap rather than unique in the area. It was interesting that MDM, the props company, are outgrowing the site and moving on anyway. In fact I think Parrit Leng are working on some other site options for them. I don't know if any of the other businesses will move back in but the developers and council have given thought to spec'ing out the industrial units in the proposal including 4m ceiling heights so it is not just a matter of keeping the floor area.



As far as I understood it, the 4m ceiling heights are only in the basement, and only under one block. We don't know how much m2 there will be until the full plans are submitted. The units that are there at the moment have double height shutter entrances at ground level, must be about 20-30m from front to back and have generous loading space outside. The commercial units proposed at ground level are tiny in comparison - the ones opposite the railway arches look like they are about 5m from front to back.

Even if the basement units were put into extra-light industrial use, the scheme as drawn doesn't seem to have adequate loading space at all. Basically just one standard width access, with one turning point for lorries, which I would guess is there because that's what has to be allowed for a bin lorry/fire engine. I can't see it working at all for any business actually *making* anything, with requirements for deliveries and loading, waste disposal and so on.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 2, 2014)

Quite apart from the fact that there's residential units directly above. Doesn't really matter how well provisioned the "industrial" units are, nobody will be able to get up to much industry with people living on top!


----------



## teuchter (Sep 2, 2014)

Leo Chesterton said:


> * The industrial units might need more temporary parking and turning space to be viable e.g. for deliveries etc. They say they've considered this and that the gaps between units and arches are 7m but it did not look adequate to my untrained eye on the plans.



To put this into perspective - here's a diagram from a standard design handbook showing the minimum space requirements for loading bays in tight sites -


(dimensions are in mm so 25000=25m, etc)




Leo Chesterton said:


> What are other people going to say? If there are a few similar points made they might have more impact on the council's response.



I think I want to see the full set of drawings actually submitted before coming to any conclusions.


----------



## Leo Chesterton (Sep 2, 2014)

teuchter said:


> I think I want to see the full set of drawings actually submitted before coming to any conclusions.


Nice diagram! 20m? I don't see them fitting in much in the way of big lorries.

I must have got the wrong end of the stick with 4m heights - I look forward to seeing some plans.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 2, 2014)

They should dedicate a whole block to business use - but won't for financial reasons.


----------



## Leo Chesterton (Sep 3, 2014)

leanderman said:


> They should dedicate a whole block to business use - but won't for financial reasons.



Yes - I don't know the formula they use but the commercial stuff does not make the developer money - the council are requiring it and they are pragmatically using it to get above the height of the railway lines at which point they can make money from the residential stuff. The amount of residential they can pile on is capped by height restrictions they've reached working with the council. The architect said that within those parameters it was at the edge of viability.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 3, 2014)

I doubt it's really at the edge of viability.


----------



## Bobzillard (Sep 3, 2014)

Would an Overground station at Loughborough Junction ever be possible if this development went ahead?


----------



## Crispy (Sep 3, 2014)

Bobzillard said:


> Would an Overground station at Loughborough Junction ever be possible if this development went ahead?


The Overground tracks are on the South side of the viaduct, so this development to the North wouldn't make much physical difference.

However, such a station would be an expensive project and would probably have to be part-funded by surrounding redevelopment. Without a station plan in place, and S106 payments towards it, developing the site now makes a future station less likely, as it removes a potential source of funding.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 3, 2014)

Crispy said:


> The Overground tracks are on the South side of the viaduct, so this development to the North wouldn't make much physical difference.



I was wondering if taking a slice off the south edge of the Higgs site would allow the 3 northernmost tracks to be realigned further north and leave a space for an island platform in between the two tracks used by the overground.

It would be an expensive and very disruptive project though, on a heavily used bit of line.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 3, 2014)

teuchter said:


> I was wondering if taking a slice off the south edge of the Higgs site would allow the 3 northernmost tracks to be realigned further north and leave a space for an island platform in between the two tracks used by the overground.
> 
> It would be an expensive and very disruptive project though, on a heavily used bit of line.


Why slew 3 lines north when you could slew one line south?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 3, 2014)

Because there would be an opportunity to do so if the whole site were being redeveloped anyway. And I think the geometry would be easier to resolve at each end.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 3, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Because there would be an opportunity to do so if the whole site were being redeveloped anyway. And I think the geometry would be easier to resolve at each end.


Your proposal would also avoid the demolition of the three houses on the corner of Wanless Road...


----------



## CH1 (Sep 3, 2014)

I must thank High Definition teuchter goldengraham Leo Chesterton and anybody else I have failed to mention for giving a very detailed account of the consultation so far.

When I went on Monday afternoon - 3.45 or so I was in a rush, and still almost missed it completely because the only sign with a map was on the door of the rooms being used for the consultation - as far from the public highway as possible to get.

I am still mulling over my reaction to the scheme, but wanted to point out that there is a further consultation tomorrow (which I cannot make unfortunately) http://www.loughboroughjunction.org...-higgs-triangle-thursday-4-september-6-8-30pm

My immediate reaction for the very few minutes I *was* there was this:
The developer seemed to be telling people with objections/preferences exactly what he thought they wanted to hear.

There were some people there in discussion with him about housing issues, and he was promising that social housing would be provided in conjunction with a housing association. One of the participants in that discussion, who I know, pointed out that there were no subsidies around for that these days - how was he then going to do it? The developer simply insisted it was no problem, but provided no details or further information.

Another couple were there and had a connection with the boxing gym on the other (south) side of the rail tracks and were concerned about boundary issues. "Oh we will do a party wall agreement!" declared the developer.

My impression in a few minutes (and I myself did not engage with the developer of architect, nor they with me) was that this was an opportunistic proposal and the developer appears to be a hustler.

What is revolving round in my head is the film "The Producers" where Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom sweet-talk the old ladies to get the "checkies" - and the pleasant young lady who was taking the names and addresses of consultees morphed into the Swedish disco-dancing au pair who was engaged to answer the phone "Bialystock and Bloom.."

Sorry


----------



## goldengraham (Sep 4, 2014)

Re the Overground Line, they'd have to build separate freestanding platform structures on either side of the viaduct as the existing structure would not be able to withstand the extra load. That would involve separate land purchases for building and platform access. Can't ever see it happening unfortunately.

A simple and cheap fix would be a regular bus connecting Denmark Hill station to Brixton station via LJ. I'm amazed there isn't one already.


----------



## tripleseis (Sep 5, 2014)

Surely this makes re-opening Brixton East for LO the most viable (read: easiest and affordable) option now. As you say, an LJ interchange would be too costly now, and the LU seem to want to avoid anything else interchanging to an already at capacity Victoria Line (until Crossrail 2 opens at least) so no LO interchange at Brixton for the time being also. Thameslink service frequency definitely needs increasing (an interchange with LO would just add strain to the existing peak trains) but because some loop users were so adamant they wanted to keep the through service and not have to change trains at Blackfriars, we may be stuck with what we've got for the time being (Herne Hill junction also has it's issues). I'm open to the idea of more buses serving the area linking it with Denmark Hill. Perhaps extend the 201 from Herne Hill along Milkwood Road, through LJ and then along Coldharbour Lane to Denmark Hill.

Anyway, my thoughts on the scheme (I live just down the road) are overall it seems pretty good and if anything I'm not surprised they're finally planning to redevelop that part of LJ. I like the permeable aspects of the scheme but hopefully the some of the creative businesses in the area will get to use parts of the new units planned. It's at least nice to see LJ now becoming a more pleasant place to be.


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2014)

tripleseis said:


> It's at least nice to see LJ now becoming a more pleasant place to be.


I'd be careful for what you wish for. I know quite a few people who were happy to see Brixton being improved but they've since been priced out/evicted.


----------



## Leo Chesterton (Sep 5, 2014)

editor said:


> I'd be careful for what you wish for. I know quite a few people who were happy to see Brixton being improved but they've since been priced out/evicted.


So don't build any new housing, deliberately keep the ugliest buildings in London, keep under developed land locked behind arches or fenced off with rusty chainlink as a bulwark against the advance of cupcakes into LJ?


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2014)

Leo Chesterton said:


> So don't build any new housing, deliberately keep the ugliest buildings in London, keep under developed land locked behind arches or fenced off with rusty chainlink as a bulwark against the advance of cupcakes into LJ?


Nope, not what I said at all. I'm been very supportive of some of the community initiatives around LJ, but this looks like another  landgrab to me. How much social housing will there be? Do you care?


----------



## CH1 (Sep 5, 2014)

Leo Chesterton said:


> So don't build any new housing, deliberately keep the ugliest buildings in London, keep under developed land locked behind arches or fenced off with rusty chainlink as a bulwark against the advance of cupcakes into LJ?


It's more a case of preserving traditional "works" where workers who do real work on material objects in existing viable businesses can survive.

Putting high price housing in industrial locations is a double whammy - 
1. you lose real employment and industry
2. you con naive house purchasers into a life of mortgage slavery in an unsuitable location.


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2014)

CH1 said:


> It's more a case of preserving traditional "works" where workers who do real work on material objects in existing viable businesses can survive.
> 
> Putting high price housing in industrial locations is a double whammy -
> 1. you lose real employment and industry
> 2. you con naive house purchasers into a life of mortgage slavery in an unsuitable location.


I like living in an area where there's still traditional industries employing people - that's why I was so upset to see the laundry on Coldharbour Lane closing.


----------



## Leo Chesterton (Sep 5, 2014)

editor said:


> Nope, not what I said at all. I'm been very supportive of some of the community initiatives around LJ, but this looks like another  landgrab to me. How much social housing will there be? Do you care?


Yes I care and, as stated earlier in the thread, they are aiming at 160 units of assorted sizes 1,2 & 3 beds, they didn't know the mix but said more 3 beds than usual (developers like more  smaller units, council demand is for bigger stuff for families). Ratio 60/40 private/affordable housing with 10% net shared ownership, set by the council, averaging out at 64 affordable units if they split by straight numbers, ~16 shared ownership so ~48 at affordable rent. The new definitions of "affordable" are not necessarily affordable (e.g. 80% of market rent) but they don't have a housing association lined up yet, and so I don't have any more detail than that.

I also like living in an area with a mix of employment (I wouldn't call the industry in the Higgs yard traditional, more late-20 century picaresque perhaps?) but that shouldn't stop development in an area that has been "traditionally" underdeveloped. A lot of the industry I've seen is actually filling a vacuum- e.g. the space being used to park vans rather than producing or repairing anything. I found it interesting the flagship for creative industry in the Higgs triangle, MDM are outgrowing the site anyway. Does anyone have any numbers on the current site use / employment?

Community initiatives are great and LJ has some brilliant organisers and artists: http://www.loughboroughjunction.org...d-launch-of-ww1-app-sat-6-september-12-30-6pm. I am very glad that you have been "very supportive of some of the community initiatives around LJ" Ed 

But as the poor cousin to Brixton and Camberwell, falling in both Lambeth and Southwark council's blind spots LJ will have to whore itself out to private development to get any money spent on it at all.

I think LJ needs to make the most of its arches, bridges and oddly shaped yards. I'd rather try and nudge things towards good development (e.g. making the spec of the proposed B1 units fit for purpose, making sure opened up arches can be properly serviced and accessed) than discourage development altogether.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 5, 2014)

Leo Chesterton said:


> I found it interesting the flagship for creative industry in the Higgs triangle, MDM are outgrowing the site anyway. Does anyone have any numbers on the current site use / employment?



I'd be a wee bit cautious about this claim given that it comes from the developer in whose interest it is for MDM to clear off (unless you know it to be true from other sources?).

It would certainly be interesting to know what MDM and the other companies really think about the proposals, and to what extent they see their location here as helpful/necessary for their business.


----------



## Bobzillard (Sep 5, 2014)

Shuttle bus: very good idea and with so little chance of Overground platforms at either LJ or Brixton it could be useful for years to come even if East Brixton was reopened.
Upping the frequency of loop line trains: I understand an extra 8 trains per hour will be run through LJ from December this year until January 2018 while London Bridge is remodelled under the Thameslink programme. They would be mainline trains passing through without stopping but it might indicate the line has the required capacity (the same changes were applied for 10 days a week ago and seemed to go smoothly enough).
Stopping loop line trains at Blackfriars: would that not be possible in a future timetable to change this in order to provide extra capacity whatever has been fought over?

I agree the proposed scheme looks pretty good although the proposed commercial units do look small for the businesses presently on that site.


----------



## mizfick (Sep 6, 2014)

Does the Sureway Ministries just stay the same..wrapped inside the block?  Or did they negotiate a refurb as part of this? Almighty power.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 6, 2014)

Actually I'm not entirely clear about that. They introduced the presentation saying the church building would not be demolished and initially I thought this meant the older (late victorianish?) halfway along the herne hill rd edge of the site. Looks like that would be demolished though, and they meant the building on the corner as you describe, seemingly re-wrapped to some extent and with a couple of additional storeys on top. 

Seems to me there's a big missed opportunity to improve that corner. Odd to knock down the older building yet keep the one on the corner that turns a blank face to Coldharbour Lane. I presume it's to do with land ownership but I think lambeth should put some pressure on for sureways church to allow things on the corner to be made better. I should think sureways (assumimg they own that bit of the site) will do quite nicely if the development goes ahead.


----------



## mizfick (Sep 6, 2014)

Well, anyone who lives in the refurb's gonna hear some pretty loud worship. Sureway is not currently in a listed looking building, so strange they the church is the only business that's not gonna move. I wonder why.
I like the look of Loughborough House, that's a great looking building which wouldn't be out of place in a spaghetti western / Coldharbour lane at the end of Herne Hill Rd (no doubt being refurbed again) but Sureway is in an old industrial estate. They must have put their foot down to stay.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 14, 2014)

The applications are now on the Lambeth planning database.

The main one here:
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NBQK7LBO03I00

The one relating to the "Sureways" church part of the site is here:
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NBQPOYBO03I00

I plan to have a proper look at them in the next few days.


edited to add - can't actually see any drawings under "documents" yet, though.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 15, 2014)

Since I'm on it - here is what the Loughborough Junction Plan says about the site:
*Higgs Yard*

*Building the identity of Loughborough Junction through
coordinate signage and wayfinding
*
Nothing much in other words


----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2014)

Their map you posted on the Loughborough House thread vaguely suggests an ambition to develop the corner of the site at teh junction with Coldharbour Lane, but leave the industrial units backing onto the railway (pictured above) as-is.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 15, 2014)

It's on page 68:
*Objectives*
• Consolidate existing identity of the yard and
promote local manufacture and employmentwithin
the centre of the junction.
• Create a more positive aspect onto Coldharbour
Lane, opposite the station.
• Increase permeability.
• Enhance highways and public realm through
improved lighting, greening and paving.
• Establish desired use of future development sites
to protect neighbouring amenity and identity.
 
There is also to investigate providing an Overground station mentioned elsewhere.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2014)

CH1 said:


> It's on page 68:
> *Objectives*
> • Consolidate existing identity of the yard and
> promote local manufacture and employmentwithin
> ...



The current proposal fails to satisfy these two objectives, in my opinion.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 16, 2014)

Despite application having been validated 11 days ago, still no drawings available to view online on the Lambeth planning database.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 16, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Despite application having been validated 11 days ago, still no drawings available to view online on the Lambeth planning database.


At least they haven't put drawing for a completely different application up - that has been known to happen.


----------



## andrewdroid (Sep 17, 2014)

fyi
Loughborough Junction Action Group are having two open evenings on *Tuesday 23 September* and *Tuesday 30 September *from *7pm to 9pm* at Sunshine International Arts, 209a Coldharbour Lane, SW9 8RU.


----------



## LJAG (Sep 22, 2014)

Thanks Andrewdroid.  Yes, LJAG is holding two further consultation events on Tuesday 23 and  Tuesday 30 September from 7pm to 9pm at Sunshine International Arts, 209a Coldharbour Lane, SW9 8RU (opposite LJ station at end of the alleyway under the colourful bunting). Developers Parritt Leng will be there.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Sep 22, 2014)

LJAG said:


> Thanks Andrewdroid.  Yes, LJAG is holding two further consultation events on Tuesday 23 and  Tuesday 30 September from 7pm to 9pm at Sunshine International Arts, 209a Coldharbour Lane, SW9 8RU (opposite LJ station at end of the alleyway under the colourful bunting). Developers Parritt Leng will be there.


 
Tuesday 22 or Wednesday 23?


----------



## ChrisSouth (Sep 22, 2014)

ChrisSouth said:


> Tuesday 22 or Wednesday 23?




Ignore this. I've got me dates wrong. LJAG is correct


----------



## teuchter (Sep 22, 2014)

As the application documents are now (eventually) available on the planning database I've started to look through them.

Firstly, regarding the employment issues, and what is proposed to replace the existing light industrial units.

Here's what they say in the Design Statement

 

In other words they seem to be suggesting that they are replacing like with like, but looking closer at the figures reveals this not really to be the case.

B1 use is general business use. This means offices, or industrial processes _which can be carried out in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit_

B2 use is general industrial use - anything that doesn't satisfy the restrictions listed under B1.

So, B1 and B2 are quite different.

Here's the existing and proposed usages, again from their design statement:

 
The tables are set out to suggest that the total floorspace and usage remains fairly unchanged, but the reality is that in the proposals nearly all commercial space is B1 usage, and hardly any B2, which there is at present. 

*Existing*
About 1900sqm classed as B1, 1300sqm of this with ground level access
About 1800sqm classed as available for B2, and about 1400sqm of this with ground level access

*Proposed*
About 3450sqm classed as B1, 650sqm of this at ground level, about 1850sqm at first to ninth floor level in the corner "tower block"
Only 336sqm (less than 10% of the total commercial space) classes as available for B2, and all of this at basement level.

So existing 1800sqm of B2 usage is reduced to just 336sqm in a basement.
Existing 1300sqm of B1 usage (industrial with noise/dust/etc restrictions) at ground level is reduced to 650sqm at ground level.

(note - their figures for existing usage show units 7, 8, and 9 as B1, even though they are the same sort of units as the ones classed B1/B2. I don't know if they are going on current usage or permitted usage. If their existing B1 numbers include units which have permission for B2, but are currently used as B1 only, then the reduction in B2 usage is even greater)

Seems obvious to me that effectively there will be no industrial usage (of the type currently on site) in the proposed scheme. All of the employment will essentially be office based.


here are the block plans which go with the tables above -


----------



## teuchter (Sep 22, 2014)

And the housing types breakdown (also from the Design Statement):

 

And location of the types - affordable rented in block F at the back adjacent to the Thameslink line, shared ownership in the lower part of block D facing the other railway line, and private in the upper part of Block D and in the blocks fronting onto Herne Hill Rd.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 22, 2014)

Plan at ground level (this version shows the "Sureways" church on the corner undeveloped, as it is technically a different application).


----------



## editor (Sep 22, 2014)

0% social rented. What a fucking surprise.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 22, 2014)

Elevations -

 
^ This shows the elevation to Herne Hill Road as existing (top) and as proposed (bottom).
Again this drawing shows the Sureways site on the corner (ie at the far RH end) undeveloped as that is a separate application.

 

^ Elevation to Coldharbour Lane. The outlines in th background show the heights of the blocks at the back of the site relative to the existing buildings along CHL.


 
^This is the south elevation, ie. facing onto the main railway line (the railway viaduct sits directly opposite the lowest 3 storeys)


 
^ This is the West elevation ie facing the Thameslink railway line. Railway viaduct sits directly opposite the lowest two storeys.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 22, 2014)

editor said:


> 0% social rented. What a fucking surprise.


I'm assuming they are providing what Lambeth has told them they have to provide. It's an argument to have with Lambeth rather than the developers, really.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 30, 2014)

andrewdroid said:


> fyi
> Loughborough Junction Action Group are having two open evenings on *Tuesday 23 September* and *Tuesday 30 September *from *7pm to 9pm* at Sunshine International Arts, 209a Coldharbour Lane, SW9 8RU.


A reminder that the final one of these is happening tonight. I'll try to go along if I can.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 30, 2014)

I went to the consultation session (had to leave early though, unfortunately).

Quite a lot of people there - around 30 perhaps.

The Perrit Lang representation had obviously been caught off guard. They said themselves they hadn't expected so many people. As a result it was hard for them to explain the scheme (holding up a file of small drawings that people at the back couldn't really see).

In addition they seemed a bit ill prepared for questions, many of which I (having looked through the planning application) could have answered better than they did. I think the people they sent along (a technical director and a junior architect) weren't the ones most knowledgeable about the scheme.

Their planning consultant was there too, and I thinking he was being a bit dishonest about the massive reduction in B2 industrial space I describe upthread. Answers to questions about the amount of industrial space retained were fudged somewhat. Because I had to leave early, I didn't get a chance to question this, but maybe it was dealt with later on (can anyone else report back?)

I think they've messed up their community relations somewhat. What with the very short notice for the previous sessions, and their evident lack of adequate preparation for this one, I think they may have left a lot of people feeling that they have not made enough effort to listen to the views of people locally.

In any case - surely a meaningful consultation should take place at an earlier stage - not after they've submitted their application.

The deadline for comments on the application is Thurs/Friday this week. However the Lambeth councillor present suggested that this would be extended (partly due to the mess-up with drawings not being available on the website to start with).


----------



## CH1 (Sep 30, 2014)

teuchter said:


> I went to the consultation session (had to leave early though, unfortunately).
> Quite a lot of people there - around 30 perhaps.
> The Perrit Lang representation had obviously been caught off guard. They said themselves they hadn't expected so many people. As a result it was hard for them to explain the scheme (holding up a file of small drawings that people at the back couldn't really see).
> In addition they seemed a bit ill prepared for questions, many of which I (having looked through the planning application) could have answered better than they did. I think the people they sent along (a technical director and a junior architect) weren't the ones most knowledgeable about the scheme.
> ...


I went too.

The bottom line for local residents seemed to be fear of their parking spaces (in surrounding streets) being nicked. They were very vocal in expressing that this was already taking place with Sureway International Ministries who own the most prominent part of the site "AND ARE NOT LOCAL ARE NOT PART OF THE COMMUNITY"

I live on the Brixton side of the seven bridges, and don't have a car or drive, so this is a bit peripheral to me, though I could understand why they were getting territorial.

My own view is that the major problems are:
1. there is insufficient attention to servicing either the industrial or residential parts of the site. The industrial units are expected to function without vehicles, and the issue of delivery access to the residential bits was not addressed (including the fact that Herne Hill Road has double yellow lines in that zone).
2. They have added a speculative 10 storey office tower - not included in earleir drawing we were shown at the same meeting. No explanation as to what happens if it cannot be let.
3. It seems likely that the church part of the site may not be "upgraded" at the same time as the main development, which would leave a disjunctive sub-optimum result, unlikely ever to be improved.

BTW Cllr James Dickson gave the developers a little lecturette on their poor public consultation at the very end of the proceedings.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2014)

Ho-hum, a bit depressing if all people are really bothered about is their precious parking spaces.

The ten-story office tower has been in there all along - in the drawings at the previous consultation and the ones submitted for the planning application (you can see it in the elevations I posted above).


----------



## Leo Chesterton (Oct 1, 2014)

I was last night there too.

Bit of a shame about the poorly organised presentation but it was people who don't understand how a meeting works who wasted a lot of time angrily retreading the same trivial issues with ad-hoc out of context questions or monologues about parking and height.

Parking is always a whinge, as are school places etc. Since it is a Car Free development I think that was adequately addressed. The services arguments are non-issues for me - the council just has to provide services to meet demand and you cannot entirely halt building of new housing in an area of acute housing shortage just because of school places etc. Planning is needed of course. Schools and LJ train capacity in particular. Since there is no chance of this site housing a new school though that is not really pertinent to the planning application. More for councillors and TFL. I've asked about the impact of development on a potential Overground Station.

A lot of people I know who live south of the development towards Herne Hill have a more suburban outlook on things than me and there was a lot of "Yuck, a tower? But we nearly live in Dulwich Village" type objection to the height. I'd overlook it myself and am in favour of denser development where it doesn't directly abut existing housing. To me it just seems like natural back-fill of an underdeveloped part of Zone 2 transition zone. If you look at the existing buildings over 25m on a map http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Lambeth Tall Building study 2014 FINAL.pdf it is in keeping - Kings is mostly that high, Loughborough Estate is higher and there is plenty over 25m in Brixton which has been deemed appropriate for "tall buildings".

In the right place I like taller buildings. ( This argument applies to San Francisco but of course LJ has comparable qualities 
http://www.dbarchitect.com/words/press/15/It's the Ceiling Heights, for One Thing.html )

The issues of commercial viability and permeability that I was more interested were barely touched. Ceiling heights for the ground floor commercial units were stated as 4m. I think they should be a bit higher.

I don't think the existing commercial sites there are as economically important as I had thought. MDM have half the space and are leaving anyway. There are two churches besides Sureways which do not have permitted use, a temporary 2nd hand shop, a removals company (just somewhere to park vans overnight and a bit of storage as far as I've been able to make out) and the only business I think it might be a shame to displace is a printing company. It would be terrible though if they under-spec the replacement commercial space and it was left empty.

I was interested to learn that the Sureways church is actually the headquarters of the "International Church" of something. Lots of talk of local roads filled with cars on Sundays, hence the "not our community" digs. The church has the freehold though so they get to decide what happens to their building- this makes more sense of their ambitions for office space.

I'm a little conflicted with the Church planning application as ideally they'd leave and free up the space for something relevant to LJ, but I don't want that hideous frontage left undeveloped!


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2014)

Parking is a non-issue for me too, but the capacity of the Thameslink line seems a valid concern. It's already overcrowded. Yet this is from the "Transport Assessment" in the application:

 

"There are no known capacity issues on any of the bus or rail routes in the area"

That's clearly nonsense! Sometimes it's inpossible to get on the train in the morning peak.


----------



## Leo Chesterton (Oct 1, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Parking is a non-issue for me too, but the capacity of the Thameslink line seems a valid concern. It's already overcrowded. Yet this is from the "Transport Assessment" in the application:
> 
> View attachment 61883
> 
> ...


I agree - it's not a reason not to develop housing though. Need to kick the train providers up the arse. Make express trains stop etc.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2014)

The problem is that it's not that simple. Recasting the timetable is complicated and would have knock-on effects on other routes. And it takes longer than a couple of years to order new trains etc.

When there was all the stuff a litle while back about the stopping the through services at Blackfriars, I and others were saying we should be pressing for increases in capacity and frequency instead of retention of through services (the removal of conflicting paths at Blackfriars would have made it easier to retime services on the Wimbledon loop and probably would have given us a more reliable service too). That was an opportunity to get things improved but unfortunately the vocal campaign to keep the through services won out.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2014)

(Of course, it goes without saying that I would support pressing for whatever improvements to the train service are possible, in conjunction with this site being developed)


----------



## CH1 (Oct 1, 2014)

teuchter said:


> The ten-story office tower has been in there all along - in the drawings at the previous consultation and the ones submitted for the planning application (you can see it in the elevations I posted above).


The drawing placed right before me seemed to be of the "green" aspect of the development. This had no tower - merely an even longer residential block at the back (south) end of the site.

Maybe this was a preliminary plan, and the changes were "not material" in the view of the architect/deveopers.
Maybe it was an old drawing and should have been updated but hadn't been.

In any case I stick to my guns on what I saw at the meeting.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 1, 2014)

Leo Chesterton said:


> I was interested to learn that the Sureways church is actually the headquarters of the "International Church" of something. Lots of talk of local roads filled with cars on Sundays, hence the "not our community" digs. The church has the freehold though so they get to decide what happens to their building- this makes more sense of their ambitions for office space.
> 
> I'm a little conflicted with the Church planning application as ideally they'd leave and free up the space for something relevant to LJ, but I don't want that hideous frontage left undeveloped!


Seemed to me there was a hint of racism about the remarks at the meeting - and I expect they not from churchgoers anyway.

Looking at the accounts of the church on the Charity Commission website it looks like they have a turnover of about £1/3 million p.a. consistently from 2008 - 2012 (the year of the last available accounts).
The freehold is held in the accounts at approx £1 million.
There seem to be branches in Malta, Nottingham and Ghana.
Charitable funds have been deployed in Ghana for the relief and education of orphaned girls and also similar in Uganda.
A loan was made for the establishment of the church in Malta.

I can quite see why residents last night consider themselves not part of Sureway International church - but that is not to say the church may not be doing good worthwhile work.

They certainly have every right to enjoy their property in my view - notwithstanding that the present building is aesthetically unpleasing.


----------



## Leo Chesterton (Oct 1, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Seemed to me there was a hint of racism about the remarks at the meeting - and I expect they not from churchgoers anyway.



Definitely some culturism. Though it is not necessarily racist to want something other than a large church building at the exact centre of LJ. Specialist churches that people travel in for are "exclusive" rather than inclusive and do not contribute much positive to most people's experience of the area. For laughs think about how much people whinge about Brixton Village and the comparative inclusiveness of somewhere just trying to sell a bit of food.

Sureways is a particularly crap dead, bleak and ugly sight to greet you as you arrive and I think a large white Mormon or Southern Baptist church would generate exactly the same reaction.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2014)

I think maybe the comments were also partly as a result of the fact that on a lot of the drawings that space is labelled as "community space". I think they are trying a bit to make the overall scheme look more friendly by implying a public space on the corner (of course, permission for the main site would still allow it to be developed without any changes to the Sureways bit).

I think that permission for the Sureways application should certainly be on the condition that the appearance of the building at ground level is improved, ideally with a widened pavement and a route through to the main site behind.


----------



## goldengraham (Oct 1, 2014)

Regarding schools, there's Jessop, a huge and quite well-regarded primary school just up the road. Until recently it was the overspill school for much of Lambeth - I know people who bring their kids up from West Norwood to Jessop. Based on catchment, I'd have thought everyone in Higgs would get offered places there. Secondary would be Evelyn Grace on Shakespeare Road, or possibly Charter in North Dulwich as the catchment area for that will expand when the new school in East Dulwich opens.


----------



## LJandproud (Oct 6, 2014)

Yep, the 10 storey office block (which will clearly do nothing to ease the housing shortage in Lambeth and is speculative - developers have no buyers/ renters in mind) looks like a "before picture", ie a 1960s multi-storey car park to be knocked down for an exciting new development but sadly, no. It IS the new development.

As for the rest of it, the architecture's so unimaginative it makes Brixton Square look like a contender for the Stirling Prize. The developers are confident they'll get the plans through and, as others have commented, they've done a great job of hiding them from the community so far. 

Local councillors agree the consultation's been a sham and most residents still have no idea this is happening! Somebody went round and cut all the planning notices down and the developers only leafleted streets within about 3 streets of the site but everyone using LJ station and other services will be affected! (The flats will house more than 500 new residents plus there'll be hundreds more office workers.)

Many residents are pro-development as recognise huge need for regeneration but this is purely profit-driven - totally wrong development for this site. Includes no retail and no thought's been given to need for extra school and GP places or community space or already dangerously over-full train services etc. 

There's a meeting of the Loughborough Jn Action Group 7-9 pm tmrw (07.10.14) at the Sunshine Intl Arts Cafe, 209a Coldharbour Lane and it's really important that anyone who wants to comment does it now on the Lambeth planning website (keyword Higgs).


----------



## LJandproud (Oct 6, 2014)

goldengraham said:


> Regarding schools, there's Jessop, a huge and quite well-regarded primary school just up the road. Until recently it was the overspill school for much of Lambeth - I know people who bring their kids up from West Norwood to Jessop. Based on catchment, I'd have thought everyone in Higgs would get offered places there. Secondary would be Evelyn Grace on Shakespeare Road, or possibly Charter in North Dulwich as the catchment area for that will expand when the new school in East Dulwich opens.



Jessop was oversubscribed when St Saviours went into special measures, though. No way it could take potentially hundreds more kids. Already built over much of its outdoor space during last expansion. Cllr Jim Dickson agrees with this. So sad the council can't compulsorily purchase the site for a new school and affordable housing.


----------



## editor (Oct 6, 2014)

LJandproud said:


> There's a meeting of the Loughborough Jn Action Group 7-9 pm tmrw (07.10.14) at the Sunshine Intl Arts Cafe, 209a Coldharbour Lane and it's really important that anyone who wants to comment does it now on the Lambeth planning website (keyword Higgs).


Feel free to add it to the Brixton Buzz calendar!
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/add-your-event/


----------



## LJandproud (Oct 6, 2014)

editor said:


> Feel free to add it to the Brixton Buzz calendar!
> http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/add-your-event/



Done! Also worth noting that if using Lambeth's planning portal to comment on the Higgs plans, you need to register first. Registration takes 30 seconds. Not onerous. You just need to ignore the bit on the site that says "Comments can't be submitted at this time". It's said that since the start of the consultation. Lambeth accept it's a problem and have asked their IT dept to remove the wording. Clearly no joy yet. Deadline for comments open for another 4 wks apparently.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2014)

Worth pointing out that there are two applications - people should try and comment accordingly.

I saw quite a few comments which related to issues with one of the sites, entered as comments for the other site. I would hope that Lambeth would recognise where this has happened and make sure they were considered along with the relevant application, but then again, it's Lambeth we are dealing with.




teuchter said:


> The applications are now on the Lambeth planning database.
> 
> The main one here:
> http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NBQK7LBO03I00
> ...


----------



## editor (Oct 6, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Worth pointing out that there are two applications - people should try and comment accordingly.
> 
> I saw quite a few comments which related to issues with one of the sites, entered as comments for the other site. I would hope that Lambeth would recognise where this has happened and make sure they were considered along with the relevant application, but then again, it's Lambeth we are dealing with.


Thanks for clarifying that. And you're right, it is confusing. I've updated the B Buzz piece accordingly.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2014)

editor said:


> I've updated the B Buzz piece accordingly.





> The curved ‘community centre’ as they label it will actually be a big expansion of the existing Pentecostal Sureaways Intl Ministries Church. It won’t be open to the community at all. Parritt Leng are wilfully misleading people on this point.



To be a bit more specific about what is actually proposed for the Sureways church:
I'm not sure it's quite right to say it's an expansion of the church.
As far as I can see the church itself (on the ground floor level, with gallery seating above) remains about the same size.
A "conference centre" is added at 2nd floor level. Whether this is intended for church activities or to rent out or for both I don't know.
Then flats on 3rd floor and 4th floor.


 
Here is the 1st floor plan. I note there's a triangular room labelled "new community space". As you can see it's not very big. Not sure if this is just there so they can say the building contains "community space". The CGI showing the main elevation with "community centre" signs on it seems deliberately misleading to me.

I think they probably deserve the steadily growing list of "objection" comments on the planning database. Even if some of the reasons given for objections are a bit questionable, this scheme really hasn't been communicated to local folk clearly or, arguably, honestly.


----------



## editor (Oct 7, 2014)

teuchter said:


> To be a bit more specific about what is actually proposed for the Sureways church:
> I'm not sure it's quite right to say it's an expansion of the church.
> As far as I can see the church itself (on the ground floor level, with gallery seating above) remains about the same size.
> A "conference centre" is added at 2nd floor level. Whether this is intended for church activities or to rent out or for both I don't know.
> ...


I'm going to keep on adding a link back to this thread with every B Buzz feature because it's increasingly difficult to get a clear picture of what is proposed.

Have to say that I'm pleased to see new posters contributing to this thread. The more people who know about this scheme, the better.


----------



## LJandproud (Oct 9, 2014)

editor said:


> I'm going to keep on adding a link back to this thread with every B Buzz feature because it's increasingly difficult to get a clear picture of what is proposed.
> 
> Have to say that I'm pleased to see new posters contributing to this thread. The more people who know about this scheme, the better.


It is a significant expansion of the church. Here's how Mark Pender put it at a recent LJAG meeting. (He's the Planning Consultant employed by Parritt Leng): "The church building is currently 918sqm of church + 140sqm of B1 office space. The church will become 1384sqm of church + 192sqm B1 office space for the church. Plus there'll be an extra 2 floors above that, housing 5 flats. So it's 2 storeys now and will go up to 5. The church will own the flats."


----------



## nagapie (Oct 10, 2014)

LJandproud said:


> Jessop was oversubscribed when St Saviours went into special measures, though. No way it could take potentially hundreds more kids. Already built over much of its outdoor space during last expansion. Cllr Jim Dickson agrees with this. So sad the council can't compulsorily purchase the site for a new school and affordable housing.



There are other schools nearby that are not oversubscribed. However I think primary places would become an issue with that much housing.


----------



## LJandproud (Oct 14, 2014)

Just seen this submission to the Lambeth planning site. I hadn't thought of using Site 2 to house lifts or a new entrance for LJ station but it's an interesting idea:

"This scheme does nothing but window dress a building which turns its back on the streets cape. all it will do is increase the bulk of the building but not improve the blank facade it presents to a key corner in Loughborough Junction. This site is crying out to be redeveloped together with the Higgs site immediately to the south of it with pedestrian connectivity from Coldharbour Lane through the site, together with retail to the street with ideally a widened pavement. Loughborough Junction Station is very congested and it would be wise as part of the redevelopment to consider whether an entrance and or lift be best placed in this vicinity. The schemes reference to a community centre is dishonest and the level of expansion to the church which serves a regional community will only exacerbate parking problems on a Sunday, yet add nothing to the vibrancy of Loughborough Junction during the working day. We would be pleased if this scheme were withdrawn and a revised application made once a Masterplan of the area has determined a way forward in conjunction with the community."


----------



## goldengraham (Oct 14, 2014)

[QUOTE="This scheme does nothing but window dress a building which turns its back on the streets cape. all it will do is increase the bulk of the building but not improve the blank facade it presents to a key corner in Loughborough Junction. This site is crying out to be redeveloped together with the Higgs site immediately to the south of it with pedestrian connectivity from Coldharbour Lane through the site, together with retail to the street with ideally a widened pavement. Loughborough Junction Station is very congested and it would be wise as part of the redevelopment to consider whether an entrance and or lift be best placed in this vicinity. The schemes reference to a community centre is dishonest and the level of expansion to the church which serves a regional community will only exacerbate parking problems on a Sunday, yet add nothing to the vibrancy of Loughborough Junction during the working day. We would be pleased if this scheme were withdrawn and a revised application made once a Masterplan of the area has determined a way forward in conjunction with the community."[/QUOTE]

A brilliant summary of everything that's wrong with the Sureways site proposal - if only I'd been able to put it so well myself.


----------



## LJandproud (Oct 15, 2014)

According to the LJ Action Group (LJAG)'s website, they've written to Lambeth Cllr Lib Peck asking for the two applications to be withdrawn and a Masterplan for the whole area developed.  Let's see what she says...


----------



## Leo Chesterton (Oct 15, 2014)

A Masterplan could involve larger scale infrastructure development (e.g. tie ins with the London Plan or TFL projects) and crucially could give the Local Authority compulsory purchase powers for example to provide permeability through arches or get key central sites (such as the Sureways scatolith) used properly.


----------



## Tragedy Of Life (Oct 17, 2014)

I am against the whole proposal. I only found out by seeing a poster on the board outside LJ station this evening 17 October 2014. I think it is crimminal that sure church get to keep their ugly building and get paid to develop on top of the existing horrid structure. and yes they contribute nothing to the area and I hate Sundays when they block the roads with their expensive 4x4 horrid petrol guzzling monsters. plus the devlopment will do nothing for the area. apart from create another ugly block ruining the sunset from my balcony. As a loughbourough Junction resident for 16 years I appose it completly and I agree with LJ and Proud. Its just another money grabbing incentive with no consultation with the community on any level. No social housing. No community centre. No plans for any thing creative apart from piling people on top of each other to make more money. Something fishy is going on, and Sure church are part of it. They have dug their heels in and kept their ugly building and also got control of the flats above. more money for them. The developers dont care they just want to cram in as many flats as possible with no concern of local business or residents.


----------



## LJandproud (Oct 18, 2014)

Tragedy Of Life said:


> I am against the whole proposal. I only found out by seeing a poster on the board outside LJ station this evening 17 October 2014. I think it is crimminal that sure church get to keep their ugly building and get paid to develop on top of the existing horrid structure. and yes they contribute nothing to the area and I hate Sundays when they block the roads with their expensive 4x4 horrid petrol guzzling monsters. plus the devlopment will do nothing for the area. apart from create another ugly block ruining the sunset from my balcony. As a loughbourough Junction resident for 16 years I appose it completly and I agree with LJ and Proud. Its just another money grabbing incentive with no consultation with the community on any level. No social housing. No community centre. No plans for any thing creative apart from piling people on top of each other to make more money. Something fishy is going on, and Sure church are part of it. They have dug their heels in and kept their ugly building and also got control of the flats above. more money for them. The developers dont care they just want to cram in as many flats as possible with no concern of local business or residents.



You're not alone in just learning about this development. Our councillors have been horrified by the lack of consultation. Please let your neighbours/ local friends know the deadline for comments on the Lambeth website is next Friday (24th) and numbers matter! On the affordable housing issue, all developers have to abide by regs requiring 40% of the flats to be affordable. Parritt Leng have included the minimum (40%) of affordable housing in their plans, though several local architects suspect they intend to convert the office block to housing and if so, I'm not sure whether that would need to be split in same way or could be sold at market rate.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2014)

I've (finally) recieved through the mail a formal notification from Lambethof the applications. On these letters it says comments can be made up until 11th November.

There is now an impressive number of public comments on the Lambeth database (75 for site 1 and 108 for site 2), some quite detailed. They seem almost universally to be objections rather than support.


----------



## goldengraham (Nov 13, 2014)

I got an email today from Lambeth relating to the Sureways church redevelopment part of the plans (which I objected to). It says the recommendation is to grant permission.

The application will be considered at an open planning meeting at the town hall on 25 November. Got a feeling it will be a lively meeting ...


----------



## goldengraham (Nov 13, 2014)

Here's the letter ...


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2014)

Both sites (the Sureways bit and the main bit) to be considered at that meeting.


----------



## prunus (Nov 21, 2014)

Protest against the developer's intransigence tomorrow:

http://www.loughboroughjunction.org/higgs-triangle-protest-saturday-22-november-10am-12pm


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2014)

prunus said:


> Protest against the developer's intransigence tomorrow:
> 
> http://www.loughboroughjunction.org/higgs-triangle-protest-saturday-22-november-10am-12pm


I've just posted on B Buzz about this and will tweet widely. This really feels like it's been pushed through.
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/11/...gs-triangle-proposals-sat-22-november-9-45am/


----------



## Twattor (Nov 21, 2014)

editor said:


> I've just posted on B Buzz about this and will tweet widely. This really feels like it's been pushed through.
> http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/11/...gs-triangle-proposals-sat-22-november-9-45am/



It is sad that you or anyone should feel like that. 

Planning consultants and architects are engaged with the specific objective of developing proposals that are in line with planning policy, local development plans, sustainable development plans etc. set out by supposedly independent experts and legislators that hopefully know far more than you or I do. 

The whole idea of the system is that developments should be beneficial to society and shouldn't even get as far as public consultation without direction from the planners that they are broadly in line with policy (it has been noted on other threads occasions where submissions have been withdrawn suddenly, and in those cases I strongly suspect this would be the explanationbehind the withdrawal).  Members of the public usually can only object on the basis of planning law, and while it may be upsetting to some people, planning guidance is intended to be benefical to the greater populace.  Across great swathes of the country objectors are generally branded as NIMBYs - one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist, as they say.

There is a massive housing shortage in London.  I don't really care about churches, but as long as there is no loss of employment space then i don't see the problem with these proposals.


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2014)

Twattor said:


> There is a massive housing shortage in London.  I don't really care about churches, but as long as there is no loss of employment space then i don't see the problem with these proposals.


Not even when the process is seen as so badly done that Tessa Jowell MP writes to Lambeth Council with objections to ‘premature and ill-advised’ Higgs Triangle development?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 21, 2014)

Twattor said:


> It is sad that you or anyone should feel like that.
> 
> Planning consultants and architects are engaged with the specific objective of developing proposals that are in line with planning policy, local development plans, sustainable development plans etc. set out by supposedly independent experts and legislators that hopefully know far more than you or I do.
> 
> ...


The main redeeming feature of the application is a higher than normal (for Lambeth) amount of "affordable" housing. However this affordabe  housing is not affordable in terms of the majority population who have lived in Lambeth for the last 50 years. Ergo what you have here is yet more social cleansing, although the planning process does not allow that as an objection. But I object to social cleansing.


----------



## Twattor (Nov 21, 2014)

editor said:


> Not even when the process is seen as so badly done that Tessa Jowell MP writes to Lambeth Council with objections to ‘premature and ill-advised’ Higgs Triangle development?



If i understand th equotesd passages in your article correctly her objection is on the basis that it may not fit in with a possible future masterplan for the area.  Don't hold your breath...


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2014)

Twattor said:


> If i understand th equotesd passages in your article correctly her objection is on the basis that it may not fit in with a possible future masterplan for the area.  Don't hold your breath...


Ergo, it's being pushed through, like I said. LJAG think the same too.


----------



## Twattor (Nov 21, 2014)

editor said:


> Ergo, it's being pushed through, like I said. LJAG think the same too.



Pushed through by who?  A conspiracy by the developers and plannners?  The planners are (quasi-autonomous) tools of the council.  I'm sure if there really was a masterplan floating around then the application wouldn't have got this far but would have been quietly killed off at pre-app consultation.

This smacks of a bit of politicking by TJ.


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2014)

Twattor said:


> Pushed through by who?  A conspiracy by the developers and plannners?  The planners are (quasi-autonomous) tools of the council.  I'm sure if there really was a masterplan floating around then the application wouldn't have got this far but would have been quietly killed off at pre-app consultation.
> 
> This smacks of a bit of politicking by TJ.


And how about the Loughborough Junction Action Group? Are they at it too? What for?


----------



## Twattor (Nov 21, 2014)

editor said:


> And how about the Loughborough Junction Action Group? Are they at it too? What for?



I don't recall mentioning LJAG.  I quite like them, and think they perform a valuable service looking out for the interests of the LJ community.  I may have completely misread the situation, but the impression I got from your article was that TJ appeared to be hanging on their coat tails as a convenient vehicle to show a bit of solidarity with the locals, whilst actually doing nothing whatsoever.

You haven't expanded on who you think is pushing this through.


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2014)

Twattor said:


> I don't recall mentioning LJAG.  I quite like them, and think they perform a valuable service looking out for the interests of the LJ community.  I may have completely misread the situation, but the impression I got from your article was that TJ appeared to be hanging on their coat tails as a convenient vehicle to show a bit of solidarity with the locals, whilst actually doing nothing whatsoever.
> 
> You haven't expanded on who you think is pushing this through.


Not being able to point to a specific person/group does not negate the feelings felt by some locals, LJAG - and Tessa Jowell - that this being pushed through. It seems to me you're choosing to ignore those voices. Why is that?


----------



## Twattor (Nov 21, 2014)

editor said:


> Not being able to point to a specific person/group does not negate the feelings felt by some locals, LJAG - and Tessa Jowell - that this being pushed through. It seems to me you're choosing to ignore those voices. Why is that?



I'm not the one suggesting anything other than a pretty procedural planning appplication.  With every application there will always be those who object or feel disenfranchised, but that will always be the case.

I just can't see anything out of the ordinary here, and sought clarification from you of what you know that makes you believe otherwise.  What is it that makes you think that there's something underhand going on?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 22, 2014)

I think it is the applicant Parritt Leng who is pushing this through. They seem to be very efficient and determined. They have two similar developments on the go in Southwark only about a mile away. They project themselves as expert in producing basic commercial housing out of brown field sites. Unfortunately that happens to be exactly what Lambeth Council wants right now.

If this application had happened 15 years ago it would not have had a chance of being approved. The employment generating nature of the site would have been paramount. Mixed development was not countenanced in Lambeth at that time.

The developers have cleverly dealt with all current requirements of Lambeth Planning - from full compliance on affordable housing, to replacing all the employment space (albeit changing this from manufacturing/storage to offices - but unfortunately Lambeth does not have a policy to prevent this). 

There is a site visit in the morning and apparently residents will be demonstrating, but it seems likely that the planning committee will wave this one through and we will be stuck with Parritt Leng's design.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 22, 2014)

Twattor said:


> I'm not the one suggesting anything other than a pretty procedural planning appplication.  With every application there will always be those who object or feel disenfranchised, but that will always be the case.
> 
> I just can't see anything out of the ordinary here, and sought clarification from you of what you know that makes you believe otherwise.  What is it that makes you think that there's something underhand going on?


I agree with you that the role of the planning process is to allow decisions to be made for the greater good and that certain local objections should be ignored to that end.

But my main problems with this application are:

1) The consultation process (which should be part of the proceedure) hasn't been done properly. People weren't informed about it.
2) The existing employment types on the site will be lost completely (although the developers have deliberately tried to imply otherwise)
3) They have ignored real issues with the capacity of local transport (their transport assessment makes statements thatare simply false)
4) A masterplan for the area *was* produced a little while ago, with the cooperation of Lambeth, and this proposal runs contrary to it

All this has been covered earlier in the thread.

Read the several pages of objections on the planning database. Some are just NIMBYism, but many valid points are also made.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 25, 2014)

A reminder that the committee hearing for this application is *this evening, 7pm*, room 8, Brixton Town Hall (Acre Lane entrance). I'm going to try and go along.


----------



## editor (Nov 25, 2014)

teuchter said:


> A reminder that the committee hearing for this application is *this evening, 7pm*, room 8, Brixton Town Hall (Acre Lane entrance). I'm going to try and go along.


Fancy writing a report for B Buzz?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 25, 2014)

Councillors are discussing. Planning officer has recommended approval as might be expected given their involvement in the pre application process. Room is quite full. Herne Hill Society, 2 from LJAG and councillor jim dickson have spoken against as objectors.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 25, 2014)

Site 1 (main development) 6:1 in favour of refusal.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 25, 2014)

Same for site 2 (sureways)


----------



## Tricky Skills (Nov 25, 2014)

Blimey.

Application rejected by Planning Committee.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 25, 2014)

I was slightly surprised by the result.  The Planning Committee were swayed by residents and the Herne Hill Society and LJAG speakers objecting at the planning meeting - and the ward councillor likewise.

It is possible of course that the developer might come back for another try with less affordable housing as a quid pro quo for a less intensive scheme, which is what the councillors were asking for. Family Mosaic were on board for the scheme as presented - they provide 2,000 units of social housing in Lambeth currently they said.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 25, 2014)

editor said:


> Fancy writing a report for B Buzz?


I do have a page of scribbly notes but after sitting in the stuffy committee room I've not really the energy to condense 2 hours of meandering discussion into some concise and coherent.

If you want to put something on Brixton Buzz I think it would be fair to say that the main gist of the reasons for refusal was essentially that it would be an overdevelopment of the site. Plus concerns about the narrowness of the pavement on Coldharbour Lane and the extra demands being put on it.

There was a lot (disproportionate?) amount of discussion about play space.

The fact that the existing employment types would be removed was touched on very briefly in a comment (a mention of ceiling heights etc) but not really discussed at all.

Lambeth officers claimed that transport assessments had identified that there wouldn't be an excessive demand on the train station (really?) and that the pavements as they are would be fine (really?). They say TfL had identified no problems.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 25, 2014)

There was some discussion about density...various figures being mentioned in the context of the London Plan and Lambeth policies.

I might have misunderstood but it seemed that the London Plan designation of the site had changed during the pre-application process - from "urban" to "central" (on account of being less than 800m from Brixton centre), the "central" designation being used to justify the more intensive development and building heights. (CH1 if you were there too maybe you can confirm whether I got that right)


----------



## Twattor (Nov 25, 2014)

teuchter said:


> There was some discussion about density...various figures being mentioned in the context of the London Plan and Lambeth policies.
> 
> I might have misunderstood but it seemed that the London Plan designation of the site had changed during the pre-application process - from "urban" to "central" (on account of being less than 800m from Brixton centre), the "central" designation being used to justify the more intensive development and building heights. (CH1 if you were there too maybe you can confirm whether I got that right)



That sounds plausible.  It would be very unusual for a developer probably spending about £150k getting a scheme to planning stage if they weren't absolutely convinced that it was in line with policy and had the support of the case officer.  Not least of all because planners are hugely overworked and want to avoid doing any unnecessary work preparing reports on a scheme that won't stand a chance, so tend to tell the developers to forget it if they're barking up the wrong tree.

Possible grounds for appeal?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Nov 25, 2014)

teuchter said:


> I do have a page of scribbly notes but after sitting in the stuffy committee room I've not really the energy to condense 2 hours of meandering discussion into some concise and coherent.
> 
> If you want to put something on Brixton Buzz I think it would be fair to say that the main gist of the reasons for refusal was essentially that it would be an overdevelopment of the site. Plus concerns about the narrowness of the pavement on Coldharbour Lane and the extra demands being put on it.
> 
> ...



Added a few of the points here teuchter.

Ta.


----------



## editor (Nov 25, 2014)

Tricky Skills said:


> Added a few of the points here teuchter.
> 
> Ta.


Excellent work!


----------



## teuchter (Nov 25, 2014)

Tricky Skills said:


> Added a few of the points here teuchter.
> 
> Ta.





> The Planning Committee took the view argued by both local MP Tessa Jowell, and Lambeth Council Cabinet member Cllr Jim Dickson that a Loughborough Junction Masterplan is needed first ahead of any development.



Perhaps a bit of a technical point - but this is not quite accurate. Certainly Cllr Dickson and others argued that a masterplan should be produced first but the chair of the committee did note, I think, that the possible future existence of a masterplan isn't a valid reason to refuse an application.

I do agree that a proper masterplan for LJ (what extactly is the status of the current LJAG/Lambeth one?? ) would be very beneficial if there are going to be several largish developments happening in the near future.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 25, 2014)

Twattor said:


> That sounds plausible.  It would be very unusual for a developer probably spending about £150k getting a scheme to planning stage if they weren't absolutely convinced that it was in line with policy and had the support of the case officer.  Not least of all because planners are hugely overworked and want to avoid doing any unnecessary work preparing reports on a scheme that won't stand a chance, so tend to tell the developers to forget it if they're barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> Possible grounds for appeal?



Maybe. I reckon the developer will be well pissed off at the moment; however, planners tend to make sure that any advice given pre-application is just "advice" and they can't be held to it in the event of a refusal. Maybe they would have a case at appeal, but my feeling (just a gut feeling based on the incomplete picture I've got from attending consultations and tonight's hearing) is they've been pushing it a bit with this and maybe Lambeth haven't scrutinised some of their claims quite as well as they should have.

I think it's more likely that they'll resubmit with something a couple of storeys lower (despite theior claims that they've already shaved it down to the smallest scheme that it's viable to invest in).


----------



## editor (Nov 25, 2014)

teuchter said:


> I think it's more likely that they'll resubmit with something a couple of storeys lower (despite theior claims that they've already shaved it down to the smallest scheme that it's viable to invest in).


I'll never forgive or forget the devious bullshit that Barratt Homes came up with to get their affordable housing obligations reduced at Brixton Square.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 25, 2014)

editor said:


> I'll never forgive or forget the devious bullshit that Barratt Homes came up with to get their affordable housing obligations reduced at Brixton Square.


I think some of the response to what happened there may have influenced things with this project, both in terms of what was proposed and how the committee voted.

Proportion of affordable housing was mentioned a fair bit.

There were some pointed comments about it not being a "gated community" made by the developers at the meeting.

However one thing that the committee picked up on was the fact that each block would have its own "play area" only accessible to residents of that block, and this would mean that the affordable housing and private housing would have segregated play areas (one of the councillors actualy referred specifically to "social segregation" I think). This put quite a dent in the developers talk about inclusivess and communal amenity.

Suggestions from the developer that the communal courtyard would also be available as play area were met with scpeticism however, with councillors saying that people probably wouldn't want their kids playing in an area fully open to the public etc.

Maybe a gate-controlled communal area with playspace could provide for the social mixing between blocks and housing tenure types whilst still assuaging parents' security fears?

*re-ignites gated-community-gate*


----------



## editor (Nov 25, 2014)

The idea of separate play areas for the well-heeled and affordable residents is obscene. 
Most kids seem happy to play in public parks without sections all being gated off by virtue of the parents' wealth.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 25, 2014)

Not necessarily much different from the segregation bewteen kids whose parents can afford houses with leafy back gardens for them to play in and those whose parents can't.


----------



## editor (Nov 26, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Not necessarily much different from the segregation bewteen kids whose parents can afford houses with leafy back gardens for them to play in and those whose parents can't.


If we were talking about suburban homes with big leafy back gardens and green space all around and not new high rise builds in the middle of Loughborough Junction, perhaps.


----------



## Lizzy Mac (Nov 26, 2014)

Massive relief.  Thanks to anyone to contributed.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 26, 2014)

teuchter said:


> There was some discussion about density...various figures being mentioned in the context of the London Plan and Lambeth policies.
> 
> I might have misunderstood but it seemed that the London Plan designation of the site had changed during the pre-application process - from "urban" to "central" (on account of being less than 800m from Brixton centre), the "central" designation being used to justify the more intensive development and building heights. (CH1 if you were there too maybe you can confirm whether I got that right)


I was there, but right at the back so I could not see who was speaking most of the time.

Teuchter I think you are correct about what was said at the meeting vis a vis Urban/Central zoning of the site.

It was certainly disputed on the objectors side that this was a sensible interpretation of policy, but I have subsequently been unable to find the any reference to the policy - my Googling just produced loads of maps from a London Plan dated 2008 which had Brixton marked as an Urban Centre (the only other Urban Centre in Lambeth being Streatham). Things must have moved on since then.

Can anyone else help on where to locate London Plan designations for particular sites - and the implications thereof?


----------



## Bobzillard (Dec 4, 2014)

Parritt Leng, the developers, have distributed to local addresses a letter, dated 28 Nov 2014, inviting residents to review their revised proposals at meetings 
on Mon 8 Dec, Wed 10 Dec and Mon 15 Dec, all at the Sureway Church, 1 Higgs Estate, Herne Hill Road from 6pm-8pm.
"After a short presentation there will be an opportunity to ask questions and express views on the revised project".


----------



## editor (Dec 4, 2014)

Bobzillard said:


> Parritt Leng, the developers, have distributed to local addresses a letter, dated 28 Nov 2014, inviting residents to review their revised proposals at meetings
> on Mon 8 Dec, Wed 10 Dec and Mon 15 Dec, all at the Sureway Church, 1 Higgs Estate, Herne Hill Road from 6pm-8pm.
> "After a short presentation there will be an opportunity to ask questions and express views on the revised project".


Cheers for the update. I've posted up on B Buzz about the meetings.

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/12/...-for-higgs-triangle-in-loughborough-junction/

Good to make sure people get to hear about it as Parrit Leng don't seem very good on publicising their own meetings.


----------



## CH1 (Dec 4, 2014)

Bobzillard said:


> Parritt Leng, the developers, have distributed to local addresses a letter, dated 28 Nov 2014, inviting residents to review their revised proposals at meetings
> on Mon 8 Dec, Wed 10 Dec and Mon 15 Dec, all at the Sureway Church, 1 Higgs Estate, Herne Hill Road from 6pm-8pm.
> "After a short presentation there will be an opportunity to ask questions and express views on the revised project".


Maybe interested parties who wish to attend should note the previous incident where visitors names were quoted as "supporters" in the planning application.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 4, 2014)

That was very quick. I wonder if they had a "revised" scheme waiting in the wings in anticipation of a refusal. If not, I'd be a bit concerned that they've only spent about a week coming up with a new design. It wouldn't suggest that it had been thought through very carefully.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 4, 2014)

I predict fiddling round the edges


----------



## prunus (Dec 4, 2014)

Crispy said:


> I predict fiddling round the edges



Much as I'd enjoy having violinists serenading us on the borders of the development, I'm not sure this'll be enough to address the concerns of the locals.


----------



## goldengraham (Dec 4, 2014)

teuchter said:


> That was very quick. I wonder if they had a "revised" scheme waiting in the wings in anticipation of a refusal. If not, I'd be a bit concerned that they've only spent about a week coming up with a new design. It wouldn't suggest that it had been thought through very carefully.



They would definitely have anticipated rejection at the first stage. 

I know some people who have been affected by a large residential planning scheme in a totally different part of the country (they are actually in negotiations to sell their land to the developers and so have had direct discussions with them). The development was rejected by local planning at first hearing but my friends say the developers had seen that coming from way before the ruling and were clearly playing a long game ... I'd imagine this is no different.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 4, 2014)

goldengraham said:


> They would definitely have anticipated rejection at the first stage.
> 
> I know some people who have been affected by a large residential planning scheme in a totally different part of the country (they are actually in negotiations to sell their land to the developers and so have had direct discussions with them). The development was rejected by local planning at first hearing but my friends say the developers had seen that coming from way before the ruling and were clearly playing a long game ... I'd imagine this is no different.



Yes, not unusual strategy.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Dec 5, 2014)

I may well go. Any thoughts from people on specific questions it would be useful to ask?


----------



## prunus (Dec 6, 2014)

ChrisSouth said:


> I may well go. Any thoughts from people on specific questions it would be useful to ask?



I am going to try to go too; I don't know if I will make it though. 

My plan is to get the list of reasons they were rejected last time and ask, one by one, how this new proposal addresses each one. Please feel free to do the same


----------



## prunus (Dec 18, 2014)

Bobzillard said:


> Parritt Leng, the developers, have distributed to local addresses a letter, dated 28 Nov 2014, inviting residents to review their revised proposals at meetings
> on Mon 8 Dec, Wed 10 Dec and Mon 15 Dec, all at the Sureway Church, 1 Higgs Estate, Herne Hill Road from 6pm-8pm.
> "After a short presentation there will be an opportunity to ask questions and express views on the revised project".



Did anyone get to any of these?  What's the story?


----------



## Twattor (Dec 18, 2014)

Had an interesting chat with one of the developer's partners earlier this week. They were genuinely surprised that the scheme didn't get approved as they thought the developer had ticked all the necessary boxes.  Not sure I agree with the advice they've been given thus far, but opinions were exchanged.


----------



## CH1 (Dec 19, 2014)

Twattor said:


> Had an interesting chat with one of the developer's partners earlier this week. They were genuinely surprised that the scheme didn't get approved as they thought the developer had ticked all the necessary boxes.  Not sure I agree with the advice they've been given thus far, but opinions were exchanged.


Does that mean you went to one of those sessions - and if you did, were Parritt Leng showing their modifications to the proposals which had been turned down?

Or was it just a chat "What changes would you like to see?"


----------



## teuchter (Dec 19, 2014)

I meant to go to one of those sessions, and then failed to.

I've just recieved emails with the decision notices though.

They mention a "reconsulaton [sic] for an amended scheme". The amendments that are mentioned appear to be very minor. But maybe they are amendments that were made prior to the committee hearing, rather than amendments being proposed now?

Main site:



Corner (sureways church) site:


----------



## Twattor (Dec 21, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Does that mean you went to one of those sessions - and if you did, were Parritt Leng showing their modifications to the proposals which had been turned down?
> 
> Or was it just a chat "What changes would you like to see?"



No, stricly a pint and a chat.  Although i was surprised the the first thing i was asked was whether i had objected.  Happy to meet over a pint with you and teuchter to discuss


----------



## goldengraham (Dec 21, 2014)

Twattor said:


> Had an interesting chat with one of the developer's partners earlier this week. They were genuinely surprised that the scheme didn't get approved as they thought the developer had ticked all the necessary boxes.  Not sure I agree with the advice they've been given thus far, but opinions were exchanged.



Whatever reasons about pavement width etc the developers were eventually given for refusal, the real situation is obviously that they failed to consult the local community to any meaningful extent and/or take into account the area master plan, which it seems they are still very keen to bypass. So I'm concluding the surprise for them is that people round here actually give a shit about this stuff?


----------



## CH1 (Dec 22, 2014)

Twattor said:


> No, stricly a pint and a chat.  Although i was surprised the the first thing i was asked was whether i had objected.  Happy to meet over a pint with you and teuchter to discuss


I am happy to meet you - but I did not want to attend the latest Parritt Leng consultation meetings in case that was taken to imply my agreement to any changes they have made to the plans. 

My attitude is this - it is not in my back yard - so let the directly interested parties debate.  My own concern is over the de-industrialisation of Brixton, which is bad for jobs and turning the area into a dormitory with attendant infrastructure issues - as noted with overcrowding on the Thameslink service from Loughborough Junction.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 12, 2015)

Seems like some kind of consultation again now. Door a bit up herne hill road with sign next to it. Today and weds 5-8pm. Again very little notice given, not sure when the sign went up. Certainly I didn't get anything in the post despite living very close by.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 12, 2015)




----------



## prunus (Jan 12, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Seems like some kind of consultation again now. Door a bit up herne hill road with sign next to it. Today and weds 5-8pm. Again very little notice given, not sure when the sign went up. Certainly I didn't get anything in the post despite living very close by.



Well I walk past that door every day.  That sign was not there this morning I'm pretty sure.


----------



## editor (Jan 12, 2015)

Could someone be so kind as to post up/mail me some info about this consultation so I can put it on B Buzz?


----------



## teuchter (Jan 13, 2015)

prunus said:


> Well I walk past that door every day.  That sign was not there this morning I'm pretty sure.


It was there at the weekend actually. Saw it when legging it for the train on either saturday or sunday but didn't get round to taking a photo until today.


----------



## prunus (Jan 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> It was there at the weekend actually. Saw it when legging it for the train on either saturday or sunday but didn't get round to taking a photo until today.



Oh   Well, not as observant as I thought then.....


----------



## goldengraham (Jan 13, 2015)

I'm pretty sure the sign has been up since last week at least. But it's not easy to see from the west-side pavement, which most people use as it's at a high elevation on a wall which is very close to the pavement.

I popped into the consultation last night but didn't take any detailed notes. If memory serves me right though I can summarise thus: 

• fewer flats (c120 as opposed to c150)
• 10-floor office block reduced to 8 floors
• pavement widened by 1m around the Sureways church corner & Coldharbour Lane (reclaimed from the building, not the road)
• entrances to development widened by 2m; slightly bigger 'public space' bit in the middle; private access route from flats onto Coldharbour Lane

A smiley woman from Parrit Leng asked me if I had any questions, so I asked how it now dovetailed with the LJ masterplan. She said she had no idea, which I thought was quite telling. The architect with the hipster beard was there again and was obviously discussing the same subject in depth with someone else. Afraid I had to leave in a hurry so couldn't really pick up much of the conversation ...


----------



## teuchter (Jan 14, 2015)

goldengraham 's post sums up the changes pretty well.

Height/size of buildings has been reduced a bit, but not hugely. If, as per the planning committee judgement, the previous scheme had a feel that it's an overdevelopment of the site, then these fairly small changes don't really address that in my opinion.

It's good that they are now proposing to widen the pavement on the corner. It's hard to tell exactly what the nature of the facade at street level is though.

In photos, model on the left is old scheme, on the right is new scheme.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 14, 2015)

CH1 said:


> My own concern is over the de-industrialisation of Brixton, which is bad for jobs and turning the area into a dormitory with attendant infrastructure issues - as noted with overcrowding on the Thameslink service from Loughborough Junction.



This is the main issue for me too really - and the tweaked scheme changes nothing in this regard really.

There's not been much discussion on the thread about the loss of the industrial units. Does that mean that CH1 and I are the only ones really bothered about this?


----------



## leanderman (Jan 15, 2015)

teuchter said:


> This is the main issue for me too really - and the tweaked scheme changes nothing in this regard really.
> 
> There's not been much discussion on the thread about the loss of the industrial units. Does that mean that CH1 and I are the only ones really bothered about this?



Probably. Post-industrial country ... with a housing crisis


----------



## editor (Jan 15, 2015)

teuchter said:


> This is the main issue for me too really - and the tweaked scheme changes nothing in this regard really.
> 
> There's not been much discussion on the thread about the loss of the industrial units. Does that mean that CH1 and I are the only ones really bothered about this?


I'm not pleased with any of the proposals. I think it would be great if those people closer to this could publicise their concerns wider via a Brixton Buzz article. Anyone want to write it?


----------



## Boudicca (Jan 15, 2015)

teuchter said:


> This is the main issue for me too really - and the tweaked scheme changes nothing in this regard really.
> 
> There's not been much discussion on the thread about the loss of the industrial units. Does that mean that CH1 and I are the only ones really bothered about this?


My friend is a cabinet maker and his workshop is being compulsory purchased by Southwark council as part of the Renewal project.  Setting aside the derisory sum of money on offer, there just isn't anywhere else he can find to buy, there's nothing suitable for sale inside the M25.  

So, when inner London loses the industrial units, it also loses the skills being practiced inside them.  There will be no-one left to build you a fancy kitchen leanderman !


----------



## leanderman (Jan 15, 2015)

Boudicca said:


> My friend is a cabinet maker and his workshop is being compulsory purchased by Southwark council as part of the Renewal project.  Setting aside the derisory sum of money on offer, there just isn't anywhere else he can find to buy, there's nothing suitable for sale inside the M25.
> 
> So, when inner London loses the industrial units, it also loses the skills being practiced inside them.  There will be no-one left to build you a fancy kitchen leanderman !



Very true - even though we've just bought an Ikea kitchen!

Hard to house a record population and, at the same time, preserve commercial space. 

With the population growing at a bonkers 1 per cent a year, it's only going to get more difficult.


----------



## Winot (Jan 15, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Hard to house a record population and, at the same time, preserve commercial space.



And that's just *your* house.


----------



## goldengraham (Jan 15, 2015)

Surely the thing about LJ is that there are literally dozens of disused railway arches that would make perfect light industrial space, if only they could be opened up and restored for purpose, as LJAG is  advocating? You could create some amazing maker spaces by linking the arches in a thoughtful and unified way, letting them out at affordable rates and develop a whole new identity for the area based on that.

I'm not against there being industrial units around the area but if someone was proposing to build an industrial estate where the Higgs site is today, let's be honest there's no way anyone would consider it an appropriate use of the space (I wouldn't want a massive church plonking on the corner either to be honest).

I also question whether there is really the demand to sustain those larger units for light industry, as evidenced by the way power churches seem to be the only ones interested in occupying them.

The current proposal is an improvement on the last and will make for a nicer environment, although as everyone seems to agree, still way too big.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 15, 2015)

Some of the arches round there are absolutely cavernous







But they're only accessible off dank alleyways that run down the back of peoples' gardens.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 15, 2015)

Yeah, the railway arches can't replace the units that are in the Higgs estate, because of access issues amongst others. And maker spaces are all very well but that's not the kind of commercial industrial use that provides jobs.

Indeed permission probably wouldn't be given for a new industrial estate in that kind of location now. But I don't see that as an argument against keeping what's there - the opposite in fact. Once that usage is gone it's effectively gone for ever for that exact reason. A bit like pubs closing down.

That there is a need for industrial areas like this in inner London is recognised in planning policy. Some are specifically identified as to be protected. Unfortunately this one isn't at present.

And if the argument is that the need for housing trumps the need for local employment, then why bother providing all the office space that Lambeth have determined this development must offer? Again, a diversity of employment locally (ie not just all office jobs) is stated as an aim within planning policy.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 15, 2015)

Plus - even if the railway arches could be suitable for light industrial - as soon as this site is developed as housing, good luck persuading the new residents that a bit of light industry is what they want as neighbours.


----------



## Lizzy Mac (Jan 31, 2015)

There is now a fence up with locked gates.  It's so sad.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 4, 2015)




----------



## teuchter (Feb 4, 2015)

Through the letterbox


----------



## CH1 (Feb 4, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Through the letterbox
> View attachment 67260


I got it too - along with the latest "Lambeth Talk"
In terms of clarity and "in yer face" the leaflet wins hands down I thought.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 4, 2015)

"Comments received: Impact on local transport infrastructure"

"Response to comments: Developer will make financial contributions (S106/CIL)"

I'd like a bit more clarity on that. Do they mean this has been renegotiated, or just that it was always the requirement that they'd make these contributions? In any case I'm not sure that financial contributions (unless on a very large scale) are what's needed to deal with the overcrowding on the trains. It's an operational issue (and made all the more difficult thanks to the success of the misguided campaign to retain through services on the Wimbledon Loop).


----------



## CH1 (Feb 4, 2015)

teuchter said:


> It's an operational issue (and made all the more difficult thanks to the success of the misguided campaign to retain through services on the Wimbledon Loop).


Slight diversion - did you know there was a brief period where trains ran from Luton to Guildford through Loughborough Junction?

I'd forgotten, but I turned up this old report from Lambeth Public Transport Group which goes on at great length about everything to do with public transport in Loughborough Junction in 1991/2.
The report - written by John Stewart (now Hacan) - was precipitated by British Rail's decision to axe all off-peak services at Loughborough Junction in May 1992.

How things change!


----------



## teuchter (Feb 4, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Slight diversion - did you know there was a brief period where trains ran from Luton to Guildford through Loughborough Junction?


Nope - shame that didn't continue as it would be very handy for a journey I make quite frequently.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 4, 2015)

Can't resist putting up a short extract from the report - public transport archaeology like


----------



## teuchter (Feb 4, 2015)

Things could be greatly improved by reopening the eastern platforms so that trains from Denmark Hill could stop, giving more connections and a more frequent service. If money were available then I'd vote for spending it on that. Someone said it's not possible because the curve is too steep, but I don't know if that's really true.


----------



## Beasley (Feb 10, 2015)

teuchter said:


> the overcrowding on the trains. It's an operational issue (and made all the more difficult thanks to the success of the misguided campaign to retain through services on the Wimbledon Loop).



I wonder if trains could be added on the Wimbledon Loop line in place of mainline Thameslink trains that are being rerouted through Loughborough Junction until Jan 2018 because of works at London Bridge? 

When the work there is finished there could be capacity on this line for trains that would run to and from the terminating platforms of Blackfriars station.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 10, 2015)

Beasley said:


> I wonder if trains could be added on the Wimbledon Loop line in place of mainline Thameslink trains that are being rerouted through Loughborough Junction until Jan 2018 because of works at London Bridge?
> 
> When the work there is finished there could be capacity on this line for trains that would run to and from the terminating platforms of Blackfriars station.


The diverted mainline Thameslinks only follow the Wimbledon Loop route as far as Tulse Hill, then they diverge, so the "extra" capacity might not apply beyond that point. And the terminating platforms at Blackfriars are used by the sevenoaks services via Denmarkl Hill. Not sure if they have spare capacity to take more termoniating trains.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 10, 2015)

teuchter said:


> The diverted mainline Thameslinks only follow the Wimbledon Loop route as far as Tulse Hill, then they diverge, so the "extra" capacity might not apply beyond that point. And the terminating platforms at Blackfriars are used by the sevenoaks services via Denmarkl Hill. Not sure if they have spare capacity to take more termoniating trains.


Surely the Sevenoaks trains terminate at Kentish Town these days?
Not tried them out mind, but that is what it always says on the indicator boards.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 10, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Surely the Sevenoaks trains terminate at Kentish Town these days?
> Not tried them out mind, but that is what it always says on the indicator boards.


Yes you're right...looking at the timetable it's mainly the Kent trains that terminate at Blackfriars. Mostly just in the peak hours. So maybe there is some capacity there.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 11, 2015)

teuchter said:


> This is the main issue for me too really - and the tweaked scheme changes nothing in this regard really.
> 
> There's not been much discussion on the thread about the loss of the industrial units. Does that mean that CH1 and I are the only ones really bothered about this?



Now that I am up LJ way I have been seeing more of it. I like the fact that there is light industry in the arches and in industrial units. Its something Brixton has gradually lost. 

It makes LJ a more interesting area imo.


----------



## Chris Boyle (Feb 12, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Now that I am up LJ way I have been seeing more of it. I like the fact that there is light industry in the arches and in industrial units. Its something Brixton has gradually lost.
> 
> It makes LJ a more interesting area imo.



Hi Everyone,

I'm Chris Boyle, the architect for the Higgs re-development working with Parritt Leng. As you will have seen from the leaflet that we sent out , we have made considerable amendments to the previously submitted scheme that we very much hope have addressed any concerns that individuals may have had. Since our last Public Consultation event on Feb 5th, we have made additional mass and scale reductions which has further decreased the physical mass on the site. 

If anyone is available to come to our next Public Consultation this Saturday (as stipulated on the leaflet) to review the final scheme you will be most welcome. The leaflet was delivered to approx 5,800 addresses (every property in the Loughborough Junction area) so we hope that there will be a good turn out. I'd also like to thank LJAG for their assistance in obtaining access to the Loughborough Estate for the leaflet distribution. 

Just to be clear with the point that some of you have raised on the industrial units; there is no loss of this space with our proposal. The council made it very clear to us during the pre-planning process that we had to re-provide the same floor area of employment space that the site currently provides with the same use classification. They will not support a change of use. Our revised scheme actually proposes approx 3,000sq/ft more than the existing Higgs units. 

If anyone has any other queries on the development then please come along on Saturday and we can discuss in more detail, I hope to see you there.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 13, 2015)

Chris Boyle said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> I'm Chris Boyle, the architect for the Higgs re-development working with Parritt Leng. As you will have seen from the leaflet that we sent out , we have made considerable amendments to the previously submitted scheme that we very much hope have addressed any concerns that individuals may have had. Since our last Public Consultation event on Feb 5th, we have made additional mass and scale reductions which has further decreased the physical mass on the site.
> 
> ...



Hi.

Thanks for being brave enough to post on here. I don't know whether you are going to read any replies or whether you've read this thread through, but I don't feel the statement about the usage change is accurate/honest, based on my understanding. I explained why earlier in the thread, in the post quoted below:



teuchter said:


> As the application documents are now (eventually) available on the planning database I've started to look through them.
> 
> Firstly, regarding the employment issues, and what is proposed to replace the existing light industrial units.
> 
> ...




These figures will be slightly different with the "redesign" but I think the central point remains. There is a significant difference between B1 and B2 usage. Is it not the case that the amount of B2 usage will be massively reduced compared to what's there now? Or have I somehow misunderstood things?


----------



## Chris Boyle (Feb 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Hi.
> 
> Thanks for being brave enough to post on here. I don't know whether you are going to read any replies or whether you've read this thread through, but I don't feel the statement about the usage change is accurate/honest, based on my understanding. I explained why earlier in the thread, in the post quoted below:
> 
> ...




Thanks for your response. The council's use classification for the whole Higgs estate is B1/B2 (other than the Sureways church which is D1). There is no obligation from the council's perspective to provide a certain quantum of B1 or B2 as long as the proposed commercial space is the same floor area as existing and there is no change of use. Whilst the use classification under council Policy is B1/B2 (which we portrayed in the area schedules), the actual use of the previous tenants was not reflective of this; there was the Imprints building which made plaster casts of babies hands and feet, 2 illegal churches and a furniture removals company. The only one that could realistically be classified as industrial was MDM.  

From all the Public Consultations that we've done on this site (including those on the previous application), the topic on what would be a suitable use classification for the proposed commercial units is the one with the biggest divide among local residents. There seems to be those in favour of retaining the B1/B2 use and those who can't see a need for it anymore and would prefer more leisure based facilities such as cafes, food retail, gym etc. The main point people make against keeping the B1/B2 use is that it provides no community based offering; a cafe or gym encourages social interaction and provides a use that local residents can directly engage with which isn't the case with B1/B2 units.  

I can see both sides of the argument but a change of use would also be against council policy. The "Town Centre" which effectively ends at the northern point of Herne Hill Road does not extend onto our site, as such we are not able to propose anything other than B1/B2 with our application.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 13, 2015)

I don't think the nature of the particular businesses that were there at the point in time before they were all evicted is relevant. The point is is that there are a number of units which are available for B2 use. Some of these were being used for B2 activities. Some weren't but could be used by another occupier as such in the future. If the churches were there illegally, that's not an argument for removing B2 usage, it's an argument for Lambeth enforcing pollicy properly.

The fact is that almost all of the commercial space that's in the scheme, even if it's classified as "B1/B2", simply won't be any good for the kind of work being performed in the industrial estate previously. For reasons discussed earlier in this thread. It's not going to be possible for anyone to make theatrical props in a 4th floor office. Nor would it be any good for the furniture removals company that you describe as non-industrial.

I understand your position as architect and the fact that the decisions on usage are driven by planning policy and market forces, neither of which are under your control. And not everyone will agree that keeping the industrial usage is desirable or necessary. But it's a bit irritating to see statements like



> Just to be clear with the point that some of you have raised on the industrial units; there is no loss of this space with our proposal.



Which are simply misleading. The majority of the industrial usage will be lost. And building a large housing development will likely kill off other industrial business nearby in the long run. It feels like the proposal is not being represented honestly to those who don't have the time or inclination to read the drawings and planning documents carefully. In one of the consultation meetings (not one you were present at) your planning consultant also claimed that none of the industrial space would be lost.

It's the same with labelling the church as a "community centre" on the drawings. Not honest (as I think was teased out to some extent in the planning committee discussion). And these seemingly deliberately misleading statements are part of the reason the scheme got such a bad response from folk living locally.


----------



## Chris Boyle (Feb 16, 2015)

I think that the nature of the previous businesses is of key importance in this debate. It could be argued that an industrial estate with no external influences that evolved into a situation where only 1 in 6 of the occupiers were of industrial use classification is evidence that there isn't a very high demand for industrial space. Whilst the previous units could have been used for industrial purposes, the fact most of them weren't cannot be ignored.  

I do see your point on how the exact use differences between B1 & B2 can be made clearer but I do not think that it is misleading to say that employment space of an existing use classification is being re-provided as the same use classification. As I stated earlier, there is no instruction from the council nor is there an adopted Policy to provide a certain quantum/division between the B1 and B2 use proposed on this site.

I'd also like to be very clear that none of the previous businesses were evicted, that is a misleading statement.  

I don't think there's necessarily a right or wrong view on whether or not the use classification should be B1/B2 or more B2 or something else entirely, as you rightly say not everyone will agree. It is an interesting topic. 

We can see how the previous label on the CGI for the church building of "community centre" could have been misinterpreted. The images were for artistic purposes only (as stated in the committee meeting) and we were drawing attention to the fact that a community centre was proposed as part of the new accommodation for the church. Part of the previously proposed accommodation was for a multi-purpose conference/function hall that could have been used or rented by the community for any appropriate event. The application form, drawings, and all other submitted information on that application never proposed that the whole building would become a community centre. It was never intended to be misleading. As you will have seen on our leaflet, this is not proposed in the new application.

As a quick update; our new application will be submitted to the council today, it usually takes them a week or so to officially register the submission at which time all of our submitted drawings, consultant reports etc will be publicly available to view.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 16, 2015)

Chris Boyle thanks again for taking the time to reply. Most developers simply ignore discussion boards like this.





Chris Boyle said:


> I think that the nature of the previous businesses is of key importance in this debate. It could be argued that an industrial estate with no external influences that evolved into *a situation where only 1 in 6 of the occupiers were of industrial use classification* is evidence that there isn't a very high demand for industrial space. Whilst the previous units could have been used for industrial purposes, the fact most of them weren't cannot be ignored.



I would put this a little differently - here highlighted in red are the units whose usage until recently was of a type that won't be accomodated in the proposed scheme:

 

This is my best effort according to info available/my memory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 3 and 4 were MDM and I think 5 and 6 were being used by them too - at least, I'm fairly sure I saw large things being made in those units too. 7 was the packaging company. 9 was the imprints company - I've hatched it because I don't know enough about them to know if they would be likely to take space in the new scheme but I'm guessing that as they were effectively manufacturing stuff probably not. 8 is the church and 2 is an older non industrial building anyway. Looking at it this way seems to provide evidence of a fairly healthy use of the space by businesses that the new scheme simply won't be any good for. We can argue about the technical use classifications but they were all providing jobs that are of quite a different nature to the office-based ones that they will be replaced by.

On any case, I don't think the usage over the past few years can be taken as a reliable indicator of demand. To come to that conclusion would require taking into account a lot of other factors. The current/previous owners of the site may have been eying up redevelopment opportunities for some time. Maybe they were offering shorter leases than they would otherwise, so as to keep these options open. Maybe their marketing of any available space was influenced by this too. Perhaps in these circumstances offering a shorter lease to a church was more attractive than offering a longer one to a true industrial user who would want to invest in machinery and so on, even if the industrial user might have paid a bit more?

I'm not trying make criticism of Perrit Leng's potential involvement in any negotiations about the site, or its relationship or deal with the previous owners. I don't know what that's involved nor would I expect you to tell me. The point here is that I don't think local people should accept this kind of "not commercially viable" argument about maintaining the current usage (if they care about this issue at all, of course). 



Chris Boyle said:


> I do see your point on how the exact use differences between B1 & B2 can be made clearer but I do not think that it is misleading to say that employment space of an existing use classification is being re-provided as the same use classification. As I stated earlier, there is no instruction from the council nor is there an adopted Policy to provide a certain quantum/division between the B1 and B2 use proposed on this site.



I think it's misleading if it's being presented in the context of a discussion about whether or not the new scheme will provide space for similar businesses as were there previously. And that's how I saw it presented by your planning consultant.



Chris Boyle said:


> I'd also like to be very clear that none of the previous businesses were evicted, that is a misleading statement.



Fair enough. I shouldn't suggest that they were removed against their will. However, I presume it's not just coincidence that all the main tenants moved out at around the same time, which happens to be the same time that a planning application for redevlopment of the site goes in. Maybe they were on leases that terminated at this point (as per my other points above) or maybe they were given incentives? The point being that they have moved on in order to make space for redevelopment of the site, and will now not return. Unless you are saying they all just happened to want to move out of their own accord.



Chris Boyle said:


> I don't think there's necessarily a right or wrong view on whether or not the use classification should be B1/B2 or more B2 or something else entirely, as you rightly say not everyone will agree. It is an interesting topic.
> 
> We can see how the previous label on the CGI for the church building of "community centre" could have been misinterpreted. The images were for artistic purposes only (as stated in the committee meeting) and we were drawing attention to the fact that a community centre was proposed as part of the new accommodation for the church. Part of the previously proposed accommodation was for a multi-purpose conference/function hall that could have been used or rented by the community for any appropriate event. The application form, drawings, and all other submitted information on that application never proposed that the whole building would become a community centre. It was never intended to be misleading. As you will have seen on our leaflet, this is not proposed in the new application.



What exactly are "artistic purposes"? If they were simply artworks for people to enjoy as standalone pieces it was a bit curious to display them at consultation sessions. Let's not pretend that these images aren't used to portray the scheme in a way that will be attractive to those who will be affected by the development. The principle user (and indeed owner) of that building would be Sureways Church. The entrance to the church would have been on the corner. The signage was shown positioned over that entrance. The entrance to the token "community space" (in fact a rather small room upstairs) would have been around the corner towards the railway bridge. Someone made a conscious decision that the signage would say "Community Centre" not "Sureways Church" and I'm not buying it that that wasn't made for a calculated reason.

Anyway, thank you again for responding.

Also, the widening of the pavement on the corner is very welcome. I assume this means that more of the current building would be demolished than in the previous scheme?


----------



## editor (Feb 16, 2015)

Chris Boyle said:


> As a quick update; our new application will be submitted to the council today, it usually takes them a week or so to officially register the submission at which time all of our submitted drawings, consultant reports etc will be publicly available to view.


Thanks for taking the time to keep us updated. 

This site reaches quite a lot of people so I'm sure sure that there will be many interested parties who will appreciate your interaction here.


----------



## Chris Boyle (Feb 20, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Chris Boyle thanks again for taking the time to reply. Most developers simply ignore discussion boards like this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for your comments again. With regards to the units, MDM were in units 3-6, Units 9 & 7 (and the others) were not industrial. It is worth remembering that B1 classification is not solely office, it does also include light industry suitable for residential areas. We've never made the argument that retaining the use is not commercially viable, we are retaining the use. The commercial space that we have designed can accommodate a wide range of employment uses (including B2) with a variety of floor plate sizes and ceiling heights. I can't name specific business owners but we have had some interest from an artists studio company about possibly taking some of the commercial area.

I'm pleased that you think widening the pavement for the Site 2 application is a good idea, it does mean that more of the current building will be demolished than the previous scheme.

Asides from the commercial use classification are there any other elements of the scheme that you or anyone else on this thread would like to know more about or have any queries on? Understandably there will be aspects of the scheme that people will not agree with and may have alternative opinions. We'd like people to be as informed as possible in this respect. We had issues on the previous application as well as this one of certain individuals and companies making rather slanderous and misinformed claims about us which we do not think is fair, obviously people are fully entitled to their own opinion but we kindly ask that people use all best endeavours to review all of the submitted information and try and speak to us before making up their minds on the scheme. A specific event that I'm referring to occurred the other day when a poster from the South London Press had been installed over the top of one of our public consultation banners reading "Lambeth: oligarch (i'm aware of the misspelling gentrification virus invasion continues"

We want to be working with the public as much as possible which is why we undertook such an extensive public consultation process and why I'm taking part on this thread. If anyone does have any other queries then please let me know and I'll endeavour to get back to you as soon as I can.


----------



## Winot (Feb 21, 2015)

^^ I don't know much about this as it's outside my area but just wanted to thank you for coming here and engaging.


----------



## Chris Boyle (Feb 25, 2015)

Hi Everyone, from re-reading my last post it looks like it uploaded before I'd finished writing it for some reason. The poster from the South London Press that defaced our banner read "Lambeth: oligarch gentrification virus continues" (on the poster they misspelled oligarch). I don't think that providing a large amount of affordable housing in line with council policy can be classified as gentrification, in any event general mud slinging and unfounded accusations are not a productive way of getting a point across.  

I've been in touch with the editor in chief for the South London Press who has officially stated that the poster was nothing to do with them. Their assumption is that someone must have taken the poster from a news stand and made it themselves. They have since been to site and taken it down which we are grateful for. 

The council have now officially registered the applications on their website now but they are still in the process of uploading all of the drawings and documents which should hopefully be complete in the next day or so. 

Just to reiterate that if anyone has any other queries on the project then please let me know.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Feb 25, 2015)

Chris Boyle the original planning application was rejected because it was thought that a 'resident led' Loughborough Junction masterplan needed to be in place before any future major development could be passed.

Did you consider holding back with this new application until the residents have had time to work with the likes of Cllr Jim Dickson to put a masterplan in place?


----------



## brixtonblade (Feb 25, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Chris Boyle the original planning application was rejected because it was thought that a 'resident led' Loughborough Junction masterplan needed to be in place before any future major development could be passed.
> 
> Did you consider holding back with this new application until the residents have had time to work with the likes of Cllr Jim Dickson to put a masterplan in place?



I thought LJAG had done one?


----------



## CH1 (Feb 25, 2015)

brixtonblade said:


> I thought LJAG had done one?


Your right. It did in 2012/3.
Not sure why they have to have another one. Maybe the original one was "aspirational" and the new one will be a legal document planning wise.

Lambeth will be funding both exercises - no wonder they are thinking of closing half the libraries, if they can't even do planning correctly and spend twice as much as necessary.


----------



## Chris Boyle (Feb 26, 2015)

The masterplan was not a reason for the previous application being refused, it was not referenced at all in the decision notice. At the last committee meeting the Chair said that they could not assess this scheme against a masterplan that may or may not happen. As such, it is not a material consideration for this or any other application.

Nonetheless, we have met with LJAG on numerous occasions and discussed the key principles that will be outlined in the masterplan that they are currently working on. We wholeheartedly support their main objectives of creating more green open space and more pedestrian routes through the Loughborough Junction area. We have taken this on board with our design and we will be delivering approx 1250sqm of publicly accessible green space, currently there is none. Furthermore, the only possible routes through the site to neighbouring sites and beyond is through the railway arches which is not possible on the site in it's current situation as the units on the southern boundary are adjoining the railway viaduct. Due to our proposed building positions, every arch that borders the site is opened up and can create a possible connection route when/if the sites on the other side(s) get developed. 

The arches themselves are not part of our application and we are not proposing any change to their existing condition. What we have done by opening them up is enabling the possibility for these routes to be implemented as part of LJAG's masterplan which is the most that can be done at this stage. Further discussions would need to take place between LJAG and Network Rail in line with future development applications before this could be realised. 

Any masterplan has to be undertaken in stages of phased development, considering that our scheme is in line with the key principles of the masterplan being worked up by LJAG and it does not hinder or obstruct development on any other site that it may target, we do not see any reason to delay our application until the masterplan is completed. LJAG have acknowledged that the scheme has been designed in accordance with their main objectives and the possibility of new routes has been maximised. 

LJAG had previously completed a document called the Loughborough Junction Plan which set out key objectives and sites that could be developed in the area, I believe that the masterplan being worked up at the moment will be a more detailed version.

It is worth noting that when/if the masterplan is completed and adopted by the council, it will not override planning policy. Much like the current document, the council may recommend architects and developers to review it but any future application can not be refused for not being in line with its principles as long as planning policy is adhered to.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 4, 2015)

It's now two and a half weeks since the application was submitted and still it doesn't seem possible to view it online. A list of drawings is now there but clicking on the links doesn't work for me - just get a "timed out" message. Has anyone else had any success? Chris Boyle is it possible to chase lambeth on this?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 4, 2015)

Ok, looks like the drawings are finally available. I've yet to look through them properly but an initial question for Chris Boyle:





The lower image is an extract from the plans, and represents approximately the same area as the google aerial view above it.

On the plans, the access road into the proposed development is shown running immediately next to the north edge of the railway viaduct.

If you look at the aerial view, you can see there is a strip of space, 2 or 3m wide, between the north edge of the viaduct and the back of the existing industrial units. That strip is filled at least partly with extensionsn to the railway arch units. For example, in Whirled cinema, the seating is under the viaduct arch, but the screen is a couple of metres further "outside" of the arch opening. As far as I understand it's within that strip (as are the toilets and access to the toilets). The plans imply that all those extensions to the arch units will be demolished, which would mean the cinema would have to be reconfigured and made smaller. Presumably the same would apply to other arch units too.

So, is that right; the proposals will mean Whirled cinema and other arch users will have part of their space taken away? Or is the proposal plan drawn wrongly? Or have I misunderstood something?



(nb Whirled cinema is not actually located where it's marked on the google view - it's further off to the left, under the railway)


----------



## teuchter (Mar 5, 2015)

I've started having a look at the application documents. Here from the design statement are a couplel of comparison CGIs showing previous vs new proposal.

 
This is looking along Herne Hill Road down towards Coldharbour Lane. Previous scheme left, new one right.

I think it's fair to say that any reduction in massing is negligible. Bulk presented to street is not reduced at all really (in fact the elevation has become somewhat less perforated with a number of balcony recesses removed). Looking down the alleyway the apparent height of the second block has increased if anything as it no longer has a setback at upper level. The reasons given for refusal included excessive sense of enclosure and overdevelopment of the site. I wouldn't say these images indicate that any significant changes have been made in that regard.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 5, 2015)

This is the Coldharbour Lane corner.

 

New scheme on the right. 

It's better. Pavement has been widened and the streetfront at ground level has been made a little bit less blank. It's OK if not massively exciting. I don't think I'll object to the new site 2 application.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 5, 2015)

If anyone wants to look at the drawings or make a comment, links to planning database are:

Site 1 (Main Development)

Site2 (Sureways church corner site)


----------



## CH1 (Mar 5, 2015)

teuchter said:


> This is the Coldharbour Lane corner.
> 
> View attachment 68469
> 
> ...


I don't think it's hugely different. About 20% less oppressive I's say.

Rather bit like the Satay Bar illusion on Coldharbour Lane behind the Ritzy at the Brixton end - an overhang with pillars. The Satay had the cheek to want to fill in the pillars (which the Lambeth planning fortunately refused).


----------



## teuchter (Mar 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I don't think it's hugely different. About 20% less oppressive I's say.
> 
> Rather bit like the Satay Bar illusion on Coldharbour Lane behind the Ritzy at the Brixton end - an overhang with pillars. The Satay had the cheek to want to fill in the pillars (which the Lambeth planning fortunately refused).



I wouldn't describe it as oppressive. Overall height broadly in line with buildings on opposite side of the street, and upper floors set back. 

The main entrance to the church is now on Coldharbour Lane next to the bridge, instead of on the corner. That's a significant improvement because it would mean that the first thing you see coming out of the train station is a glazed entranceway rather than a blank brick wall with razor wire on top as it is now.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Mar 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> This is the Coldharbour Lane corner.
> 
> View attachment 68469
> 
> ...


 
Where do the traffic lights go? If they aren't relocated, they will be slap bang in the middle of the Sureway church door. If they are relocated, will that be done with the interest of pedistrians in mind?


----------



## CH1 (Mar 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I wouldn't describe it as oppressive. Overall height broadly in line with buildings on opposite side of the street, and upper floors set back.
> 
> The main entrance to the church is now on Coldharbour Lane next to the bridge, instead of on the corner. That's a significant improvement because it would mean that the first thing you see coming out of the train station is a glazed entranceway rather than a blank brick wall with razor wire on top as it is now.


There is no increase in real pavement space though - it just looks slightly more spacious in a very tight spot.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


> There is no increase in real pavement space though - it just looks slightly more spacious in a very tight spot.




The grey bit is new pavement area. The line of the building at ground level has been set back by 1m compared to where it is now.


----------



## Chris Boyle (Mar 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Ok, looks like the drawings are finally available. I've yet to look through them properly but an initial question for Chris Boyle:
> 
> View attachment 68388
> 
> ...




Hi Again, 

Firstly I share your frustration on how long it took the council to upload everything, apparently they were having IT problems affecting all their current applications. Due to the delays they have extended their public consultation period so there is more time for people to leave comments.

Regarding your point above, if you look at our site location plan you'll see that this strip of land is not included with our development. That 3m strip of land in front of the railway viaduct is a standard 'clear zone' that network rail have on either side of all of their lines. All of our vehicle access, turning areas etc have been designed to work without breaching this line. 

We are aware that the Whirled cinema (as well as the boxing gym and others) have built into this strip of land and we are not planning on demolishing anything outside of our boundary. 

When/if we get planning approval we will have more detailed discussions with the tenants and Network Rail with regards to the final treatment of this side of the arches, whether or not they remain solid or are used as a secondary access point will need to be decided. 

I can see that there are other points/queries that people have raised. I'll respond to these early next week. 

As a semi-separate point, I can see that there are quite a few people on this site who are taking a very active interest in the applications which is good. I'd be happy to come and meet with a group of you to explain the project in more detail with a set of the submitted drawings & design report if that would help? I appreciate that going through all of the information on the council website is fairly time consuming, it may be easier to discuss the scheme(s) in person.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 6, 2015)

Chris Boyle said:


> Regarding your point above, if you look at our site location plan you'll see that this strip of land is not included with our development. That 3m strip of land in front of the railway viaduct is a standard 'clear zone' that network rail have on either side of all of their lines. All of our vehicle access, turning areas etc have been designed to work without breaching this line.



Most of your drawings imply that 3m zone is pavement though (and in your CGI a nice row of trees by the arches)

 



...which it won't be (unless stuff is demolished and not replaced which seems unlikely). The reality is it'll be something like this, no?

 

The alley which on the drawings looks like it'll be about 10m wide, will actually be 6 or 7m wide, with a pavement on one side only.

(Forgive me if I've misunderstood)


----------



## Twattor (Mar 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Most of your drawings imply that 3m zone is pavement though (and in your CGI a nice row of trees by the arches)
> 
> View attachment 68520View attachment 68521
> 
> ...



Remember that trees come under that auspices of TFL, who have the power to refuse streetworks irrespective of planning - they don't like people digging up pavements and upsetting the utility companies


----------



## Chris Boyle (Mar 10, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Most of your drawings imply that 3m zone is pavement though (and in your CGI a nice row of trees by the arches)
> 
> View attachment 68520View attachment 68521
> 
> ...



The drawings that we have are drawn over Ordinance and Topographical Survey information which don't take into account the arch extensions as they are not officially recorded. As far as we are aware, this area hasn't been extended into by all of the arches so any offset from the back of the arches in our drawings would have to be assumed. With regards to Network Rail regulations, this 3m strip of land should be completely clear and any built structure that exists is there without permission. Whether or not this was done by the current or previous tenants doesn't really matter (from speaking to the boxing gym they've said that their lease plan is inclusive of this zone), we would not proceed with any work that would hinder or disrupt the current use without prior consent. 

As mentioned before, when/if planning approval is granted we'll be entering into detailed discussions with everyone involved to establish how this boundary will be treated, it may be brought back to the line of the arches with internal refurbishments/improvements to compensate or it may remain where it stands and act as a new frontage to the existing units. It's too early to say what will happen at this stage. Even if the line remains where it stands the width between this line and the proposed buildings is more than enough for all the pedestrian and vehicle service access required for this proposal.

To go back to an earlier point on the CGI's, we have labelled on these where the distance & massing differences have occurred but we'd recommend looking at the plan and elevation comparison sections of the D&A statement to fully grasp the reductions. These are shown with the scaled architectural drawings and are much clearer. We have made considerable reductions to the mass and scale of this development since the last application, the main points are summarised below:

- Spacing between Blocks has been widened by 2-4m
- Height of Block E has come down from 10 to 8 stories
- Overall height of Blocks A, B, C and D has been reduced by 600mm to 800mm
- Footprints of all blocks have been reduced
- Southern area of Block C 5th floor has been removed
- Northern element of Block F 7th floor has been removed
- A 9m section in the middle of Block D from 5th to roof level has been removed

My offer of meeting up with a group of you to run through the application in more detail still stands, if this is of interest then please let me know.


----------



## Chris Boyle (Mar 10, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> Where do the traffic lights go? If they aren't relocated, they will be slap bang in the middle of the Sureway church door. If they are relocated, will that be done with the interest of pedistrians in mind?



The church door is not located in the same position as the traffic lights. The main access for the church is next to railway viaduct and the residential entrance is further down Herne Hill Road. If you'd like further information on this area then I'd recommend looking at the proposed ground floor plan and/or the Design and Access Statement for this site it demonstrates where the entrance and access points for the proposal are in relation to the existing context.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 10, 2015)

Chris Boyle said:


> We have made considerable reductions to the mass and scale of this development since the last application, the main points are summarised below:
> 
> - Spacing between Blocks has been widened by 2-4m
> - Height of Block E has come down from 10 to 8 stories
> ...



I've looked at the drawings in some detail. I think that you've made some reductions that would certainly make the central courtyard feel a bit less hemmed in. It's good also that the central courtyard is now free of vehicle traffic.

My comments were mainly about the impression from the street (principally Herne Hill Road as this is the street frontage that would be most significantly affected by this development). And to a lesser extent the frontage facing south onto the railway viaduct. I can see that you've made a gap in the upper storeys of Block D, which is welcome. You say the southern portion of Block C 5th floor has been removed, but as far as I can see it's been replaced with a kind of open frame collonade structure around a roof terrace...I don't quite understand this as the apparant height from the street remains much the same - just that there are open holes in the facade rather than windows.

The spacing between blocks has indeed been increased a bit, which I can see will be beneficial for the inner courtyard but I don't think it has that much effect on the view from the street as those views are by definition oblique (unless you are standing right opposite the gap) and therefore that gap is greatly foreshortened. I think your CGIs demonstrate this fact quite well. In terms of understanding what things will look like from the street they are more informative than elevations for anyone not used to interpreting orthogonal drawings.

And the height reduction of 600-800mm (0.6m - 0.8m)- fair enough, but it's not really that much when we're talking about an elevation that's 21.7m high at its highest point. It's about 3% of the total height.

The 2-storey height reduction of the tower - block E - is quite substantial. Personally the height of that didn't bother me too much as it's well set back from any of the surrounding streets. I'd actually prefer to keep some bulk concentrated in the tower and reduce the heights of the east- and south- facing perimeter frontages more instead. Completely just a personal preference though.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 10, 2015)

Chris Boyle said:


> My offer of meeting up with a group of you to run through the application in more detail still stands, if this is of interest then please let me know.


The offer is appreciated. Speaking for myself only, I feel happy that I can understand the scheme from the drawings though.

Also, my principal objection to the scheme doesn't really revolve around the details. It's to do with the loss of proper industrial space and the fundamental effect this will have on the locality. That's really an argument to have with Lambeth Planning rather than you though, as long as you represent the true nature of the proposal honestly.

But if and when this gets the go-ahead, it would certainly be good of you to stick around on here to talk about any details that come up on the finalised scheme.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Mar 11, 2015)

Chris Boyle said:


> The church door is not located in the same position as the traffic lights. The main access for the church is next to railway viaduct and the residential entrance is further down Herne Hill Road. If you'd like further information on this area then I'd recommend looking at the proposed ground floor plan and/or the Design and Access Statement for this site it demonstrates where the entrance and access points for the proposal are in relation to the existing context.


 
I'm less concerned about the church and more concerned about the traffic lights. Where are they?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 11, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> I'm less concerned about the church and more concerned about the traffic lights. Where are they?


Presumably they stay where they are now. What is it you're concerned about exactly? It's been explained that they will not conflict with either of the access doors.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Mar 11, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Presumably they stay where they are now. What is it you're concerned about exactly? It's been explained that they will not conflict with either of the access doors.



The clue is written throughout the question. Where, in the drawings, do the traffic lights appear?


----------



## editor (Mar 11, 2015)

Here's the planning notices.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 11, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> The clue is written throughout the question. Where, in the drawings, do the traffic lights appear?


As far as I can see they are not shown on the drawings. They are outside of the site. You've been told they aren't in a position that conflicts with any of the building entrances, which was your initial concern. What are you fretting about?


----------



## ChrisSouth (Mar 11, 2015)

teuchter said:


> As far as I can see they are not shown on the drawings. They are outside of the site. You've been told they aren't in a position that conflicts with any of the building entrances, which was your initial concern. What are you fretting about?



If you wish to infer that I am fretting, then that is your interpretation.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 11, 2015)

The scheme architect has volunteered to answer questions...it would be a courtesy to make them as clear as possible, rather than cryptic.


----------



## Chris Boyle (Mar 13, 2015)

The traffic lights are remaining in their current position. They are located on the north west corner of Herne Hill Road at the junction of Coldharbour lane.


----------



## Chris Boyle (Mar 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I've looked at the drawings in some detail. I think that you've made some reductions that would certainly make the central courtyard feel a bit less hemmed in. It's good also that the central courtyard is now free of vehicle traffic.
> 
> My comments were mainly about the impression from the street (principally Herne Hill Road as this is the street frontage that would be most significantly affected by this development). And to a lesser extent the frontage facing south onto the railway viaduct. I can see that you've made a gap in the upper storeys of Block D, which is welcome. You say the southern portion of Block C 5th floor has been removed, but as far as I can see it's been replaced with a kind of open frame collonade structure around a roof terrace...I don't quite understand this as the apparant height from the street remains much the same - just that there are open holes in the facade rather than windows.
> 
> ...



The view and appearance of the proposal on Herne Hill Road was not raised by the council as being an issue, the problem that was stated in relation to the mass/height/bulk/scale was it created an undue sense of enclosure from within the development (I note that you are saying this area is just a personal preference). 

With regards to Block C, the open parapets do not have any roof structure on top and as such they are much more transparent which creates a more visible skyline on Herne Hill Road than the previous proposal. You're view through these areas will be looking at open sky as opposed to a window where the view would be obstructed by the roof structure above. Whilst the overall height has not come down by a big percentage, the overall physical impact of the proposal on the street scene is largely reduced in this sense.  

Height is always a popular topic on any planning application. There are many quantifiable and regulated aspects in relation to this such as daylight/sunlight, overlooking, protected views, overshadowing etc. Each of these points have very strict guidelines and policies that have to be adhered to, without which an application would never be recommended for approval. A point I've discussed with many residents on this matter is that when all of these points are satisfied then is height still a problem? We've had a wide variety of comments on the height, scale and mass of the development including people who are very happy with where it stands, some who would like it lower and even some who stated they would like the heights increased. It essentially comes down to an individual subjective view point (as you've stated), obviously everyone is fully entitled to their own opinion and it's a topic that will always split the crowd.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 13, 2015)

Chris Boyle said:


> With regards to Block C, the open parapets do not have any roof structure on top and as such they are much more transparent which creates a more visible skyline on Herne Hill Road than the previous proposal.



Not as transparent as they would be if they weren't there at all!


----------



## Twattor (Mar 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Not as transparent as they would be if they weren't there at all!



And fantastically expensive to build for nothing gained.  But how else can an architect define a corner these days.

The architecture of 2010-2020 will be remembered for uninspiring brickwork monoliths, open parapets and flying lintols.  We're 5 years in now; it is all a bit passe.


----------



## Beasley (Mar 18, 2015)

I see LJAG has another meeting about this on Saturday; presumably all are welcome:
Saturday 21 March from 2-4pm: Sunshine International Arts Cafe, Studio 5, 209a Coldharbour Lane, SW9 8RU (opposite Loughborough Junction station).


----------



## Chris Boyle (Mar 23, 2015)

Hello All,

Can anyone update me on the outcome of the recent LJAG meetings if possible?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 25, 2015)

teuchter said:


> If anyone wants to look at the drawings or make a comment, links to planning database are:
> 
> Site 1 (Main Development)
> 
> Site2 (Sureways church corner site)


A reminder - deadline for anyone wanting to make a comment is this Friday (27th)!


----------



## teuchter (Mar 27, 2015)

I've just been looking at the transport report. It's changed a bit from the previous one. They now acknowledge that LJ station is "busy".

They say there will only be 2-3 extra train journeys in the morning peak.

Look how they work it out though - they add up all the bus and train services, which apparently amount to around 50 buses and 8 trains, per hour. They predict 144 "additional AM peak" journeys.

So they divide that number - 144 - by about 60 and arrive at 2-3 extra passengers on each of those buses and trains. So they assume commuters are equally likely to get on a bus or a train, and equally likely to get on a bus/train going away from town as into town. The 8 train services include those going to Sutton rather than towards Blackfriars.

This seems obviously nonsense to me. Commuters are more likely to want to get on the train and far more likely to get onto trains heading north, but they make no attempt to allow for this. The real numbers of people trying to get on peak train services are much higher (never mind the fact that even 2 or 3 might well not be able to get on the trains).

If just half of those 144 extra journeys want to go by the train, that's something like 70 divided by 4 trains, which is just under twenty people trying to get on each peak service.

I hope Lambeth actually read this report critically as it seems disingenuous to me.


----------



## prunus (Mar 27, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I've just been looking at the transport report. It's changed a bit from the previous one. They now acknowledge that LJ station is "busy".
> 
> They say there will only be 2-3 extra train journeys in the morning peak.
> 
> ...



6.23  No.  No it isn't. The specific route that is the one going towards the centre of the largest city in Europe by train is likely to more popular than ooh let's say the bus to Lewisham via Forest Hill. Twats.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 27, 2015)

Anyone who feels like pointing this out in the comments to the planning application - links are above. Today is official deadline although i believe they will still accept them after.


----------



## brixtonblade (Mar 27, 2015)

I do agree that the analysis is at best lazy but I don't think it's quite as simple as saying that the train will be the only attractive option.  People could get buses to the tube or train.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 27, 2015)

Sure, but the question is whether the development will put significant extra pressure on the train services from LJ. They are trying to say "no" but the reasoning presented doesn't add up. I don't think it's laziness - they are presenting an argument to support the answer the developer wants. They are hoping no-one looks too closely at how they arrive at their numbers.


----------



## Twattor (Mar 27, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Sure, but the question is whether the development will put significant extra pressure on the train services from LJ. They are trying to say "no" but the reasoning presented doesn't add up. I don't think it's laziness - they are presenting an argument to support the answer the developer wants. They are hoping no-one looks too closely at how they arrive at their numbers.



I feel you're missing the point.

Transport Assessments are absolute rubbish; they can't not be.  How can you possibly predict the movements of possible future occupiers? Do you assume all private sales purchasers will work in town? 50% of social tenants will sit at home?  All built on assumptions, and all assumptions are by definition guesswork.

It would take a pretty fucking massive development to materially affect the public transport network.

The real purpose of a TA is so the developer can demonstrate thatnothing will actually be affected, whilst giving the local authority ammunition to say that enough will be affected for them to be able to levy a whopping contribution for "public transport" or "local infrastructure" when it comes to negotiating the s106.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 27, 2015)

The only transport contribution I've ever seen is to promote car sharing clubs. Do these actually exist - or are they fictional?


----------



## Crispy (Mar 28, 2015)

CH1 said:


> The only transport contribution I've ever seen is to promote car sharing clubs. Do these actually exist - or are they fictional?


It'll mean Zipcar and the like


----------



## teuchter (Mar 31, 2015)

Twattor said:


> I feel you're missing the point.
> 
> Transport Assessments are absolute rubbish; they can't not be.  How can you possibly predict the movements of possible future occupiers? Do you assume all private sales purchasers will work in town? 50% of social tenants will sit at home?  All built on assumptions, and all assumptions are by definition guesswork.
> 
> ...


I don't think I'm missing the point - I'm well aware that much of the planning process is essentially a game of negotiation and that we pretend decisions are more objective than they really are.

And of course it's difficult to make accurate predictions about how people will travel but I'm pretty sure it's possible to make a more realistic guess than they have in this case. There are reasonable assumptions you can make about the number of people who might want to commute into town, even if it results in a maximum/minimum estimate over a wide range. As prunus says above it's quite clearly nonsense to base your estimates on an assumption that rush hour travellers are as likely to want to get the P5 to Forest Hill as they are to want to get the Thameslink.

I'm no transport forecasting expert but it's something TfL do all the time when assessing future transport needs. I'm fairluy sure the data and expertise is there to do a much more meaningful analysis than they have here.

I think it's entirely plausible that this will have a material effect on the local transport services. It's 100+ units in zone 2 in London in an area popular with the dreaded "young professionals" and a large number of residents are likely to be working in town. And it's right next to the train station so people are obviously going to be inclined to try and use that rather than walk 15 mins to Brixton tube, if they can.


----------



## Chris Boyle (Mar 31, 2015)

Hi Everyone,

I'd just like to point out that Transport Assessments do have to be carried out in strict accordance with regulated assessment criteria & methodology stipulated by TFL, the GLA and local council framework. A huge amount of work has gone into this item of work from our transport consultant whilst maintaining an open dialogue with the council's Transport and Highways dept. 

They are based on assumptions but these have been made after a detailed assessment of a vast amount of quantifiable data and the necessary methodology required from TFL. Transport consultants would not be able to simply pick and choose what they can and can't assess in order to please a client, if they did the report would not be validated by the council, nor would it be approved by TFL (we are still awaiting TFL comments on the current application). 

As someone mentioned above, it would take a considerably vast development to materially affect the public transport network. This was the same conclusion that TFL reached on the previous application; whilst there may be more people using various public transport nodes as a result of the development, the amount would not be significant enough to have a material or noticeable affect the existing transport infrastructure.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 31, 2015)

Ultimately we have to accept TfL and Lambeth's response on whether or not the TA has been carried out properly, of course.

My scepticism about the analysis (perhaps including TfL/Lambeth's role) derives from the previous report which stated there were no known issues with the train services at LJ station. This was completely contrary to the experience of anyone who lives here and uses the station in the morning. The issues are acknowledged in the new report but I don't think it's unreasonable to raise an eyebrow when something as basic as that failed to show up in what is supposed to be a thorough assessment.


----------



## Chris Boyle (Mar 31, 2015)

I think that the wording in the previously submitted report was that there were no known 'capacity' issues on the existing bus and rail routes. I believe that TFL have a means of officially establishing when a station/service route exceeds it's capacity threshold but I'm not sure of the exact criteria required.  

As you say, we will have to accept any response that we are given from TFL and Lambeth once the application has been fully assessed. If they disagree with any of the points made in the Transport Assessment then we will have to address these accordingly.


----------



## Twattor (Mar 31, 2015)

Chris Boyle said:


> I think that the wording in the previously submitted report was that there were no known 'capacity' issues on the existing bus and rail routes. I believe that TFL have a means of officially establishing when a station/service route exceeds it's capacity threshold but I'm not sure of the exact criteria required.
> 
> As you say, we will have to accept any response that we are given from TFL and Lambeth once the application has been fully assessed. If they disagree with any of the points made in the Transport Assessment then we will have to address these accordingly.



Can't imagine they'll be too bothered tbh.  Looking at some recent 106s transport contribution is usually just shy of £1,000 per unit. All about priorities.


----------



## MrM (Apr 2, 2015)

Chris Boyle said:


> it would take a considerably vast development to materially affect the public transport network... the amount would not be significant enough to have a material or noticeable affect the existing transport infrastructure.



I really appreciate Chris Boyle’s efforts in engaging with the community here, but these recent comments are so exasperating that I’ve decided to stop lurking and add a comment.

It’s daft to suggest that the Higgs development will have ‘no discernible effect’ on the overloaded rush-hour trains into London. I’d rather believe this is a cynical but understandable effort to put a positive gloss on the matter, because the alternative is that the developers have made no real effort to understand local issues, or impacts of the development on the area.

The northbound rush-hour trains are already horrendously over-crowded.

It is normal to see people physically shoving passengers into the train to try to make sure that as few people as possible are left standing frustrated on the platform as the train leaves.

You should see the looks of pity or amusement for anyone appearing on the platform with a suitcase or a pushchair.

It is not unusual for verbal aggression to break out among otherwise silent London commuters as frustration boils over into hostility.

In this context, a handful of additional passengers to each train _will_ have a marked effect.

The developer isn’t in a position to do much about the size or frequency of trains, and clearly existing problems have nothing to do with Parritt Leng but to say that “the amount [of people] would not be significant enough to have a material or noticeable affect the existing transport infrastructure.” is either deliberately misleading, or shows a failure to engage with the current situation.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 2, 2015)

Exactly my thoughts


----------



## prunus (Apr 2, 2015)

Precisely. Disingenuous at best.


----------



## Chris Boyle (Apr 2, 2015)

MrM said:


> I really appreciate Chris Boyle’s efforts in engaging with the community here, but these recent comments are so exasperating that I’ve decided to stop lurking and add a comment.
> 
> It’s daft to suggest that the Higgs development will have ‘no discernible effect’ on the overloaded rush-hour trains into London. I’d rather believe this is a cynical but understandable effort to put a positive gloss on the matter, because the alternative is that the developers have made no real effort to understand local issues, or impacts of the development on the area.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your comments, I appreciate your view but I stand by the points I have previously made. 

I do have to contest your statement of my being deliberately misleading or showing a failure to engage with the current situation. The reality is the complete antithesis of this comment; it is exactly because we _have_ engaged with the current situation via a huge amount of public consultation, site visits, year long discussions with the councils highways dept and correspondence with TFL that we are able to make these comments. They are based on a vast combination of events and analysis, all of which are directly applicable to this topic.  

From looking at earlier posts and from feedback I've had at the public consultation events it seems that this is a subject with differing viewpoints. Much like the previous discussion on height & scale there will invariably be differences in opinion which is understandable.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 2, 2015)

Sorry, but you really haven't engaged in a "huge amount of public consultation".

All of your engagement has been to present and explain an essentially already finalised design, whether on this forum, or at the various "consultation" sessions held locally. That has been welcome but it hasn't been done in such a way that people's comments could ever have fed back to significant changes to the proposals.

I live within spitting distance of the site but the first I heard of anything was via a conversation with my neighbours who were on the LJAG email list. A "consultation" session was to take place within, as far as I remember, a couple of weeks. Very short notice, and it would have been quite possible for me never to have heard about it. In addition the venue was hidden away round a corner with very little signage. We were presented with what was basically the scheme that went into planning just a couple of weeks later. You did a good job of explaining it and answering questions about it, but there was no possibility that any comments made at that session could have led to anything other than minor changes before the scheme was submitted.

The "consultations" for the second scheme were much better publicised and more extensive. However, once again, there was little chance that the scheme would be altered significantly as a result of any feedback you recieved. It was more an opportunity for Perrit Lang to persuade locals of the merits of the design.

I know there have supposedly been discussions with LJAG earlier in the process but I don't know what points they made to you and how many you took on board or didn't. There doesn't seem to be any record of this available. But given that members of LJAG spoke against the scheme at the committee hearing, I'd say that I can conclude the scheme didn't reflect what they would have liked.

We could have a discussion about the merits of public consultation, the way it is carried out, how democratic it is, and how useful it is, and I might well agree that its influence in the design process should be limited. But here you are claiming that something happened, when it simply didn't.

This development would/will have a big impact on the place where I live, but I haven't felt that there's any way that I could influence what gets built other than making comments on the planning applications after they've gone in.

And I do genuinely appreciate that you have taken part in this thread but nonetheless I do feel that there have been several instances where we have been presented with misleading information.


----------



## Twattor (Apr 2, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Sorry, but you really haven't engaged in a "huge amount of public consultation".
> 
> All of your engagement has been to present and explain an essentially already finalised design, whether on this forum, or at the various "consultation" sessions held locally. That has been welcome but it hasn't been done in such a way that people's comments could ever have fed back to significant changes to the proposals.
> 
> ...



tbf this is the most interactive consulation I've ever witnessed in many years of dealing with this shit.



> "But the plans were on display . . ."
> "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
> "That's the display department."
> "With a torch."
> ...


----------



## MrM (Apr 7, 2015)

Just to be clear - is it your contention that there isn't currently an overloaded rail service from Loughborough Junction (suggest a look at the #LJsardines twitter feed if you think so) or that your development won't make any difference? If the latter can you explain a bit more about how you see the commuting behaviour of the people who can afford the projected prices to get to work? I don't imagine your prices will be accessible to someone working shifts on the tills at the Co-op store by the Higgs site, which really points squarely at business-hour commuters to Central London doesn't it? My guess is that applies to more or less all potential buyers, so several hundred extra passengers travelling at peak time.

As I said before, I don't expect you to be able to wave a magic wand to make the trains better, but I don't think your current angle is convincing anyone that you're planning a positive addition to the area. But then perhaps I'm naively hoping your consultation process is intended to help craft a development that local people want, rather than fulfilling a legal requirement to push things through the planning system.

Personally I'm saddened by the impression that you're steaming ahead in the face of facts and feelings in pursuit of profit to the exclusion of all else.

It's too big for its location (in terms of height, massing and density of housing for an area like this). Add to this the fact that you're driving out much-valued light industrial employment opportunities, _and _you're doing little more than the required minimum in terms of carbon emissions and energy efficiency, _and _you've decided against investing slightly more to produce something with a more ambitious and sensitive aesthetic impact on the area, and I feel you have a hill to climb in convincing people this is acceptable.  

I've strayed a bit from my initial point but I really hope you will reconsider the plans, and that this development becomes something that the people of Loughborough Junction can be proud of.


----------



## MrM (Apr 7, 2015)

Doh! I seem to have put that all as a quote. 
Hope Chris Boyle will still respond...


----------



## CH1 (Apr 7, 2015)

MrM said:


> Doh! I seem to have put that all as a quote.
> Hope Chris Boyle will still respond...


I should edit it using cut and paste.
Never mind Chris Boyle - nobody else can see what is Chris Boyle and what is your content. Just cut your bit - then paste it after the [/QUOTE]


----------



## teuchter (Apr 7, 2015)

MrM said:


> Doh! I seem to have put that all as a quote.
> Hope Chris Boyle will still respond...


At this stage, there's not much point in asking the developers to reconsider the scheme. The "consultation" is done with and the application is in.

Probably more productive to write to your councillors/those on the planning committee, to encourage them to reject it when they consider the application again in a few weeks.


----------



## bolgerp (Apr 8, 2015)

As a slight aside, this website provides some really useful stats about on-time trains from L Junction (or anywhere on the national network).. this particular search shows the punctuality of the 06.00 to 10.00 trains on Mon to Fri from LJ to City Thameslink for the last 12 weeks... as is predictable, the rush hour trains are not great... the issue here is that because trains are late, this impacts significantly on the numbers of passengers getting on subsequent trains due to build up... it is incredibly difficult to get a train from L Junction between 7.45 and 9.30 in the mornings during a normal working week.

http://recenttraintimes.co.uk/Home/...MetSpr=RT&MxScDu=&MxSvAg=10&MnScCt=2&MxArCl=5


----------



## Chris Boyle (Apr 8, 2015)

MrM said:


> Just to be clear - is it your contention that there isn't currently an overloaded rail service from Loughborough Junction (suggest a look at the #LJsardines twitter feed if you think so) or that your development won't make any difference? If the latter can you explain a bit more about how you see the commuting behaviour of the people who can afford the projected prices to get to work? I don't imagine your prices will be accessible to someone working shifts on the tills at the Co-op store by the Higgs site, which really points squarely at business-hour commuters to Central London doesn't it? My guess is that applies to more or less all potential buyers, so several hundred extra passengers travelling at peak time.
> 
> As I said before, I don't expect you to be able to wave a magic wand to make the trains better, but I don't think your current angle is convincing anyone that you're planning a positive addition to the area. But then perhaps I'm naively hoping your consultation process is intended to help craft a development that local people want, rather than fulfilling a legal requirement to push things through the planning system.
> 
> ...



We are saying that the proposed scheme will not have any further impact on the rail service. This was the conclusion that TFL reached on the previous proposal which was larger (just to reiterate, we are still awaiting their formal response on this application). The transport assessment documents the commuting behaviour of new residents which is discussed further up on this page. 

Again, I appreciate your views on height, massing etc but as discussed earlier this is a point that will always have numerous camps debating what is and isn't acceptable. We have demonstrated that the new scheme does not have any quantifiable issues with height/scale/mass etc such as internal light conditions, overlooking, overshadowing and sunlight provision to the landscaped areas. As such, we feel that the scheme is of a size, scale and overall architectural aesthetic that is suitable for the area. 

The consultation process that we undertook before making the planning submission was indeed to help craft a development that people want but as I'm sure you can imagine (as you can also see from the comments in the Statement of Community Involvement), there are too many conflicting opinions to ever satisfy this completely. This is also in response to the comments that teuchter made earlier; throughout the 10 public consultation meetings that we held on the current application we continuously updated the information on show in line with where the design was at that particular stage and the feedback we got from the public was instrumental in that happening. For example, at the first meeting we presented 6 possible options for vehicular movement into and out of the site and we asked those in attendance to let us know what they thought the best solution was. The preferred option is the one proposed in the final design. 

We made it very clear at the public consultation events that we could not simply adjust and amend the design completely in accordance with all the comments that we received or it just wouldn't work. One person would want it smaller, another bigger, some want more commercial space, others less and/or a different classification etc. Furthermore, many comments we received (such as a change in use classification) are not in line with planning policy and could not be implemented. Comments (such as height/mass) that could feasibly be adopted were taken on board throughout the consultation process which culminated in the schemes final design, we built 2 new physical models during the consultation process to demonstrate the changes that were being incorporated. 

Of course there will be debate as to whether or not what we've done is enough, we hope it is but fundamentally we'll have to accept whatever the council decide at the committee meeting.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 8, 2015)

Is there a date for the committee hearing yet?


----------



## Chris Boyle (Apr 8, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Is there a date for the committee hearing yet?



It hasn't been confirmed yet, the council should have their agenda finalised at the end of this week or early next week.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Apr 8, 2015)

Chris Boyle said:


> We are saying that the proposed scheme will not have any further impact on the rail service. This was the conclusion that TFL reached on the previous proposal which was larger (just to reiterate, we are still awaiting their formal response on this application). The transport assessment documents the commuting behaviour of new residents which is discussed further up on this page.
> 
> Again, I appreciate your views on height, massing etc but as discussed earlier this is a point that will always have numerous camps debating what is and isn't acceptable. We have demonstrated that the new scheme does not have any quantifiable issues with height/scale/mass etc such as internal light conditions, overlooking, overshadowing and sunlight provision to the landscaped areas. As such, we feel that the scheme is of a size, scale and overall architectural aesthetic that is suitable for the area.
> 
> ...



I was just wondering and wandering. If you get the go ahead, and you are proven wrong, because #LJSardines gets worse (which it will, but which you won't acknowledge), will you come back and apologise and admit you were wrong? Or like a nasty lover, once you've got your way with the virgins of LJ, will you piss off, never to return, just leaving a nasty stain on the metaphorical comfy mattress?


----------



## teuchter (Apr 9, 2015)

If the application is approved and the scheme goes ahead, and does indeed worsen the train situation, it's not just (or even mainly) the developer who should apologise. It's Lambeth planning officers (and TfL?) who are supposed to be scrutinising the transport assessment on our behalf. 

Given that they recommended the previous application for approval despite the obviously erroneous statement in that application's transport assessment, I don't feel very optimistic.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 9, 2015)

So, the hearing will be on Tues 21st April, and the planning officers have recommended approval again.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 9, 2015)




----------



## Chris Boyle (Apr 10, 2015)

Hi Everyone,

Just to keep you posted we will be meeting with LJAG again next week where I imagine we'll be running through these points in more detail. I'll quickly note my initial responses below:

*Density:*
Their statement above is incorrect, the maximum level set by the Mayor in this area is 650 hr/ha, we are proposing 982 hr/ha (the site is specified as a Major Development Opportunity area, council policy stipulates that higher densities will be considered on these sites).

*Height:*
I won't repeat all the previous points on this. In short, there are no associated problems with height.

*Precedent:*
(again, the point on density is incorrect). The scheme is a policy compliant proposal, we'd like to think that it will set a precedent for other policy compliant schemes in the area. Other neighbouring sites are not MDO's, as such they will have stricter guidelines in relation to scale and density. 

*Infrastructure:*
In addition to the earlier points in this thread with regards to public transport, there will be a very large S106 & CIL payment associated with these applications which will be directly used to enhance the local infrastructure. We are not yet sure of the final figure but it will be hundreds of thousands of pounds which we think is very significant. 

*Quality of life:*
This statement is also false. Our daylight assessment clearly demonstrates that the green space will receive in excess of the BRE regulated guidelines regarding sunlight. 

*Masterplan:*
This point is also discussed earlier in the thread. We are also now involved with the Masterplan.

*No Gurantee* that both sites will go ahead together:
I'm not sure that this is a problem at all. Even if this occurs then I can't foresee any issues with one site being developed without the other.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 13, 2015)

Here's the latest BBuzz update on the two applications. It's good to see that LJAG is working once again with Cllr Jim Dickson to try and find a resolution.


----------



## editor (Apr 13, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Here's the latest BBuzz update on the two applications. It's good to see that LJAG is working once again with Cllr Jim Dickson to try and find a resolution.


Good piece that.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 13, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Here's the latest BBuzz update on the two applications. It's good to see that LJAG is working once again with Cllr Jim Dickson to try and find a resolution.


Didn't realise this application will get referred to Mayor too.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Didn't realise this application will get referred to Mayor too.



"The application has already been referred to the Mayor at ‘Stage 1’ and the Mayor’s comments will be included in the addendum to this report. Before Lambeth can issue a decision on this application it will need to refer the application again to the Mayor at ‘Stage 2’; where after the Mayor will have the opportunity to elect to become determining authority, direct refusal, or allow Lambeth to proceed and issue the decision in line with its resolution."

Just imagine if this finally gets resolved when Dame Tessa is Mayor


----------



## MrM (Apr 20, 2015)

Chris Boyle said:


> ...we could not simply adjust and amend the design completely in accordance with all the comments that we received or it just wouldn't work. One person would want it smaller, another bigger...



Question for Chris Boyle: I'm interested by your comment about some people wanting it bigger; I've had a quick run through the public comments on the Lambeth planning portal

By my count the 96 public comments break down like this:

88 comments object primarily on the basis of size. 88 of these say it's too big vs 0 that say it could do with being bigger.
8 comments don't specifically mention size (several imply it's too big but don't use the words 'density', 'massing' or 'size', so I've left them as 'neutral')

In that context could you give a little more detail on your comment about taking people's views into consideration, and your point about there being a mix of opinions regarding size?

Thanks

MrM


----------



## teuchter (Apr 21, 2015)

The committee hearing is this evening. I'm going to go along.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 21, 2015)

I note there's an objection from the Herne Hill Society. Their objection seems to be well informed, clear and objective. Whoever wrote it obviously put some time into this. Well done, whoever you are. Worth quoting here.


> * (Objects) *
> * Comment submitted date: Tue 14 Apr 2015 *
> Higgs Industrial Estate application ref 15/01062/FUL
> The Herne Hill Society wishes to object to this application, primarily on grounds of over development.
> ...


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 21, 2015)

BBuzz piece on the Herne Hill Soc objection, plus a GLA wades in with no overall concerns about the development.


----------



## editor (Apr 21, 2015)

Great big hoarding is now surrounding the site.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 21, 2015)

Looks like committee approving applications on both sites. 

Feeble effort from them in terms of questions asked. Plenty of obvious points that needed scrutiny were not taken up. What was discussed were mainly side issues and they failed to address properly the main ones. Disappointed in all of the committee members.


----------



## brixtonblade (Apr 21, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Looks like committee approving applications on both sites.
> 
> Feeble effort from them in terms of questions asked. Plenty of obvious points that needed scrutiny were not taken up. What was discussed were mainly side issues and they failed to address properly the main ones. Disappointed in all of the committee members.


Thanks for the update.  To the untrained the objections from the Herne Hill Society looked pretty damning... referenced policy and had hard facts - did the cttee disagree or are they not obliged to respond to specific objections?


----------



## CH1 (Apr 21, 2015)

I was there - but couldn't hear everything.

IMHO the committee was looking for movement from the developers - and they thought they had got some.
A lot of the issues are not simply black and white - they are qualitative.
Remember also the planning department is currently under pressure to develop as much housing as possible - and the developer had Family Mosiac in tow to show some willingness to accommodate affordable housing.

I stayed to the end. After 2 hours of Higgs Estate there was another 20 minutes or so devoted the the new St John's School.
There were no objections. Curiously the chair of the committee went into a soliloquy on why there should be trees in the middle of the playground. It was pointed out to her that this was a matter of Health and Safety as it would impede supervision at play time.
Scheme passed unanimously.

Most intriguing of all was Offley Works - a development near Oval where former industrial buildings are being converted into a "Mews".
By this point inn the meeting (9.20) I was one of 2 audience members.
The committee devoted a good time going over this one. Planning permission had been given in 2013, but a condition made that any alterations to materials or design had to be approved by a further committee hearing.
I had never heard the committee going into such detail on aesthetic matters - something they normally completely ignore.
The conservation officer helpfully pointed out this WAS a mews, so they didn't have to worry too much about appearances.
Nevertheless the chair was clear that they were originally trying to preserve the appearance of the mews as former industrial units - and moreover the changes would be notice from the back windows of surrounding streets, if not from the street itself.
Final vote: For - all the ordinary committee members/Against 1 (chair)


----------



## teuchter (Apr 21, 2015)

Representatives from HHS and LJAG, as well as Cllr Jim Dickinson spoke as objectors. I thought they spoke very well and raised some clear and significant points, much as per the HHS statement I quoted above.

The committee can then put specific questions to the objectors, the applicants, and the council's own planning officers and advisors. But it's up to them what questions they ask, and how much they press when an answer is unclear. They could decide to ask no questions at all, before making their decision.

They asked their own officers for "clarification" on a few of the points raised by the objectors. But I felt that they did not pursue them nearly enough and accepted what I didn't feel were proper answers. Other points, they didn't ask about at all.

One issue was the designation of the site which affects what density is considered acceptable. The planning officer listed the requirements for a site to be designated as "central". It seemed pretty obvious to me that the site does not satisfy most of those. But the commitee members did not pursue these pint by point. They made a half-hearted attempt to find out how the distance from Brixton is measured, for example. The answer was non-definitive. They just let it lie.

Then they wasted time going on about relatively inconsequential points such as the provision of a concierge. Stuff that hadn't been raised by the objectors and hadn't even been mentioned in the 100+ public objections to the application.

It was pretty pathetic really. Especially for a development of this significance.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 21, 2015)

CH1 said:


> A lot of the issues are not simply black and white - they are qualitative.



Indeed. And I recognise that in weighing things up, it may be correct to disregard the objections.

But listening to the sparse and somewhat irrelevant questions I had no confidence that the committee had put in sufficient effort to fully understand the scheme and the issues, and investigate the detailed objections submitted, such that they could make a properly informed decision.


----------



## Chris Boyle (Apr 22, 2015)

MrM said:


> Question for Chris Boyle: I'm interested by your comment about some people wanting it bigger; I've had a quick run through the public comments on the Lambeth planning portal
> 
> By my count the 96 public comments break down like this:
> 
> ...



The comments I previously mentioned regarding height were made during the public consultation events that we carried out, not from the comments people have made on the planning portal. Realistically, not everyone who attended our events will have subsequently re-stated their comments on the planning portal.


----------



## Chris Boyle (Apr 22, 2015)

Hi Everyone,

Obviously both applications have now been approved, I won't go over all the points raised at the committee meeting as our views on this are mostly covered in the earlier pages of this thread. However, I am happy to elaborate on any specific points if anyone has any further queries. 

Whilst we do have the approvals, I just wanted to say that this will not end my participation on this website. If anyone has any queries/comments as the scheme progresses from this stage onwards then please let me know and I'll do my best to get back to you asap.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 22, 2015)

teuchter said:


> One issue was the designation of the site which affects what density is considered acceptable. The planning officer listed the requirements for a site to be designated as "central". It seemed pretty obvious to me that the site does not satisfy most of those.
> 
> Then they wasted time going on about relatively inconsequential points such as the provision of a concierge. Stuff that hadn't been raised by the objectors and hadn't even been mentioned in the 100+ public objections to the application.


I completely agree with your view on density.

Unfortunately if Lambeth Planning continue along these lines we will end up like Earls Court (which used to be ranked most dense, most expensive and also with the greatest number of small dwellings (i.e. bedsits/one bed flats etc)

In my time as a Lambeth councillor (20 years ago) the biggest problem for people was upgrading to bigger paces as their families grew. Obviously with 21st century rents and housing prices, many people will chose to remain childless I should think.

As for the concierge - I asked the lady in front of me what she thought this was all about. In her view a concierge was probably needed for deliveries and so on - due to the traffic situation likely to occur.

This does seem possible as an explanation - but if it is the Higgs Development concierge will be providing much better service than Lambeth provide on the Loughborough Estate. Maybe the present councillors are sufficiently removed from reality that this did not occur to them.


----------



## editor (Oct 4, 2015)

Here's how the estate looks now with all the businesses cleared out. Note the ludicrous hotfooting security guard about to freak out because I took a picture as I passed. He must be bored. I ignored his shouting.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 4, 2015)

Chris Boyle if you are still reading this - is there any timescale for work to start on site yet?


----------



## Lizzy Mac (Oct 4, 2015)

New professional signs went up this week with a developers name on.  It's all locked up ready for the skyline to disappear. I suspect that you want something more detailed...


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Oct 5, 2015)

Chris Boyle said:


> We are saying that the proposed scheme will not have any further impact on the rail service.



Due to the star trek style teleportation system your including in the build?


Bit late posting this. Just struck me as an oddly thought out statement.


----------



## bimble (Nov 26, 2015)

Not exactly the right thread but.. here's a curious tale of from the history of that particular part of the world...
This old map shows something quite big called 'Loughborough Park Chapel', which (I'm very bad at reading maps) but seems to be around where Sureways Ministries is now?


Googling led straight to the grave of a man called the Reverend David Abraham Herschell,  'Founder of and for 31 years Minister of Loughborough Park Chapel, Brixton, and of Homes for Aged Christians. A Jew by birth, a Christian by Grace.' Some sort of early incarnation of jews for jesus out here in the wilds south of the river? 
Jewish East End of London cemetery curiosities


----------



## CH1 (Nov 26, 2015)

bimble said:


> Not exactly the right thread but.. here's a curious tale of from the history of that particular part of the world...
> This old map shows something quite big called 'Loughborough Park Chapel', which (I'm very bad at reading maps) but seems to be around where Sureways Ministries is now?
> View attachment 80033
> 
> ...


It's not that odd - on the continent the Mendelssohn family were Lutheran converts and Mahler became a Catholic to enable him to conduct the Vienna State Opera.

Benjamin Disraeli became a member of the Church of England at age 12, following his father's falling out with their synagogue.

No doubt the people attending Loughborough Park Chapel might have been migrants similarly seeking social advancement.

To come back to the point - yes it is the site of the Sureway Ministries. It would be interesting to know if that was a bomb damaged site that got reinvented at light industrial though.


----------



## bimble (Nov 26, 2015)

CH1 said:


> It's not that odd - on the continent the Mendelssohn family were Lutheran converts and Mahler became a Catholic to enable him to conduct the Vienna State Opera.
> 
> Benjamin Disraeli became a member of the Church of England at age 12, following his father's falling out with their synagogue.
> No doubt the people attending Loughborough Park Chapel might have been migrants similarly seeking social advancement.
> To come back to the point - yes it is the site of the Sureway Ministries. It would be interesting to know if that was a bomb damaged site that got reinvented at light industrial though.



Oh of course, plenty of that sort of thing, if you were born into a Jewish family converting has been quite a good idea for centuries. 
Just thought it an interesting local tale. 
Found this, has a nice picture of the chapel : 
Loughborough Park Congregational Church


----------



## CH1 (Nov 26, 2015)

bimble said:


> Oh of course, plenty of that sort of thing, if you were born into a Jewish family converting has been quite a good idea for centuries.
> Just thought it an interesting local tale.
> Found this, has a nice picture of the chapel :
> Loughborough Park Congregational Church


Yes - quite imposing isn't it? We could have set LJAG the task of fundraising and reinstating it. That would have kept them quiet for a few years!


----------



## bimble (Nov 26, 2015)

blimey, seems to have still stood in the 1960s.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 15, 2016)

This is largely hearsay, so I can't guarantee the accuracy of it all, but:

Parritt Leng, the developers who applied for, and got, planning permission for this development seem to have folded, or at least, one of the two directors has resigned. This seems to be verified here:

Parritt Leng, Company and Director Search.

I see that a new company called "Parritt Boyle" seems to have appeared:

PARRITT BOYLE LIMITED. Free customer feedback, reviews and supplier feedback from Company Check on PARRITT BOYLE LIMITED. Registered as 09944139

(Chris Boyle was the project architect who commented on this thread)

I have been told that the site has been sold on to another developer. Can't say for sure this is true.

Also that in a few weeks the whole site is going to be bulldozed so that they can stop paying business rates on it.

This doesn't sound very positive news - does this mean the centre of LJ is going to be a derelict site for an undetermined number of months or years? It would be a sorry state of affairs when the buildings currently standing there are entirely usable. Sounds like a situation where a "meanwhile" use could actually be welcome, rather than a source of contention.


----------



## bimble (Feb 15, 2016)

None of that looks like good news does it. Unless just possibly the new owners (if there are new owners) will for some reason decide to do something entirely different with their property than squeezing as much profit (ie as many flats) out of it as possible.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 15, 2016)

teuchter said:


> This is largely hearsay, so I can't guarantee the accuracy of it all, but:
> 
> Parritt Leng, the developers who applied for, and got, planning permission for this development seem to have folded, or at least, one of the two directors has resigned. This seems to be verified here:
> 
> ...


What has happened to their other 2 nearby Walworth developments - on either side of the railway on the National Building Supplies site?
It looked in an advanced state last time I noticed.

Maybe scope for Jerry Knight's Lexadon to diversify into Southwark. He very adeptly in "rescued" The Viaduct on Coldharbour Lane/Valentia Place out of bankruptcy.

Of course Jerry might also step into the Higgs site. He is currently applying for planning permission on 423-9 Colhdour Lane (next to Clifton Mansions). Another developer applied on that site and was turned down. Then there is the Diamond Merchant site.

All in  all Lexadon seem to be awash with money. So do not despair.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 15, 2016)

CH1 said:


> What has happened to their other 2 nearby Walworth developments - on either side of the railway on the National Building Supplies site?
> It looked in an advanced state last time I noticed.


I think work stopped for a bit - but have perhaps been taken over by another developer now. But not entirely sure.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 23, 2016)

teuchter said:


> I think work stopped for a bit - but have perhaps been taken over by another developer now. But not entirely sure.


I was Googling around and found this news item about Parrit Leng's Camberwell Road development: A2Dominion New Homes acquires land for 82-home scheme in Camberwell | A2Dominion

I tried doing some searches on the Companies House website and Parrit Leng does not come up at all.

All I can find out is that Kuan Wai LENG resigned from a whole host of these interlocking Parrit Leng type companies on 27th November 2015.

No indication of solvency or insolvency.

What I did find interesting was 4 apparently locally connected names amongst these small companies connected with Mr Parrit and Mr Leng:
44 WELLFIT STREET LIMITED (09576440)
100 LOUGHBOROUGH SQUARE LIMITED (09316869)
8 LOUGHBOROUGH SQUARE LIMITED (09130127)
1 LOUGHBOROUGH SQUARE LIMITED (09110432)

Far be it from me to second guess the activities of an aspiring property magnate. Would you like to try?


----------



## goldengraham (Feb 25, 2016)

The old power church building on Herne Hill Road has been squatted now


----------



## Johnlj123 (Mar 22, 2016)

It look like Family Mosaic has taken on the Parritt Leng Higgs Industrial development on Herne Hill Road.
New site acquired in Lambeth to create a mixed-tenure development of 115 homes | Family Mosaic

Odd that towards the end of the piece they talk about development of adjacent land to include a Waitrose and a cinema.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 22, 2016)

Johnlj123 said:


> It look like Family Mosaic has taken on the Parritt Leng Higgs Industrial development on Herne Hill Road.
> New site acquired in Lambeth to create a mixed-tenure development of 115 homes | Family Mosaic
> 
> Odd that towards the end of the piece they talk about development of adjacent land to include a Waitrose and a cinema.


I think this is an indication of the slow collapse of the housing boom.

Rather like the old Barrington Lodge site on the Loughborough Estate (Metropolitan in that case) this has now become a a game where housing associations pick up the less desirable scraps and use their government subsidies to speculate in the housing market.

Note that Higgs II is to be 30% social, 24% shared ownership and 46% (almost half) full market price for sale.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 22, 2016)

That press release appears to be from 6 months ago (how did we miss that?)

It's not clear whether anything's changed since then, what with the apparent folding of Parrit Leng.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 22, 2016)

teuchter said:


> That press release appears to be from 6 months ago (how did we miss that?)
> 
> It's not clear whether anything's changed since then, what with the apparent folding of Parrit Leng.


It does say "The site located at Herne Hill Road was acquired from Parritt Leng in August 2015."


----------



## teuchter (Mar 22, 2016)

CH1 said:


> It does say "The site located at Herne Hill Road was acquired from Parritt Leng in August 2015."


Yes. But it also describes Parrit Leng as appointed architects.

My guess is that one of the newly-formed companies mentioned earlier in the thread may have been set up to perform this task ie act as architects rather than architect-developers.


----------



## Twattor (Mar 22, 2016)

I'd imagine "PL Architects" aquired the site through an option and set up "PL Developer" as a special purpose vehicle.  As an an architect I doubt they'd have access to sufficient credit to manage the cashflow that development entails and needed a partner for the affordable element, so would have looked for a joint venture partner in the HA world.  The way these things work is that one partner then buys the land from the other thus providing money to build out the site.  The developer ends up with the private units and the HA with the affordable.  With social housing the housing association may have marginally higher build costs but puts less money up at the early stages so has lower front end risk.

I'd imagine PL overextended themselves and bit off more than they could chew.  Labour and material prices have been leaping up recently which destroys any appraisal based on figures from a couple of years back.  As a developer without a construction arm PL would have been very vulnerable to market fluctuations, and any delays in planning would have exacerbated this.

As CH1 has pointed out, most HAs have a massive advantage in that they have a huge asset base which they can use for leverage to obtain finace for their developments, which puts them in a very strong position when competing against private developers, particularly so when you consider that they can manage the affordable elements themselves.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 22, 2016)

The question is what happens next - do Mosaic go ahead and build the development with some version of PL (or someone esle altogether) acting as architects, or do they mothball it and leave us with a derelict site for however many years?

Folk have been saying they plan to bulldoze it so they don't have to pay business rates. I don't know if that's true. It would be a massive waste for this to happen, and the site unused for an extended time, when until a couple of years ago several businesses were operating quite happily from the various buildings on the site.

Do HAs like to present themselves as better landlords than other developers? It would be awfully nice of them not to leave the centre of LJ a wasteland for the forseeable future.


----------



## Twattor (Mar 23, 2016)

teuchter said:


> The question is what happens next - do Mosaic go ahead and build the development with some version of PL (or someone esle altogether) acting as architects, or do they mothball it and leave us with a derelict site for however many years?
> 
> Folk have been saying they plan to bulldoze it so they don't have to pay business rates. I don't know if that's true. It would be a massive waste for this to happen, and the site unused for an extended time, when until a couple of years ago several businesses were operating quite happily from the various buildings on the site.
> 
> Do HAs like to present themselves as better landlords than other developers? It would be awfully nice of them not to leave the centre of LJ a wasteland for the forseeable future.



They won't be able to mothball - if they have received government funding to build it they'll be under a lot of political pressure to get a move on and produce the units.  These things do take time though; depending on the structure of the agreement and how PL ended , PL's assets may be in the hands of liquidators/administrators.  If there is an institutional investor behind them then they may have rights to step in to fulfil PL's contractual obligations.  All this will have to be sorted by solicitors before anything happens.

Irrespective of this, it is likely that none of the partners will be a firm of building contractors, so the works will have to be tendered.  If FM have government funding this this may have to be a Europe-wide open tender in line with EU legislation, which could go on for months.

The site is unlikely to be unused for years, but it may be 6 months - too short a time to tenant the units but plenty of time to be exposed to business rates, security costs and squatters.  In this situation I'd expect them to demolish and give the incoming contractor a clear run at site the moment contracts are executed.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 24, 2016)

Just walked past and the latest news is that the car park area seems to have been taken over as a travellers' site and is full of caravans and mobile homes. So things will get interesting now....


----------



## Lizzy Mac (Mar 31, 2016)

The travellers have gone and the gate is locked with a roaming security guard.  They were really very Irish with thick accents.  The squatters still seem to be there.


----------



## Harbourite (Mar 31, 2016)

Lizzy Mac said:


> The travellers have gone and the gate is locked with a roaming security guard.  They were really very Irish with thick accents.  The squatters still seem to be there.


quite a bit of police around there at about 630 this evening - guess the travellers were "moved on"


----------



## editor (Mar 31, 2016)

Harbourite said:


> quite a bit of police around there at about 630 this evening - guess the travellers were "moved on"


Yep - all cleared by 7pm.


----------



## footballerslegs (Mar 31, 2016)

Saw the convoy of van-pulled caravans driving down coldharbour lane around 5.30. I don't think I'd have noticed were it not for my 2 year old picking up on it. I put two and two together on where they were from based on teucher's previous post. And my son learnt a new word: 'cawavan'.


----------



## teuchter (May 6, 2016)

They've started demolition.


----------



## teuchter (May 6, 2016)




----------



## CH1 (May 6, 2016)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 86604


If Family Housing are serious about this site they'd be better negotiating a deal to relocate the Sureway Ministry and re-submitting an improved scheme. (IMHO)


----------



## teuchter (May 6, 2016)

I doubt it I'm afraid, they were already lined up for the project during the planning stage as far as I understand. I assume you mean family mosaic.


----------



## CH1 (May 6, 2016)

teuchter said:


> I doubt it I'm afraid, they were already lined up for the project during the planning stage as far as I understand. I assume you mean family mosaic.


Yes Family Mosaic.

The LJAG spokesperson quite rightly made an issue about that corner at the planning committee.


----------



## teuchter (May 6, 2016)

Family Mosaic doesn't own the corner site though. The church owns it so it's up to them whether they relocate. But the plan for that site was for them to remain there (and presumably make a nice little profit as part of the deal to redevelop the space above them).


----------



## CH1 (May 7, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Family Mosaic doesn't own the corner site though. The church owns it so it's up to them whether they relocate. But the plan for that site was for them to remain there (and presumably make a nice little profit as part of the deal to redevelop the space above them).


This is where redevelopment is illogical and - betrays the flip-flopping of local councils between strategic paralysis (when it comes to other people's developments) and Stalinist ruthlessness when it comes to their own.

A church which acquired their building cheaply because it was at the time an unoccupied industrial building is allowed to dominate the aesthetic and health and safety of Loughborough Junction for the next 100 years - on the grounds that nobody is responsible for arriving at a more suitable solution. And that such a solution might cost money in terms of acceptable inducements/compensation.

Meanwhile people who are council tenants or leaseholders e.g. on the Heygate estate were moved out apparently without suitable compensation in many cases - and Lambeth now planning the same treatment for Cressingham Gardens, Central Hill and several other estate regenerations, and Southwark on the Aylesbury.

Actually with regard to the Sureway building - presumably a bit more housing, for Family Mosaic, would enable them to pay out the church? It would certainly look a whole lot more appropriate for the site.


----------



## teuchter (May 7, 2016)

Yes I agree - sorting out that corner would make a huge difference to LJ. At least the designs that got planning permission were a bit better than those originally submitted - one of the few elements of the scheme that the planning process managed to improve a bit.

I wonder how profitable the church is and how important its location is to it. That would on obviously effect how easy it would be to pay it out.


----------



## CH1 (May 7, 2016)

teuchter said:


> I wonder how profitable the church is and how important its location is to it. That would on obviously effect how easy it would be to pay it out.


You are right in your paragraph 1.

*Profitability of the church.* I nosily downloaded 5 years of their accounts from the Charity Commission, who state that the latest accounts are qualified - though I could not see reference to this in the accounts themselves. Maybe the Charity Commission did not like the accounts being 37 days late, or possible the fact that the last 4 years of account have all been late?

There has been a bank mortgage on the property. Back in 2010 £125,000 was outstanding though it has been paid down and there is no mortgage outstanding at the moment.

Total salary costs were £80,000 in calendar year 2014, and no employee earned more than £50,000 - so that gives you a ball park for the minister's pay.

The accounts show income of about £320,00 (page 9)  and expenditure of £315,000 (page 11).
Charity overview

The church also owns Sureway Christian Enterprise - a dormant company registered at Companies House. Sureway Christian Enterprise appears never to have traded since being founded in 2003. There are 2 officers of the company, both also trustees of the church - the minister, who lives in Croydon, and the secretary, who lives in Abbey Wood.


----------



## Lizzy Mac (May 8, 2016)

teuchter said:


> They've started demolition.
> 
> View attachment 86600


I have just walked past.  It doesn't look very safe and there is not much between the machine and someone who might want one of them.


----------



## CH1 (May 8, 2016)

On a (slightly) related issue, today I went past the Parritt Leng residential development on Camberwell Road (former National Builders Merchants).

Work is progressing quickly, but it has been rebadged as "Fabrick" - which I believe was a firm involved in building the two recent blocks on the corner of Lilford Road and Coldharbour Lane.

The Camberwell Rd site looks a much denser development than Coldharbour Lane though.


----------



## squidlet1 (May 10, 2016)

CH1 said:


> On a (slightly) related issue, today I went past the Parritt Leng residential development on Camberwell Road (former National Builders Merchants).
> 
> Work is progressing quickly, but it has been rebadged as "Fabrick" - which I believe was a firm involved in building the two recent blocks on the corner of Lilford Road and Coldharbour Lane.
> 
> The Camberwell Rd site looks a much denser development than Coldharbour Lane though.



Interesting.  'Fabrik' is one of the development arms of Notting Hill Housing Trust,  another housing association like Family Mosaic.  So it looks like Parrit Leng have / are divesting their assets to associations - not necessarily a bad thing.   Do people know if the development that it looks like is now going ahead at Higgs is the same one that was agreed second time around by Lambeth's Palnning Committe last year,  or did a new / revised application go in?  I was up to date with all this but have been out of the loop for a bit

thanks


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2016)

No new applications, or revisions to the existing one, have gone in to the best of my knowledge, so at the moment if they build anything it'll be the one approved last year. 

There were two separate approvals though, one for the corner site and one for the remaining (larger) portion of the Higgs estate. They can build either or both. They can go ahead with the bigger one by itself (I think) which would mean no change to the corner opposite the train station.


----------



## Twattor (May 10, 2016)

squidlet1 said:


> Interesting.  'Fabrik' is one of the development arms of Notting Hill Housing Trust,  another housing association like Family Mosaic.  So it looks like Parrit Leng have / are divesting their assets to associations - not necessarily a bad thing.   Do people know if the development that it looks like is now going ahead at Higgs is the same one that was agreed second time around by Lambeth's Palnning Committe last year,  or did a new / revised application go in?  I was up to date with all this but have been out of the loop for a bit
> 
> thanks



Fabrick was a marketing name used by Notting Hill for the site round the corner, I'm not aware of it being an "arm" of NHHG.  Fabrica are A2Dominion's private sale and shared ownership entity (currently redeveloping Keybridge House on South Lambeth Road), but I'm not aware of them having any involvement in this site.  It might just be that Parrit Leng's demo contractors found a job lot of pre-used hoardings and have pressed them into service to save a few quid.


----------



## CH1 (May 10, 2016)

Twattor said:


> Fabrick was a marketing name used by Notting Hill for the site round the corner, I'm not aware of it being an "arm" of NHHG.  Fabrica are A2Dominion's private sale and shared ownership entity (currently redeveloping Keybridge House on South Lambeth Road), but I'm not aware of them having any involvement in this site.  It might just be that Parrit Leng's demo contractors found a job lot of pre-used hoardings and have pressed them into service to save a few quid.


Are you saying that the hoardings on Camberwell Road are recycled?
Commendable if so - but they look too pristine for that.


----------



## teuchter (May 12, 2016)




----------



## Harbourite (May 12, 2016)

someone told me today that there will be a waitrose and a small cinema in this new development. is this old news?


----------



## teuchter (May 12, 2016)

Harbourite said:


> someone told me today that there will be a waitrose and a small cinema in this new development. is this old news?


I think it's wrong news.


----------



## ChrisSouth (May 13, 2016)

teuchter said:


> I think it's wrong news.



There's already a small cinema - Whirled cinema - I think that Waitrose is middle class wishing


----------



## Johnlj123 (May 13, 2016)

The information about a Waitrose and a Cinema comes from the  post by Family Mosaic on 17 September 2015. Towards the bottom under Connections to Higgs Estate.

http://www.familymosaicsales.co.uk/media-centre/latest-news/new-site-acquired-in-lambeth-to-create-a-mixed-tenure-development-of-115-homes/


----------



## teuchter (May 13, 2016)

Johnlj123 said:


> The information about a Waitrose and a Cinema comes from the  post by Family Mosaic on 17 September 2015. Towards the bottom under Connections to Higgs Estate.
> 
> http://www.familymosaicsales.co.uk/media-centre/latest-news/new-site-acquired-in-lambeth-to-create-a-mixed-tenure-development-of-115-homes/


"Land adjacent to the site"

As ChrisSouth says the cinema is already there. I'm not aware of any plans for a waitrose anywhere.


----------



## Harbourite (May 13, 2016)

ChrisSouth said:


> There's already a small cinema - Whirled cinema - I think that Waitrose is middle class wishing


thank you.


----------



## CH1 (May 19, 2016)

Twattor said:


> Fabrick was a marketing name used by Notting Hill for the site round the corner, I'm not aware of it being an "arm" of NHHG.  Fabrica are A2Dominion's private sale and shared ownership entity (currently redeveloping Keybridge House on South Lambeth Road), but I'm not aware of them having any involvement in this site.  It might just be that Parrit Leng's demo contractors found a job lot of pre-used hoardings and have pressed them into service to save a few quid.


Whilst looking for stuff on Higgs & Parrit Leng, just foumd this Land acquired for 82-home scheme in Camberwell | FABRICA


----------



## CH1 (May 19, 2016)

Back inn the days of Gordon Brown Parritt Leng accused of paying architects £6 an hour Low-paid architect jobs: An offer you can refuse


----------



## CH1 (May 19, 2016)

LJAG are claiming Parrit Leng have been "sacked" by Family Mosaic.
Sounds to me like a bit of spin. Parrit Leng claimed in local LJAG public meetings to be all-in-one builders and developers with links to affordable housing providers.

But Higgs looked a bit mundane compared with the stuff they have promoted on their website - a new Curzon Cinema for Hoxton and a new football stadium for Everton to name but two.

Seems to me that Parritt Leng were nimble small developers with big ideas in for a quick turn because they always needed bigger partners/clients to realise their schemes.

Here is LJAG's informational - which I would take with a pinch of salt - and it adds a further question over the demolition. How did that happen then?
*
Higgs development - Parritt Leng sacked*
The Higgs Industrial Estate on Herne Hill Road is now owned by housing association Family Mosaic. LJAG has spoken to Mike Fawcett, Family Mosaic’s regional development director who has informed us that Family Mosaic has terminated its design and build contract with Parritt Leng (now renamed JVPB). The housing association is now in the process of selecting a new contractor who will implement the current planning permission and hopes to start work as soon as possible.
The current demolition was not authorised and Family Mosaic has now taken action to make sure the site is safe and has installed on site security.
Mike Fawcett from Family Mosaic says the housing association will be happy to meet with local people once a new contractor has been appointed and demolition is about to begin.
In the meantime please email us at ljactiongroup@gmail.com if there are other questions you would like us to put to Family Mosaic.


----------



## squidlet1 (May 19, 2016)

What isn't at all clear from the Family Mosaic press release is what is happening about the workshop / commercial units,  which are an integral part of the planning permission (and a replacement at least in part for losing MDM as a local employer).  I haven't compared the number of home and breakdown iof affordability and tenures with what the Planning Committee eventually agreed,  but would be worth doing so (I'll try to find documentation)


----------



## CH1 (May 26, 2016)

squidlet1 said:


> What isn't at all clear from the Family Mosaic press release is what is happening about the workshop / commercial units,  which are an integral part of the planning permission (and a replacement at least in part for losing MDM as a local employer).  I haven't compared the number of home and breakdown iof affordability and tenures with what the Planning Committee eventually agreed,  but would be worth doing so (I'll try to find documentation)


Had you seen this link (which I have only just discovered)

http://www.acorncommercial.co.uk/files/casestudy-loughboroughjunction.pdf

Looks like the Higgs site was part of a much bigger scheme involving the bit where the squatters got evicted from the other day corner of Coldharbour Lane/Hinton Road.
Anybody know any more? Obviously the Higgs bit is all clear to buid since planning permission was granted. I had not noticed planning permission for the other bits. When I went to the pre-planning public consultation in the Junction the plans on view there looked different in style from Higgs. So not sure that the site owner was even the same - and no mention at all of Parrit Leng.


----------



## Twattor (May 26, 2016)

CH1 said:


> Had you seen this link (which I have only just discovered)
> 
> http://www.acorncommercial.co.uk/files/casestudy-loughboroughjunction.pdf
> 
> ...


That is one of the most interesting things I've seen on these boards for a while. Certainly joins a few dots. Good work.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 7, 2016)

Demolition latest state of play


----------



## teuchter (Jun 7, 2016)

CH1 said:


> Had you seen this link (which I have only just discovered)
> 
> http://www.acorncommercial.co.uk/files/casestudy-loughboroughjunction.pdf
> 
> ...


That's interesting. It doesn't include the site(s) on the Hinton Rd/Coldharbour Lane corner though. Those are the ex bed shop and the building to the E of it on CHL. 

It does include the Hardess St industrial estate and the scrap yard which I had previously heard Parrit Leng had an interestung.

It also includes the car wash place on hinton rd though. This would allow a potential link between Hinton Rd and the Higgs site if they were developed in conjunction.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 7, 2016)

teuchter said:


> That's interesting. It doesn't include the site(s) on the Hinton Rd/Coldharbour Lane corner though. Those are the ex bed shop and the building to the E of it on CHL.
> 
> It does include the Hardess St industrial estate and the scrap yard which I had previously heard Parrit Leng had an interestung.
> 
> It also includes the car wash place on hinton rd though. This would allow a potential link between Hinton Rd and the Higgs site if they were developed in conjunction.


So you think it unlikely that the bed shop is now incorporated into the development site?

Seemed to me the other day there was a certain synchronised quality  to goings on on both sites. But there again two lots of builders dressed like George Osborne on campaign must happen on adjacent sites from time to time just by serendipity.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 7, 2016)

CH1 said:


> So you think it unlikely that the bed shop is now incorporated into the development site?
> 
> Seemed to me the other day there was a certain synchronised quality  to goings on on both sites. But there again two lots of builders dressed like George Osborne on campaign must happen on adjacent sites from time to time just by serendipity.


All I can say is that the bed shop site is not inside the red line drawn on the diagram in that pdf.


----------



## editor (Jun 19, 2016)

Here's how it looked yesterday. View from Herne Hill Rd, railway to the left.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2016)

Wrong thread.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Aug 18, 2016)

editor said:


> My. Isn't this wonderful.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Three more trees than there are there at present.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2016)

ChrisSouth said:


> Three more trees than there are there at present.


This is not part of the Higgs site. Wrong thread for this discussion


----------



## goldengraham (Oct 13, 2016)

Anyone know what's going on with this? Work seems to have halted with the site in a semi-demolished state


----------



## CH1 (Oct 13, 2016)

goldengraham said:


> Anyone know what's going on with this? Work seems to have halted with the site in a semi-demolished state


LJAG's website put up a press release from Family Housing Group a long time ago:
"Family Mosaic are delighted to announce the acquisition of a new site in Lambeth as part of a large-scale redevelopment of the area. The site located at Herne Hill Road was acquired from Parritt Leng in August 2015.

The site, with construction due to complete in the spring of 2018, was purchased with planning permission granted, with Parritt Leng as the appointed architects for the development.

The mixed-tenure development will comprise of 115 new homes, 53 of which will be made available for private sale, 27 for Shared Ownership and a further 35 socially rented homes.

At Higgs Estate there will be a selection of 1, 2 and 3 bed homes available through social rent whilst Shared Ownership will comprise of one and two bed properties and Private Sale will comprise of two and three bedroom homes.

Jeffrey Ruffels, Head of Land at Family Mosaic comments, ‘This is a great opportunity to develop a significant scheme in one of Family Mosaic’s most established boroughs and regenerate the local area with a high quality scheme’"

I expect you knew that. You could contact Jeffrey Ruffels who is still there.
Or maybe better still ask teuchter - who seems to be MC on this thread.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 5, 2017)

Further to the above, I just found this whilst Googling around for other stuff

https://www.geraldeve.com/wp-conten...e-Former-Higgs-Industrial-Estate-Disposal.pdf

Seems that the mortgagee of part of the Higgs Estate put it on the market last September. Which kind of conflicts with Family Mosaic having it in the pipeline.

Anyone have any other news/gossip about what's going on here?


----------



## teuchter (Feb 5, 2017)

That's interesting CH1, good spy work. They are only offering part of the site. If someone bought that they'd not be able to make use of the existing planning permission (unless they also bought the remainder of the site).

I've not heard any further gossip about that site.

Notably Firezza Pizza have recently vacated the Hardess estate (on the other side of the viaduct). Don't know if that's because they had their lease terminated or just decided to get out because of uncertainty about what's going to happen with it. The steelworkers also left a little while ago.


----------



## goldengraham (Feb 10, 2017)

This is from Family Mosaic's press office re the Higgs Estate site (after some perseverance; the first reply I received was of a generic 'mind your own business' nature)

I have sought more detail regarding the site and can advise that Family Mosaic are in the process of acquiring further parcels of land on the site as the company owning the land has gone into receivership. As such, we are now progressing a new planning application. We will be carrying out public consultation with local residents on the new proposals in the spring and would welcome your feedback during that time. ​I guess the implication of this is that the administrator has split the land up into smaller sites for sale, but it's hard to tell without knowing who the administrator is


----------



## goldengraham (Feb 10, 2017)

Actually after pondering this more, I'm not sure the implications are clear at all. Didn't Family Mosaic purchase the whole site from Parritt Leng, as originally stated? Who are the now-bankrupt company owning the land if not FM? Or perhaps they are trying to buy out the church and at the same time sell off a chunk of land at the opposite end of the site?

Spring is hopefully not too far off so I guess we will find out soon enough


----------



## CH1 (Feb 10, 2017)

goldengraham said:


> Actually after pondering this more, I'm not sure the implications are clear at all. Didn't Family Mosaic purchase the whole site from Parritt Leng, as originally stated? Who are the now-bankrupt company owning the land if not FM? Or perhaps they are trying to buy out the church and at the same time sell off a chunk of land at the opposite end of the site?
> 
> Spring is hopefully not too far off so I guess we will find out soon enough


It costs £3 for a Land Registry certificate and a further £3 for a plan.
So guess we could find out - but it might cost £6 or a multiple of £6.
Not sure I am that nosey! Maybe we could persuade LJAG to check it out. With their previous contacts built up opposing the prevcious planning aspplication they might be able to give us the story without having to pay anything at all.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 10, 2017)

Yeah, I don't understand either. You'd think FM would only have bought the full site, otherwise whoever owns the remaining parcels (eg like the one advertised for sale in CH1's link) would hold them to ransom. Unless they are talking about the church site. Or even the adjacent sites (eg the Hardess industrial estate or the sites bordering on Hinton Rd)? There was talk in the past of a possible longer term plan to try and develop these sites together.

More fun ahead if they are going to go for a new planning permission. Are Lambeth going to manage to get the masterplan in place before that, so that their application can be assessed against it and maybe create some hope for something coherent resulting? Who knows; the masterplan seems to have been mothballed as far as I can work out.


----------



## prunus (Feb 10, 2017)

CH1 said:


> It costs £3 for a Land Registry certificate and a further £3 for a plan.
> So guess we could find out - but it might cost £6 or a multiple of £6.
> Not sure I am that nosey! Maybe we could persuade LJAG to check it out. With their previous contacts built up opposing the prevcious planning aspplication they might be able to give us the story without having to pay anything at all.



That weirdly shaped bit of land is currently owned by Loughborough Triangle Projects Ltd, which is in liquidation according to Companies House.  The mortgagee in possession is by the looks of it Family Mosaic Home Ownership Limited and Family Mosaic Housing Services Ltd - they have the registered charge.  You can download the mortgage deed here fwiw (it's a 3rd party mortgage making it more complicated - there are a whole load of companies involved): Charge

The whole site is a patchwork of title numbers, crosslinked by deeds and restrictions as far as I can tell.  I'm not surprised the whole thing's got stuck in the mire.

Makes me fucking angry that they take a perfectly functioning light industry estate and turn it into a wasteland to no f*ucking purpose.

Some more digging on Companies House (which is free) might reveal more.  I'll try when I have some time.

e2a: looks like Loughborough Triangle Projects is/was 50% owned by some part of the Parritt Leng Group.  It might be that FM perhaps never actually bought (any part of?) the site, maybe just optioned it in some way (possibly to avoid stamp duty in the case of a failure to complete the project, as has apparently happened).

LTP managed to run up a £1.8m unpaid tax bill in the 3 years of operation, which is pretty impressive going.  That looks like it will be written off, as the only asset is the land, which is charged to the FM companies.  They never filed accounts so I can't see what they got for that charge.  On the surface of it it has the smell of a tax avoidance setup (buy an asset, charge it to another company to take it out of the asset net, fail to pay your taxes, go bust with nothing, taxman gets nothing but the asset is safe).  But I can't immediately see a connection between LTP and FM that would make that make sense.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 10, 2017)

prunus said:


> Makes me fucking angry that they take a perfectly functioning light industry estate and turn it into a wasteland to no f*ucking purpose.



This.


----------



## Lizzy Mac (Mar 4, 2017)

Right next to an "Improving the image of construction banner'.


----------



## teuchter (May 2, 2017)

Via LJAG mailing list:



> *Higgs Industrial  Estate*
> 
> LJAG met with Jeffrey Ruffels, the Land Director of Family Mosaic, the housing association that now owns the Higgs Industrial Estate.
> The news is that Family Mosaic has gone back to the drawing board and will be submitting a new planning application for the site. It is now in pre-planning talks with Lambeth council and will be consulting on its new proposals at the end of May or in early June before submitting a planning application.
> The housing association, which is currently merging with another housing association, Peabody, hopes to get planning permission before Christmas and start on site in spring 2018 with completion in 2020. Architects PRP have been appointed PRP / PRP


----------



## teuchter (May 2, 2017)

PRP are same architects as doing Thrayle House next to the skate park in Stockwell.






They'll be working to Family Mosaic's brief of course, and it's them who will set targets for density and so on. But probably best not to hope for something of significantly lower density or height than the previous scheme.


----------



## editor (May 2, 2017)

If anyone fancies writing an update on this for Buzz, it might be a good way to let more locals know what's going on.


----------



## T & P (May 2, 2017)

teuchter said:


> PRP are same architects as doing Thrayle House next to the skate park in Stockwell.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's impressive to see that Brixton has now such a pull that the person in that car has driven all the way from America to be here.


----------



## editor (May 2, 2017)

T & P said:


> It's impressive to see that Brixton has now such a pull that the person in that car has driven all the way from America to be here.


That perspective-confounding  architecture is going to be expensive too.


----------



## ChrisSouth (May 3, 2017)

teuchter said:


> Via LJAG mailing list:



If it's Family Mosaic HA, will these therefore be social housing, or shared ownership or private or a combo (no hidden agenda behind this question, honest)?


----------



## teuchter (May 3, 2017)

ChrisSouth said:


> If it's Family Mosaic HA, will these therefore be social housing, or shared ownership or private or a combo (no hidden agenda behind this question, honest)?


Don't know but I would expect a mix like the previous scheme.


----------



## goldengraham (May 3, 2017)

PRP also did the Myatts Fields development


----------



## Gramsci (May 3, 2017)

ChrisSouth said:


> If it's Family Mosaic HA, will these therefore be social housing, or shared ownership or private or a combo (no hidden agenda behind this question, honest)?



If it's social housing it is likely to be on the new "affordable" rents. I know that relets on existing property are being changed to the new "affordable" rents. With existing tenants being still on social rent. So increasing two tiers of tenants.


----------



## CH1 (May 4, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> If it's social housing it is likely to be on the new "affordable" rents. I know that relets on existing property are being changed to the new "affordable" rents. With existing tenants being still on social rent. So increasing two tiers of tenants.


I think the current national policy for council and housing association provision is for new-build to be mixed developments.

Higgs could end up like Barrington Lodge the nearly completed block on the corner of Barrington Road and St James's Crescent. That seems to be about 100 units split between "affordable rented" and shared ownership.

My recollection of the previous Higgs proposal was it was 159 units - so I expect if it stays like that, or even increases, then some full price for sale might be expected to contribute towards the "viability" of the project.


----------



## hungry_squirrel (Jul 14, 2017)

So is anything going on with this now? It all seems very quiet as of late...


----------



## CH1 (Jul 15, 2017)

hungry_squirrel said:


> So is anything going on with this now? It all seems very quiet as of late...


This came up at the LJAG AGM.
Apparently Family Mosaic/Peabdoy are still working on the plans.
It was said that Family had tried to negotiate an alternative location for Sureway International Ministry but the church had not agreed to anything.
So as the NHS says - we now enter a period of Watchful Waiting.


----------



## bimble (Jul 26, 2017)

just recording the fleeting appearance of this bit of artwork which was I think only there for a few days
 
(it's now painted over with a big blob of white).


----------



## CH1 (Aug 22, 2017)

Seems that Indigo Planning have now taken on consultation round the development of this site.
Maybe there might be an exhibition coming up - and maybe LJAG have more information on the matter?

Cautionary note (from their website)
"*We recently secured consent for comprehensive, mixed-use redevelopment of the iconic Tolworth Tower complex, on London’s A3 trunk road."
*
Seems what was an iconic Tower in the 1980s will soon be even more iconic!


----------



## editor (Feb 19, 2018)

Upcoming: Public Exhibition: Revised redevelopment proposals for Higgs Industrial Estate, Loughborough Junction, 1st/3rd March 2018



> The developers say that the redevelopment “will also deliver improvements to the public realm; with open access to the arches and a courtyard for residents at podium level.”


I'm so happy they're getting a private courtyard.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 19, 2018)

Higgs Industrial Estate | Peabody

Peabody usually do OK stuff. 

Will be interesting to see if they are planning to cram in as much as the previous proposal tried for.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 19, 2018)

I've always felt we need more Tatlin Towers in Loughborough Junction. 
This thread is more like it.
Those were the days (2011) - Higgs scenery with personality.
And sad to see two of the posters have died. RIP.


----------



## Twattor (Feb 19, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Higgs Industrial Estate | Peabody
> 
> Peabody usually do OK stuff.
> 
> Will be interesting to see if they are planning to cram in as much as the previous proposal tried for.


Peabody are Family Mosaic.  They just kept the name because of the history associated with it.


----------



## editor (Feb 19, 2018)

Twattor said:


> Peabody are Family Mosaic.  They just kept the name because of the history associated with it.


There's big money involved too: the merger was a £6,000,000,000 deal and wasn't seen a good thing by many residents  
Tenants’ group opposes Peabody and Family Mosaic amalgamation



> One of London’s oldest housing associations has completed a merger with a rival to create a group that will be responsible for more than 55,000 homes, 111,000 residents and an annual turnover of £700 million.
> 
> Peabody Trust, a housing association set up more than 150 years ago, has completed its £6 billion merger deal with Family Mosaic.
> 
> ...


----------



## teuchter (Feb 19, 2018)

Twattor said:


> Peabody are Family Mosaic.  They just kept the name because of the history associated with it.



Oh.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 21, 2018)

Got my invite today in post


----------



## CH1 (Feb 23, 2018)

I think we should demand they build a second entrance to the railway station on their side of the road - with a lift and escalators.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 3, 2018)

Have just had a look at the exhibition. Will post some photos of the boards later.

The info is quite sketchy. There will be another consultation in a few months with more detail.

The scheme is not massively different from the previous one in scale, although the heights of the various blocks have been tweaked somewhat.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 3, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Have just had a look at the exhibition. Will post some photos of the boards later.
> The info is quite sketchy. There will be another consultation in a few months with more detail.
> The scheme is not massively different from the previous one in scale, although the heights of the various blocks have been tweaked somewhat.


There seems to be a green platform in the middle of the blocks which I guess would make it look a couple of storeys less high if you were looking out of your kitchen window.

It also implies a considerable area more for industrial/retail or whatever employment uses might be provided.

For me the main drawback is the industrial building fronting Coldharbour Lane (backing onto it actually - the building frontage is actually inside the Higgs site). 

In the days when developments were planned and executed by the council CPO powers would have been invoked. It would obviously be good for Loughborough Junction as an expanding town centre if a more generous pavement were provided there, probably with modern retail frontage, with more flats above. 

Personally the look of the scheme as presented was rather better than the Parritt Leng one. What would make it a good scheme is if the church was relocated off site and their building redeveloped,  or of course they could have one of the industrial or retail units on Herne Hill Road, or a purpose built on Coldharbour Lane.

Seems that Parritt Leng may have screwed this up by somehow suggesting the church get planning permission to extend their roof with a small number of residential units, thereby blocking a more coherent scheme for the whole site.

The church has what planners term a ransom strip.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 3, 2018)

I went today. They did try to persuade the church to do a land swap. Build them another church away from the corner. Rebuild the corner with a small public square. The church turned this down. Pity. A missed opportunity to improve that corner.

The affordable element will be 35% of total homes. No different from a private developer.

Was told at exhibition that of that affordable percentage 30% will be shared ownership and the remaining 70% will be rented at the levels set by Mayor Sadiq Khan.

I think they said the rent will be the new "London Affordable Rent". This should be less than the government "Affordable Rent" which was set at up to 80% of market rent.

Tried to look this up.


Homes for Londoners: Affordable Homes Programme 2016-21


London Affordable Rent benchmarks 2018/2019

As set out in the 2016-21 Affordable Homes Programme Funding Guidance, the GLA will update its London Affordable Rent benchmarks on an annual basis, updating each one by the increase in CPI for the previous September plus 1%. The 2017/18 and 2018/19 benchmarks are shown in the table below:





2018/19 benchmark

Bedsit and one bedroom

£150.03

Two bedrooms

£158.84

Three bedrooms

£167.67

Four bedrooms

£176.49

Five bedrooms

£185.31

Six or more bedrooms

£194.13


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 3, 2018)

Some drawings of how it would look. Notice the high tower. They said this is set back from main road. Building along road is set to much lower height.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 3, 2018)

Commercial space will be on lower floors.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 3, 2018)

Aerial shot showing green roofs. Communal space will be on second floor level where flats start. Below that is commercial space. The communal space is private to flats not public. Im not clear how this will work. Or whether it will require service charges to maintain.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 3, 2018)

They said they have lowered height of development on south side to let in more light.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 3, 2018)

The old scheme


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 3, 2018)

More info on new Peabody/Family Mosiac scheme.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 3, 2018)

The new scheme will have an access road for the arches and presumably the commercial space going all way round the site.

Looks to me the way they have designed this is to keep ground floor purely for commercial with the housing sitting separately on top.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 3, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> The new scheme will have an access road for the arches and presumably the commercial space going all way round the site.
> 
> Looks to me the way they have designed this is to keep ground floor purely for commercial with the housing sitting separately on top.


Yes. They averred that there would be public access round the scheme, not gated. If so this might recapture what the old LJAG masterplan was after - particularly if there was a through-way under the railway to Hinton Road.

I asked about a view of the tower from the Green Man side, they said this woud obviously be provided for the planning application. Personally I can't imagine if the tower would look intrusive from Hinton Road - but then that site is also presumably under development form a different developer.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 4, 2018)

There'll be no avoiding the tower being visible from a lot of places - 15 storeys is pretty tall.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 4, 2018)

The public access would be to the road and pavements running around the perimeter of the site - the green space in the middle for residents only. No less of a "gated development" than Brixton Square or the Loughborough Estate.


----------



## bimble (Mar 4, 2018)

I wonder what the offer was exactly that was made to the Sureway church. They must be quite a wealthy organisation to remain unmoved. Or maybe just feel that particular spot is best placed to help with their stated mission 'to position itself for the coming waves of the Spirit of God which will usher us into end time harvest and restoration.'


----------



## teuchter (Mar 4, 2018)

bimble said:


> I wonder what the offer was exactly that was made to the Sureway church. They must be quite a wealthy organisation to remain unmoved. Or maybe just feel that particular spot is best placed to help with their stated mission 'to position itself for the coming waves of the Spirit of God which will usher us into end time harvest and restoration.'


I expect the church might well reckon that their site will be worth even more once the higgs site is done and the surroundings are more fully gentrified.

Aside from messing up the corner on the public side, the need to provide them with access to their parking at the back screws up the inner part of the plan too. If the church could be got shot of the whole site I would imagine could be more efficiently used to provide housing, and the centre of LJ much improved. As CH1 says a CPO would be nice.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 4, 2018)

bimble said:


> I wonder what the offer was exactly that was made to the Sureway church. They must be quite a wealthy organisation to remain unmoved. Or maybe just feel that particular spot is best placed to help with their stated mission 'to position itself for the coming waves of the Spirit of God which will usher us into end time harvest and restoration.'


Turnover is £250,000 pa and declining Charity overview

They have numerous connected companies -  labelled as dormant by Companies House.  Stephen Antwi ARMAH - Personal Appointments (free information from Companies House)

I think we should be thinking about sacking our Brexit negotiators and appointing these people. They appear to have been preparing to negotiate a good deal (for the work of the Lord that is)!


----------



## editor (Mar 4, 2018)

It's such a tiresomely dishonest tactic of developers to render mock ups from a low vantage point in an attempt to disguise their out of scale looming towers.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 4, 2018)

bimble said:


> I wonder what the offer was exactly that was made to the Sureway church. They must be quite a wealthy organisation to remain unmoved. Or maybe just feel that particular spot is best placed to help with their stated mission 'to position itself for the coming waves of the Spirit of God which will usher us into end time harvest and restoration.'



I think they were offered a land swap nearby. With a new church.

According to what I was told at the exhibition the Sureway church also have six of the arches as well.

There website doesn't say much.

About Us

Other than they believe in the Bible.

From there point of view they are quite happy with the existing church where it is now. I don't think it's a matter of money. There are three African churches in LJ. I don't see them as being interested in the area apart from having there churches here.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 4, 2018)

I'm going to email Peabody about the affordable housing. This is development by a social housing provider. But the 35% affordable housing is no better than a private developer scheme. I want to know if Peabody is applying for grants for the affordable element. I also want to know what kind of tenancies will be used and rent levels. Where the social housing will be located on site. Will it be shoved into one corner of site.

One can emal comments to them on.

higgsestate@yourshout.org

At the exhibition they were asking people to comment. So no need to be shy.

Personally I think the tower is high. At exhibition people said this may set a precedent for area. The architect reckon not as it is only applicable to this site. Which I don't understand.

Putting commercial on ground floor was required by planners. So putting green space above for flats makes sense due to that requirement.

I still think 35% affordable is to low. This is high density development. Plus the commercial space will bring in a revenue stream which can cross subsidise affordable housing.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 4, 2018)

The tower is high. It would be not disimilar to the ones by brockwell park at herne hill. 

If it's the case that we have to accept the same density on the site as in the previous application, then to some extent, I go along with reducing the height of the block along the south side of the site in exchange for making the tower bigger. It lets more sunlight into the site generally. And perhaps, if you're going to have a tower, whether it's 10 12 or 15 storeys doesn't make so much difference. What concerns me though is the bulk of it. It looks like it would have a bigger footprint than the one in the previous scheme. They've been quite selective in where it's shown in perspective views. I think you'd find that from certain directions it would have considerable bulk and cast a considerable shadow. We'll have to wait until proper drawings appear but at that point people should ask to see proper perspective views from a good number of locations around the site and at a variety of distances (it would be more visible from a bit further away than it would be from the edges of the development site).


----------



## teuchter (Mar 4, 2018)

Also their claim that the height along herne hill road is in context with neighbouring streets is a bit questionable. There's no precedent for 6-7 storey buildings there. But as permission was given for that in the previous scheme, it's unlikely that Lambeth will listen to any objections on that basis this time around.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 4, 2018)

Gramsci I think it's good that you question them on the affordable housing proportion and hopefully you will relay any responses here.


----------



## bimble (Mar 5, 2018)

It must be a year now that we've had the brand new shopfront on the other side of the junction standing empty, which makes me wonder who will want all these new commercial units, two floors of them too. It looks as though build it and they'll come may be true for flats but not necessarily for commercial property round here.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> It must be a year now that we've had the brand new shopfront on the other side of the junction standing empty, which makes me wonder who will want all these new commercial units, two floors of them too. It looks as though build it and they'll come may be true for flats but not necessarily for commercial property round here.


I think you are probably right.

It may be that they are trapped into providing the commercial space as a result of the argument for the previous scheme that there would be no loss of employment space compared to the pre-existing industrial estate. That argument was largely nonsense anyway because there is no way that the re-provided space could be used in the same way as the light industrial units were. The reality is that the only kind of commercial space provided in that scheme or this one would basically be office type space. And if I remember correctly, retail use was ruled out last time.

There was no interest from Lambeth last time in requiring any light industrial space for the kind of businesses (and associated type of employment) that Loughborough Junction currently and previously has provided a home for. And to do that would mean a big compromise on the amount of housing provided so no developer is going to ask for it. So the re-provision of the 'commercial' space is a bit of a charade and as such it seems a bit pointless to me.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 5, 2018)

Surely the provision of commercial space is a planning requirement?
In any case the new build flats at LJ are all empty still. I think Peabody are going to have a job to sell 100 empty flats at top whack. Neither housing associations nor Mrs May seem to have got the message that it's not a shortage of properties - it's a shortage of properties ordinary folks can rent or buy that is the problem.


----------



## bimble (Mar 5, 2018)

Which new empty flats are you talking about CH1 ?


----------



## goldengraham (Mar 5, 2018)

on the subject of the railway arches, I don't know if this has been mentioned before but the proposed Network Rail selloff of its commercial property to private equity bidders could potentially have a huge impact on the LJ and Brixton area, and not in a good way


----------



## CH1 (Mar 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> Which new empty flats are you talking about CH1 ?


Former LJAG garden (220-224 Coldharbour)

+  opposite side similarly new empty block.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 5, 2018)

goldengraham said:


> on the subject of the railway arches, I don't know if this has been mentioned before but the proposed Network Rail selloff of its commercial property to private equity bidders could potentially have a huge impact on the LJ and Brixton area, and not in a good way


Can't say Guy Hands was very good for HMV in Oxford Street - but then again it could be Jeff Bezos who is to blame.


----------



## bimble (Mar 6, 2018)

CH1 said:


> Former LJAG garden (220-224 Coldharbour)
> View attachment 129394
> +  opposite side similarly new empty block.



You're right there are several hugely expensive empty flats all dressed up and for sale there and opposite. 
eg) Check out this property  on Zoopla!


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 8, 2018)

Higgs Industrial Estate Exhibition boards.pdf

This link I got from Peabody consultants for Higgs site is the exhibition boards.

Link works if you want to get all the detail on Peabody plans.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 25, 2018)

I've put in a series of questions on the affordable housing to the consultants but have had no reply.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 25, 2018)

These are the questions I put to consultants:

The plans say 35% affordable housing. As Peabody are an affordable housing provider this seems a low percentage. The same as a private developer. Why is the percentage not higher?

How will the affordable element be distributed across the new development? Will it be "pepper potted" across the development? Or will it be put in one section of development? If so where?

At the exhibition I was told that of the affordable 35% this would contain 70% rented and 30% shared ownership. Can you confirm this?

What rent levels and tenancies will be used? Will this be long term tenancies or time limited? If not long term why not?

At the exhibition I was told that the rented units would be at the new affordable rent set by Mayor. Can you confirm this is correct? If so which kind of the Mayor new affordable rent model will be used? What are projected rent levels for different size flats?

What guarantees are there that Peabody will keep to its commitment on affordable housing? Will Peabody gaurentee not to use "financial viability" as a way to reduce affordable housing at a later stage?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 4, 2018)

Peabody have asked to meet the new Green Cllr for Herne Hill. Becca Thackray.

The consultants have done interim report on the consultation they did. Pre putting in application they want to go over scheme with ward Cllrs. I assume they have asked the Labour Cllrs.

Becca came along to the last Loughborough junction Neighborhood Planning forum last Wednesday ( No Labour Cllrs turned up) and it came up there.

She wants to meet Peabody but wants people's views first. She would welcome if a few locals meet Peabody at same time. If anyone else whose posted here wants to let me know.

Sent her last two pages of this thread. As it has good comments on the Peabody plans.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 4, 2018)

The consultation report. Gives Peabody answers to peoples views on height etc.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2018)

These consultation things really are quite pointless. The report doesn't answer any concerns in detail or indicate a willingness to change anything. The process just gives them an opportunity to do some pie charts that demonstrate most people out of a very small sample say 'yes' when asked a vague question about whether they want the site redeveloped.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 4, 2018)

teuchter said:


> These consultation things really are quite pointless. The report doesn't answer any concerns in detail or indicate a willingness to change anything. The process just gives them an opportunity to do some pie charts that demonstrate most people out of a very small sample say 'yes' when asked a vague question about whether they want the site redeveloped.


I think the issue is that Lambeth's planning procedures now require these pre-application consultations as part of the process.

Maybe there might be occasions where developers actually wish to take on board the suggestions of local residents, but it seems unlikely.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2018)

CH1 said:


> I think the issue is that Lambeth's planning procedures now require these pre-application consultations as part of the process.
> 
> Maybe there might be occasions where developers actually wish to take on board the suggestions of local residents, but it seems unlikely.


Yes, they are a required part of the process. I increasingly feel they do more harm than good because it encourages planning decisions to be influenced by supposed preferences that in reality are unrepresentative samples that can be manipulated by the developer.


----------



## editor (Jun 4, 2018)

CH1 said:


> I think the issue is that Lambeth's planning procedures now require these pre-application consultations as part of the process.
> 
> Maybe there might be occasions where developers actually wish to take on board the suggestions of local residents, but it seems unlikely.


Complete waste of time in my experience.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 12, 2018)

Demolition on the southern portion of the site is pretty much done now.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 17, 2018)

Just got email from the Green Cllr for Herne Hill Cllr Becca. I'd emailed her few days ago to see if meeting with Higgs was on.

She copied to me email where Peabody say they are meeting planning department next week. After that they will arrange to meet.

She sent them the link to this thread I sent to her.


----------



## Ian Clark (Nov 11, 2018)

I believe there is another consultation meeting on 12 November. I will endeavour to find our time and venue


----------



## teuchter (Nov 27, 2018)

I was not able to attend the latest consultation but I gather they have made some relatively minor changes compared to the previous version and plan to make an application fairly soon which I'll be keeping an eye out for.

They have not updated the info on the website.

Higgs Industrial Estate, Herne Hill Road London, SE24 | Peabody


----------



## Ian Clark (Nov 27, 2018)

It was a fairly empty affair. The big tower is a bit shorter and there is an access road between the arches to the north of the site and the buildings.

The team seemed a bit clueless tbh


----------



## teuchter (Nov 27, 2018)

Cheers for posting the photo.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 27, 2018)

Ian Clark said:


> It was a fairly empty affair. The big tower is a bit shorter and there is an access road between the arches to the north of the site and the buildings.
> 
> The team seemed a bit clueless tbh


Despite taking my email address they have not forwarded any further information. I don't think they have anything actually - I expect they are just re-consulting because Lambeth Planning expect it.

The people staffing the display seemed to be Peabody staff rather than consultants.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 27, 2018)

The only reason any of these consultations happen is to tick boxes on the planning application forms.


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2018)

CH1 said:


> Despite taking my email address they have not forwarded any further information. I don't think they have anything actually - I expect they are just re-consulting because Lambeth Planning expect it.
> 
> The people staffing the display seemed to be Peabody staff rather than consultants.


I've stopped going to these kind of things as they're a total waste of time. Even if there's anyone there who actually knows anything about the project, they'll probably bolt on more floors and change the proposal after anyway.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 3, 2019)

There's now a new planning application in for this development. To avoid confusion I thought it might be best to give it a new thread:

Higgs Development, Loughborough Junction (2019 design)


----------

