# The redevelopment of Loughborough House, Loughborough Junction



## teuchter (Sep 8, 2014)

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



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


 

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

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


----------



## teuchter (Sep 8, 2014)

Here's what they appear to have planning permission for


----------



## Crispy (Sep 8, 2014)

Spot the difference


----------



## ChrisSouth (Sep 8, 2014)

Crispy said:


> Spot the difference


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


----------



## CH1 (Sep 8, 2014)

teuchter said:


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


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

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

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

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


----------



## editor (Sep 8, 2014)

teuchter said:


> So, the "Loughborough House" building, opposite the end of Herne Hill Road, which used to look like this:
> 
> View attachment 60726
> 
> ...


That looks more like vandalism.


----------



## editor (Sep 8, 2014)

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

Oh well. Sigh....


----------



## teuchter (Sep 8, 2014)

ChrisSouth said:


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


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


----------



## CH1 (Sep 8, 2014)

teuchter said:


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


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

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

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

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


----------



## editor (Sep 8, 2014)

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

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


----------



## teuchter (Sep 8, 2014)

CH1 said:


> I've done photos. Apologies for repetition - I have an urgent engagement and no time to make a proper selection.
> 
> teuchter you are right - it is shoddy - and unfinished. The guy at the station says the scaffolding has been up and down before by the way.
> 
> They are definitely removing the scaffolding at the moment, but as you can see the job is nowhere near finished.



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

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



CH1 said:


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



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


----------



## CH1 (Sep 8, 2014)

editor said:


> Breaks my heart to see such a lovely building being fucked up in this manner.
> 
> Do you think it's worth spinning this off into a separate thread to attract more attention to the matter?


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


----------



## teuchter (Sep 8, 2014)

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


----------



## Rushy (Sep 8, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Yes, the rear is unfinished so it may be that they are not finished with the front facade either.
> 
> Having double checked though, it doesn't seem they have current planning permission. It was granted in 2008 with a three year limit. But as someone else said, maybe they "started" work within that time.


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


----------



## leanderman (Sep 8, 2014)

Any likelihood of enforcement action?


----------



## editor (Sep 8, 2014)

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


----------



## teuchter (Sep 8, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Any likelihood of enforcement action?


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


----------



## Manter (Sep 8, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Here's what they appear to have planning permission for
> 
> View attachment 60728


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


----------



## Rushy (Sep 8, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Any likelihood of enforcement action?


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

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


----------



## teuchter (Sep 8, 2014)

Manter said:


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


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


----------



## teuchter (Sep 8, 2014)

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



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

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

eh?

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

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

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

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


----------



## editor (Sep 8, 2014)

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


----------



## leanderman (Sep 9, 2014)

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


----------



## Rushy (Sep 9, 2014)

leanderman said:


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


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

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

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

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


----------



## CH1 (Sep 9, 2014)

editor said:


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





leanderman said:


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


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

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

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

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


----------



## teuchter (Sep 9, 2014)

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


----------



## teuchter (Sep 10, 2014)

I've made a report to planning enforcement.

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


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2014)

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


----------



## teuchter (Sep 10, 2014)

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


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2014)

teuchter said:


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


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


----------



## teuchter (Sep 10, 2014)

Well, to be fair, it's not actually finished.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 11, 2014)

teuchter said:


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


Normally cavity wall construction involved breeze blocks inside and bricks outside. This looks like breeze blocks outside and block board inside. Surely that is not OK?


----------



## Rushy (Sep 11, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Normally cavity wall construction involved breeze blocks inside and bricks outside. This looks like breeze blocks outside and block board inside. Surely that is not OK?


Nothing wrong with rendered concrete blocks on the outside, per se - quite normal. Can't see what the overall construction is going to be. I think the block boards you are referring to are the lightweight roof / dormer extension which will no doubt be clad. Could be timber, uPVC, almunium, tile or slate hung, etc...


----------



## teuchter (Sep 11, 2014)

Yes completely conventional to have blockwork on the outside if it's going to be rendered, which I'd assume it is. As rushy says the "block board" is OSB sheathing on a timber frame for the roof "extension" which is set back slightly from the main walls. According to the planning drawings it will be "painted render" finish too.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 11, 2014)

...although, having said that, looking at the planning drawings for that elevation, the extension is labelled as being "facing brick" (with various string courses) not rendered blockwork. So, a deviation from the planning permission that may or may not be valid anyway?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 11, 2014)

Oh, and the windows are different in shape, size, locations of, and number of, too.


----------



## Manter (Sep 11, 2014)

They appear to regard a planning document as completely unrelated to what they plan to build! What a mess....


----------



## editor (Sep 11, 2014)

Article posted here: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/09/...rough-house-in-coldharbour-lane-south-london/


----------



## goldengraham (Sep 11, 2014)

Building activity appears to have resumed in Loughborough House, behind the windows of the 1st floor 'viewing area' at any rate ...


----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2014)




----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2014)

Some might question the contractor's commitment to safe working practices.


----------



## editor (Sep 15, 2014)

With a symphetic conversion, these buildings could have provided a much needed visual boost to the local landscape. Instead, they're turning them into the blandest of facades, stripping them of any historical character.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2014)

The more you look at it the shoddier everything looks. You can see where they've just sawn through the timbers that supported the overhanging gable, and left them there with the new brickwork around them. I guess at the end they'll just paint over them and then they'll slowly go rotten.

And instead of paying for proper scaffold for the duration of the job they are getting guys to balance on stepladders and do work near the edge with no protection for people on the pavement below if he drops his screwdriver.


----------



## boohoo (Sep 15, 2014)

I'm sure their working practice would invalidate any insurance they had.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 15, 2014)

I had been temporarily reassured by this stuff about rendered breeze blocks outside OSB sheathing etc. But I'm still not convinced - I think it is a bodge job actually.

Two other things trouble me:

1. The side windows looking onto the derelict railway arch only a coupe of feet away. This put me in mind of a planning meeting where former Councillor Brian Palmer enquired about the windows in rooms in a student hostel with illegally low levels of daylight provision.

"Oh" said the developer's architect "Those are for disabled students".

I guess the tenants requiring this accommodation will be correspondingly "disabled" (i.e. blind) or else connoisseurs of David Lynch - since the outlook is as similar as can be had in Loughborough Junction to David Lynch's signature early film *Eraserhead
*
2. How does all this mesh in with the Loughbrough Junction Plan - as launched by Lambeth Council and LJAG at the LJAG AGM last year?

"Station Yard" as proposed in this plan requires the demolition an clearnce of both Loughborough House and Loughborough Hall (recently also subject to some scrutiny here)

Were LJAG & Lambeth Officer's brains in gear when they cooked this up? I did query it after the AGM at the time but I was looked at askance.

Seems that no-one bothered to contact or interview the owners of the Loughborough Hall (i.e. Celestial Church of Christ) or Loughborough House (who might be the same - given the lack of complaints about the orginal planning application and subsequent works)

For the record the Loughborough Plan is available here (big downloads though):   http://www.loughboroughjunction.org/masterplanning

*
New public space outside Loughborough Junction Station
and new pedestrian crossing
*


----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2014)

I've never really understood what that plan is. Is it just a "wouldn't it be nice if things were like this" exercise or is/was it backed up in any way by official Lambeth policy?


----------



## CH1 (Sep 15, 2014)

teuchter said:


> I've never really understood what that plan is. Is it just a "wouldn't it be nice if things were like this" exercise or is/was it backed up in any way by official Lambeth policy?


I think it must be the former - but might be worth enquiring further. Try this on page 52:

*Existing Character*
Characterised by low-quality buildings, advertising
signage and street clutter. The existing shops do not
contribute positively to the street scape and are poorly
maintained.
The pavement is wide enough to provide generous
room for pedestrians, but is currently used for informal
parking, which can not currently be prohibited due to
the patchwork of land ownership.
The street scape features a number of different
types of signage (including community notice boards,
advertising boards, way finding), a variety of bollards
and street furniture and a number of paving types.
As such it does not provide a legible public realm for
people arriving in the Junction by train.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 16, 2014)

CH1 said:


> I think it must be the former - but might be worth enquiring further. Try this on page 52:
> 
> *Existing Character*
> Characterised by low-quality buildings, advertising
> ...



Hard to disagree.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 16, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Hard to disagree.


But considering the lack of attention to design issues in the PLANNING process it's a bit odd when MASTERPLANNING sweeps away - in fantasy - buildings it doesn't like and also complains about clutter and signage much of which is council owned and generated!


----------



## leanderman (Sep 16, 2014)

CH1 said:


> But considering the lack of attention to design issues in the PLANNING process it's a bit odd when MASTERPLANNING sweeps away - in fantasy - buildings it doesn't like and also complains about clutter and signage much of which is council owned and generated!



yes. seems that half of the street signs around us are to 'LOCAL HOUSING OFFICE'. You might think these signs unnecessary or perhaps doubt why they should take priority over any other destination.

or you will see, JUBILEE PRIMARY SCHOOL and a second sign, immediately below, fatuously saying JUBILEE EARLY YEARS CENTRE


----------



## Manter (Sep 20, 2014)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 61127View attachment 61128


Fucking hell. Speechless. 

Can you send these photos to the health and safety exec? Or Lambeth planning. Not sure who the right people are, but surely it's somebody's job to intervene before someone falls off a step ladder or drops a brick on a passerby?


----------



## editor (Sep 20, 2014)

It looks mess now.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 20, 2014)

editor said:


> It looks mess now.
> View attachment 61305


Maybe they'll have to implement the Loughborough Masterplan and knock it down to create "Station Yard" - though if they did that it would be a shame to lose Loughborough Hall as well.


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 20, 2014)

The old and latest images don't look that different to me. Although the additions to the top are hard to see in the dark photo


----------



## editor (Sep 23, 2014)

Here's how it looked today. The differences to the roof and the building's outline are extremely obvious.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 23, 2014)

editor said:


> Here's how it looked today. The differences to the roof and the building's outline are extremely obvious.
> 
> View attachment 61499



it's appalling.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 23, 2014)

I've not heard anything back from the Lambeth officer. I should chase them up I guess.


----------



## editor (Sep 23, 2014)

You can see here some of the architectural details that seem destined to be lost:


----------



## editor (Sep 23, 2014)

Another view:


----------



## teuchter (Sep 23, 2014)

Looking at that I realise the East elevation is not being built according to the planning drawings either.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 23, 2014)

What a joke. The whole thing. The state the building has been allowed to get into - and the lash-up emerging now.


----------



## technical (Sep 24, 2014)

That building is in need of some care and attention, but instead  ..... gets that.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 24, 2014)

It doesn't look safe on top to be. How about Health & Safety anybody?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2014)

CH1 said:


> It doesn't look safe on top to be. How about Health & Safety anybody?



The problem there (and pretty much for the last twenty-odd years) is that the HSE barely has enough inspectors to inspect a thiird of large building sites at any one time, let alone "bread and butter" sites like Loughborough Hse, so developments like that that get ignored, unless something unfeasibly egregious gets reported.


----------



## Leo Chesterton (Sep 25, 2014)

Is it part of a gentrification fightback to slap a favela extension on top any non fkd up building in LJ ?

Maybe they should recycle some rusty corrugated iron from the Flaxman Rd lean-to / urinal?


----------



## Crispy (Sep 25, 2014)

There is not a single saving grace about any of this. Disgraceful.


----------



## editor (Sep 25, 2014)

Crispy said:


> There is not a single saving grace about any of this. Disgraceful.


I think I might do another feature on B Buzz on this, in the vain hope that someone, somewhere with some level of control over this shit project may start to give a fuck.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 25, 2014)

editor said:


> I think I might do another feature on B Buzz on this, in the vain hope that someone, somewhere with some level of control over this shit project may start to give a fuck.



Maybe the council want to keep things looking crap to keep down rents and keep out yuppies and chains.


----------



## editor (Sep 25, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Maybe the council want to keep things looking crap to keep down rents and keep out yuppies and chains.


Except no doubt these shonky flats will be sold as 'lifestyle lofts' to the aforementioned yuppies.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 25, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Maybe the council want to keep things looking crap to keep down rents and keep out yuppies and chains.


I am late to this argument (whatever it is) but I can assure you that Lambeth Council planning department's most pressing priority is to avoid expense of any kind.

The tactic is to keep their heads down at all times. That is assuming they even take note of what is going on.

Apart from that since when has aesthetics been a planning issue?


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 28, 2014)

That new picture is much clearer. Still, I'll reserve judgement for when it's finished


----------



## thatguyhex (Sep 28, 2014)

This is depressing as fuck.

Here's a photo of the rear works that I took during my visit to Loughborough Hall in July.


----------



## thatguyhex (Sep 28, 2014)

teuchter said:


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


A similar angle, again from July:



Also, what the hell is up with those square windows as shown in your photo that don't match the ones alongside? Puke.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 2, 2014)

I don't understand what they are doing. They seem to have left some of the pitched roof structure intact. 



A week since i emailed the case officer to ask if they had done anything and still no reply.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 2, 2014)

dp


----------



## Leo Chesterton (Oct 2, 2014)

teuchter said:


> I don't understand what they are doing. They seem to have left some of the pitched roof structure intact.
> 
> View attachment 61908
> 
> A week since i emailed the case officer to ask if they had done anything and still no reply.


That is a crazy roofscape they're creating. I can't picture where you've taken that from. The surgery?


----------



## technical (Oct 2, 2014)

You've got to wonder how long a structure like that would last if we had any sustained bad weather over the winter


----------



## Bobzillard (Oct 17, 2014)

Quoting CH1, #45 above:
How does all this mesh in with the Loughbrough Junction Plan - as launched by Lambeth Council and LJAG at the LJAG AGM last year?
"Station Yard" as proposed in this plan requires the demolition and clearance of both Loughborough House and Loughborough Hall ....
Were LJAG & Lambeth Officer's brains in gear when they cooked this up? ....
Seems that no-one bothered to contact or interview the owners of the Loughborough Hall (i.e. Celestial Church of Christ) or Loughborough House (who might be the same - given the lack of complaints about the orginal planning application and subsequent works). End Quote.

It has been coming to light lately that LJAG and its consultants consulted almost nobody (residents or property owners) about proposals in the Plan before they published it last year!
Has there been any news from the planning officer about Loughborough House yet?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2014)

No.

Maybe I will try and get hold of him next week.

Work seems to have been at a halt for a while now.

I noticed today that if you look from the pavement upwards through the big windows over the "Loughborough House" inscription, you can see the sky at the edges above. Although the half deconstructed pitched roof is sort of still there there are big gaps along by the side walls where the rain will come straight through. And it's October.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2014)

Pitched roof now entirely gone as far as i can see.

Still no reply from planning officer despite 2 emails now.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 29, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Pitched roof now entirely gone as far as i can see.
> 
> Still no reply from planning officer despite 2 emails now.



This is what I don't get abut Lambeth: the inability to reply to emails. Are they:

Instructed to ignore them?

Lazy?

Deluged?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2014)

leanderman said:


> This is what I don't get abut Lambeth: the inability to reply to emails. Are they:
> 
> Instructed to ignore them?
> 
> ...



I sometimes think they must have a standing policy of only responding to stuff that's completely uncontroversial.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 29, 2014)

leanderman said:


> This is what I don't get abut Lambeth: the inability to reply to emails. Are they:
> 
> Instructed to ignore them?
> 
> ...


I tend to resend  unanswered mail as a complaint. Usually gets dealt with then.


----------



## davesgcr (Oct 29, 2014)

The station gets "enhanced" staffing in the new order of Thameslink - from first to last train - will have a member on duty. It certainly has picked up on what was a "lost" inner suburban station of 20 years ago.


----------



## davesgcr (Oct 29, 2014)

Quick check shows over 1.2 million passengers a year ( x 3 since 2004 !)


----------



## Belushi (Oct 29, 2014)

davesgcr said:


> Quick check shows over 1.2 million passengers a year ( x 3 since 2004 !)



It feels like the whole transport system has got a lot busier in the past 20 years.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 29, 2014)

Belushi said:


> It feels like the whole transport system has got a lot busier in the past 20 years.



It's a fact. Brixton Tube usage up something like 66 per cent in a decade. 12m to 20m passengers.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I tend to resend  unanswered mail as a complaint. Usually gets dealt with then.


Where do you send the coplaint to - is there a general Lambeth complaint email address?


----------



## Rushy (Oct 30, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Where do you send the coplaint to - is there a general Lambeth complaint email address?


In the case of enforcement I would normally email the person who had not responded to date advising them that I regretfully intend to raise an official complaint in the next 7 days due to the lack of communication.It is pitiful but that often does the job.

If I do not get a response, I email them again copying in the main department email address e.g. enforcement@.. and also the main Lambeth complaints address complaints@lambeth.gov.uk . 

Make sure the subject contains the words Please register a Stage One Complaint. As well as the details of your complaint ask for a reference number.

They have 20 days to respond. Then it goes to stage two. http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/elections...-guide#exceptions-to-the-complaints-procedure


----------



## teuchter (Oct 30, 2014)

Thanks Rushy. Unfortunately 20 days is plenty enough time to trash a building whilst Lambeth does nothing.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 30, 2014)

I would think Lambeth have been in touch with the owners for an explanation.

As you know they (Lambeth Planning and Enforcement officers) are allergic to paperwork or anything at all that might cost the council money, so further pressure until they actually do something is the only tactic.

The building owners are lucky they did not try this on in the 1950s when planners had balls and budgets - the result could have been anything from a dangerous structure notice and compulsory demolition to a CPO.

Come to think of it wouldn't that have fitted the "aspirations" of the Loughborough Junction Plan?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 30, 2014)

CPOs for planning infringements. That would make things more interesting.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 31, 2014)

teuchter said:


> CPOs for planning infringements. That would make things more interesting.


They threatened 316 Coldharbour Lane with a CPO for disrepair. Unfortunately the only effect so far has been to get them to put up 5 estate agent "For Sale" boards. If you threaten you have to be willing to carry out the threat to get the result.


----------



## goldengraham (Nov 1, 2014)

My experience of Lambeth is that they do eventually reply, but often answering a totally different question to the one you first asked


----------



## thatguyhex (Nov 3, 2014)

teuchter said:


> I don't understand what they are doing. They seem to have left some of the pitched roof structure intact.


I worked it out. Those cowboy shitheads couldn't be bothered (or afford) to scaffold up and over the building to erect a temporary roof. They just used the old roof as shelter for as long as they could while building the new walls, at which point they cut it down.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 4, 2014)

They have done a lot of stupid stuff. Keeping  the old roof as shelter for a long as they can does not sound particularly outrageous in the general  scheme of things.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2014)

Finally a response from the planning officer, after nearly two months (only happened after I emailed a local councillor).



> As you may be aware the property was granted planning permission in 2008, ref: 07/04824/FUL for_ Conversion of existing 4 flats to provide 7 self contained flats (1 x 1 bed 3 x 2 bed and 3 x 3 bed) involving the erection of a mansard roof extension and a hip to gable roof extension, the erection of a 3-storey rear extension to 204 Coldharbour Lane and alterations to doors and window. _
> 
> 
> Initial site visit established that works had commenced in relation to the above approved application. The owner was advised about the technical concerns raised in relation to the implementation of the planning permission. In order to find a resolution the owner will submit an LDCE for formal confirmation that the works are lawful. I expect a valid application within the next 21 days. Once received you will be notified, should you have any comments.



I will be watching out for the Lawful Development Certificate application. I'm not actually sure exactly what the procedure is as far as comments/objections are concerned, and to what extent they can affect the outcome.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 13, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Finally a response from the planning officer, after nearly two months (only happened after I emailed a local councillor).
> 
> 
> 
> I will be watching out for the Lawful Development Certificate application. I'm not actually sure exactly what the procedure is as far as comments/objections are concerned, and to what extent they can affect the outcome.


You can't really  object to lawful development unless it is on the grounds that info provided by the application is incorrect e.g. submitted plans do not match what is built.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 13, 2014)

Rushy said:


> You can't really  object to lawful development unless it is on the grounds that info provided by the application is incorrect e.g. submitted plans do not match what is built.


Which they don't


----------



## Rushy (Nov 13, 2014)

Crispy said:


> Which they don't


They don't meet planning drawings. They have not submitted the lawful Dev application yet.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2014)

Rushy said:


> They don't meet planning drawings. They have not submitted the lawful Dev application yet.


Do you mean that if they submit LDCE which has drawings matching what they're building, you can't really object?


----------



## Rushy (Nov 13, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Do you mean that if they submit LDCE which has drawings matching what they're building, you can't really object?


Objections don't really count. There is not a lot of room for interpretation or weight of opinion. On the facts,  either it is lawful or out is not. You can of course point out the facts but the planning officer should be aware of those and the onus is on the applicant to provide evidence that the work is lawful.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2014)

I reckon it will come down to "interpretation", though. It looks like they are going to claim the 2008 permission is valid (I guess they will say they "started" work within the validity period), and then that the changes from the approved drawings are "interpretable" as non-material amendments or suchlike and seek retrospective permission for them. And while Lambeth could probably argue against both points, they won't be bothered to and will give them what they want to save hassle.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 14, 2014)

Yes. You are probably right. Worth writing to building control and getting details of when the building control notice of commencement was issued. They should be able to share that with you. It would not be definitive as they don't have to be meeting building regs requirements in order be considered to have  started work for planning purposes  - but if the commencement date on the  building notice  is post expiry it will increase the onus on them to prove they started on time.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 15, 2014)

I noticed on my nocturnal foray to Costcutter that the front of Loughbrorough House has now been boarded up and a site safety notice is (fairly) prominently displayed. Wonder if Building Control have finally taken an interest?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 16, 2014)

Probably just means that they are now moving on to trash the facade


----------



## boohoo (Nov 16, 2014)

It'll be a shame to see that lost. In one of the local history books I was reading about Norwood, it said that of the 800 substantial detached house demolished, 58% were by developers in the 1960s and 1970s.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 17, 2014)

Sadly it looks like the building is done for, as they are now proceeding with blocking up the windows, to match the drawings which also show the lettering and other facade elements removed.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Sadly it looks like the building is done for, as they are now proceeding with blocking up the windows, to match the drawings which also show the lettering and other facade elements removed.
> 
> View attachment 63873
> View attachment 63874


This is awful. Mind if I use the pics for a B Buzz feature in the vain hope that this act of vandalism might prompt some fucker in Lambeth planning to act before it's too late?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 17, 2014)

Was writing you a PM as you typed that, editor


----------



## teuchter (Nov 17, 2014)

Is it ok to post the email address for the planning officer dealing with the case on here?


----------



## Rushy (Nov 17, 2014)

Planning is a pretty small bunch of people. Not sure that referring to them as fuckers is a great way of demanding support. Worth editing out? 

It's been a while since I looked at the approvals. They have already approved these alterations to the front facade haven't they?


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Was writing you a PM as you typed that, editor


On the case!


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2014)

Piece posted here: Historic Loughborough House façade faces destruction as the council drags its heels over the legality of the work


----------



## teuchter (Nov 17, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Planning is a pretty small bunch of people. Not sure that referring to them as fuckers is a great way of demanding support. Worth editing out?
> 
> It's been a while since I looked at the approvals. They have already approved these alterations to the front facade haven't they?


They were approved but in the permission that expired in 2013.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 17, 2014)

teuchter said:


> They were approved but in the permission that expired in 2013.


What are you hoping planning will do right now which they have not already? They are following their standard procedure by asking the applicant to submit an ldce application. The thing to keep an eye on is how long they give the applicant to submit it. I am following an enforcement case at the moment which was opened in September 2013.  The owner was  not contacted until March when it was decided that an ldce or planning application would be required. 8 months later... Nothing.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 17, 2014)

Ideally I'd like them to tell the developers not to carry out any destructive work until it has been resolved. They may not have the power to do this.

Also to revise history such that they have been strict with previous enforcement cases such that the developer actually gives a toss about what the rules say.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 17, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Ideally I'd like them to tell the developers not to carry out any destructive work until it has been resolved. They may not have the power to do this.
> 
> Also to revise history such that they have been strict with previous enforcement cases such that the developer actually gives a toss about what the rules say.




I think they can serve a temporary stop notice for a month  to give themselves time to investigate a breach where they think it is justified. I've never come across one. They're pretty exceptional I suppose and given that the council had already permitted the works to the front and roof, it seems that the decision was made long ago that they aren't worth protecting. I guess that would explain a lack of urgency.


----------



## Manter (Nov 17, 2014)

They really have made a mess of that poor building, haven't they?


----------



## Crispy (Nov 17, 2014)

Obstructing development is not the job of Lambeth Planning


----------



## Rushy (Nov 17, 2014)

Crispy said:


> Obstructing development is not the job of Lambeth Planning


And it should not be. But maintaining their integrity and preventing the system being undermined are stated objectives.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 17, 2014)

I was being cynical


----------



## Rushy (Nov 18, 2014)

Crispy said:


> I was being cynical


And I was disagreeing with you.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 18, 2014)

Rushy said:


> it seems that the decision was made long ago that they aren't worth protecting



Indeed. A poor decision in my opinion, and probably one they don't want to embarass themselves with reviewing, another reason they'll probably want to wave it through even if the developer can't provide convincing evidence that work started before the expiry date. As discussed upthread the officer's report justifying the decision was dreadful. It's just a shame no-one picked up on this when the application was submitted back in 2008.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 18, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Indeed. A poor decision in my opinion, and probably one they don't want to embarass themselves with reviewing, another reason they'll probably want to wave it through even if the developer can't provide convincing evidence that work started before the expiry date. As discussed upthread the officer's report justifying the decision was dreadful. It's just a shame no-one picked up on this when the application was submitted back in 2008.


You are right. They will blindly back up any decision they made in the past. That said, I'm not convinced that the building was of particular  merit. More just that what replaced it should have been at least of a decent standard.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 18, 2014)

It's less about "merit" (I agree it's no particular masterpiece) than that it is/was a distinctive and unusual building in the context, and one that many people recognise(d) as part of the townscape of the central part of LJ. Consideration of this was absent from the planning officer's report.


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2014)

Heartbreaking.


----------



## Leo Chesterton (Nov 21, 2014)

editor said:


> Heartbreaking.
> 
> View attachment 64006


Perhaps they are deliberately going for the en vogue weeping building look?


----------



## BoxRoom (Nov 28, 2014)

Went by it today, looking even worse now. I don't have a camera worth anything at the moment so couldn't take a pic. 
I suspect The Chuckle Brothers have been contracted to complete the works.
Fucking hell.


----------



## editor (Nov 30, 2014)

Look at the fucking state of it now


----------



## calno4 (Nov 30, 2014)

Maybe used to be this ? 
*South London Press January 26, 1867*


----------



## Bobzillard (Dec 3, 2014)

It looks like that school was north of the western railway lines (near the rail substation?).  
A "Loughborough College" is shown in that location on a map from 1898 -- see: 
http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/l/loughborough_junction/


----------



## thatguyhex (Dec 3, 2014)

calno4 said:


> View attachment 64385
> MIDDLE-CLASS EDUCATION


Bloody gentrifiers


----------



## calno4 (Dec 3, 2014)

Bobzillard said:


> It looks like that school was north of the western railway lines (near the rail substation?).
> A "Loughborough College" is shown in that location on a map from 1898 -- see:
> http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/l/loughborough_junction/
> 
> View attachment 64543


I saw that college on the map after my original post. I found the head master Charles Hole at Loughborough House, Cold Harbour lane in the 1871 census, he was listed as Headmaster and Curate.  I think the previous entry was Chandos Terrace and the other side of him was in the 200 odd range of coldharbour lane...this all from memory, will have to go back to it. I saw Loughborough College on another years census as 117 Coldharbour Lane...which puzzled me looking at its position on that map. Its something I plan to look at again, as wondering whether the ad is for the college but his home was the house....maybe? Think there was a wife listed, about 6 of their children, plus 4 young boarders who were all boys and a couple of servants.


----------



## TBrooks (Dec 17, 2014)

So, after a bit of a hiatus, work appears to be back on site this morning with a delivery of timber beams (presumably for the roof extension).

What an eyesore.


----------



## CH1 (Dec 17, 2014)

TBrooks said:


> So, after a bit of a hiatus, work appears to be back on site this morning with a delivery of timber beams (presumably for the roof extension).
> 
> What an eyesore.


I think I'm getting converted to euthanasia (for buildings whose integrity is terminally compromised)


----------



## leanderman (Dec 17, 2014)

Saw this shambles on Saturday. And it has to be seen up close to be believed.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 17, 2014)

TBrooks said:


> So, after a bit of a hiatus, work appears to be back on site this morning with a delivery of timber beams (presumably for the roof extension).
> 
> What an eyesore.


The roof extension is framed out already i think. The beams might be floor joists as they are altering the floor levels inside to match the adjacent building.


----------



## editor (Dec 17, 2014)

I think I'm going to write another piece on this, because it saddens me each time I see the state of the place.
Yes, I know it will make fuck all different but at least it puts it on public record.


----------



## editor (Dec 17, 2014)

Here it is, for what it's worth:






Loughborough House SW9 – developers destroy a local landmark


----------



## teuchter (Dec 17, 2014)

If it was my article the title would be "Lambeth town planners allow destruction of local landmark".


----------



## CH1 (Dec 17, 2014)

teuchter said:


> If it was my article the title would be "Lambeth town planners allow destruction of local landmark".


They seem dedicated to the bland in all the new developments they approve. Allowing these quaintly original features (the sort of thing that adds a little local character) to be obliterated seems par for the course with 21st century Lambeth council.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 17, 2014)

And yet if you put in a householder application for small scale domestic alterations, the default position is usually to reject any change to the existing building on the grounds that it's an alteration. Rightly in some cases, spuriously in others.

I can't reconcile that with what they've allowed here. It's tempting to think they just reckoned "meh it's Loughborough junction, who cares what happens there".


----------



## lang rabbie (Dec 17, 2014)

CH1 said:


> They seem dedicated to the bland in all the new developments they approve. Allowing these quaintly original features (the sort of thing that adds a little local character) to be obliterated seems par for the course with 21st century Lambeth council.


CH1 - can you recall whether 202 Coldharbour Lane was on the Brixton Society's "long list" of buildings to go onto the Lambeth Local List back in 2010?   I hadn't thought any got turned down?  That would have given a bit of extra protection.

List of buildings of Local Architectural or Historic Interest (Local List)


----------



## teuchter (Dec 17, 2014)

The planning permission was given in 2008 though, so before 2010.


----------



## CH1 (Dec 17, 2014)

lang rabbie said:


> CH1 - can you recall whether 202 Coldharbour Lane was on the Brixton Society's "long list" of buildings to go onto the Lambeth Local List back in 2010?   I hadn't thought any got turned down?  That would have given a bit of extra protection.
> List of buildings of Local Architectural or Historic Interest (Local List)


I can't recall myself but I've emailed Alan & Bill so may be able to give you a definite answer in due course.


----------



## CH1 (Dec 18, 2014)

lang rabbie said:


> CH1 - can you recall whether 202 Coldharbour Lane was on the Brixton Society's "long list" of buildings to go onto the Lambeth Local List back in 2010?   I hadn't thought any got turned down?  That would have given a bit of extra protection.
> 
> List of buildings of Local Architectural or Historic Interest (Local List)


To answer the question definitively, no it was not on the Brixton Society list. The list was submitted in 2010 and including supporting info came to 10 pages.
BTW I see the Duke of Wellington has since come a cropper, and Hambrook House is also on its way out.
*Address: Sandhurst Court, Acre Lane, SW2
Address: Sunlight Laundry, Acre Lane, SW2
Address: Duke of Wellington PH, Acre Lane, SW2
Address: c/o Bellefields Road & Stockwell Avenue, SW9 (mural)
Address: Royal Mail Sorting Office, Blenheim Gardens, SW2
Address: Pillar Box, Brixton Hill, SW2
Address: The Fridge, Brixton Hill, SW2
Address:  Hambrook House, Brixton Hill, SW2
Address: 101-103 Brixton Hill, SW2
Address: former Tram Shed, Brixton Hill, SW2
Address: Child Guidance Clinic, Brixton Water Lane, SW2
Address: Stockwell Deep Shelter, junction of Clapham Road SW9 and South Lambeth Road, SW8
Address: Carlton Mansions, Coldharbour Lane, SW9 
Address: Clifton Mansions, Coldharbour Lane, SW9
Address: 356 & 358 Coldharbour Lane, SW9
Address: The Sun & Doves PH, Coldharbour Lane, SE5
Address: Denmark Place Baptist Church, Coldharbour Lane, SE5
Address: 47-49 Coldharbour Lane, SE5
Address: former Denmark PH, Denmark Road, SE5
Address:  Duke of Edinburgh PH, Ferndale Road, SW4
Address: c/o Glenelg and Strathleven Roads, SW2 (mural)
Address: Slade Gardens Adventure Playground, adjacent to Lorn Road, SW9 (mural)
Address:  Guinness Trust Estate, Loughborough Park, SW9
Address: former Carter Pattison yard, Mandrell Road/ Mauleverer Road, SW2 (mural)
Address: 155 Norwood Road, SE24
Address:  24 Porden Road, SW2
Address:  Porden Road, SW2
Address: Old St.Jude’s School, Railton Road, SE24
Address: 166 Tulse Hill, SW2*


----------



## editor (Jan 2, 2015)

Really taking the piss now:


----------



## leanderman (Jan 2, 2015)

editor said:


> Really taking the piss now:
> 
> View attachment 65850



Cafe's a bit of a horror too


----------



## teuchter (Jan 4, 2015)

I notice an article has appeared on the LJAG website.

http://www.loughboroughjunction.org/loughborough-house-redevelopment

They seem to think the 2008 permission expired in 2011 rather than 2014 (hadn't we established it was a 5 rather than 3 year validity?).

It's over 7 weeks now since the enforcement officer told me he was expecting a valid LD application "within the next 21 days" and that I would be notified when it was recieved. I have heard not a thing from him since.



(The LJAG article is a litte misguided in talking about the "narrow slit windows" by the way. The current state of the front facade is an intermediate stage - they have blocked up the bits of the old windows that are to become walls but haven't knocked out the new window openings yet. The new openings will be at a different level to the old ones.)


----------



## CH1 (Jan 4, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I notice an article has appeared on the LJAG website.
> http://www.loughboroughjunction.org/loughborough-house-redevelopment
> They seem to think the 2008 permission expired in 2011 rather than 2014 (hadn't we established it was a 5 rather than 3 year validity?).
> It's over 7 weeks now since the enforcement officer told me he was expecting a valid LD application "within the next 21 days" and that I would be notified when it was recieved. I have heard not a thing from him since.
> ...


Thank you for highlighting this. I thought the article rather imaginative - shame my engineering and office admin background has stultified the brain and eliminated such flights of fancy.

Haven't been back over the thread - but according to the Planning Portal http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/decisionmaking/permissiongranted permission granted before 2010 had to be implemented within 3 years - but a 2 year extension could be applied for.

There seems no evidence that an extension has been applied for.

It seems that LJAG have been trying (via Ward Councillors) to get the affair raised as a complaint.

Not sure where that is going - I am not close to the Herne Hill ward councillors.

In my opinion the councillors have a civic duty to make known what has been going on about this issue within planning and enforcement (if anything at all).

The impression I have of enforcement in Lambeth is they come out and visit the site, maybe talk to the owners and try to resolve it verbally and amicably. If not the officers don their tin hats and hide under the desk until it goes away.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 5, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Haven't been back over the thread - but according to the Planning Portal http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/decisionmaking/permissiongranted permission granted before 2010 had to be implemented within 3 years - but a 2 year extension could be applied for.



Having checked back through thread...


teuchter said:


> Having double checked though, it doesn't seem they have current planning permission. It was granted in 2008 with a three year limit.



Not sure why I'd got it into my head that it had a five year validity. I can't find any evidence of an extension application either.


----------



## paolo (Jan 5, 2015)

CH1 said:


> The impression I have of enforcement in Lambeth is they come out and visit the site, maybe talk to the owners and try to resolve it verbally and amicably. If not the officers don their tin hats and hide under the desk until it goes away.



From a few previous issues I've observed in London, it may not be a Lambeth specific thing. Or even a London thing.

One memorable one took about four years of networked, educated and well off residents to get Southwark to move into enforcement on a development that had gone beyond it's remit.

A few years back, I did a couple of evening classes at a planning law charity. They were ex planning officers, wanting to explain how the system works. The outlook was grim, at least as far as enforcement went. They said the odds were stacked against the planners. The developers could appeal over and over, through every tier, and chances are - for legal costs reasons - the council would end up having to fold. 

Planning enforcement appears to be a poker game. It's not necessarily about your hand, it's about bluff and money.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 5, 2015)

paolo said:


> They were ex planning officers, wanting to explain how the system works.



Did they explain how the "don't bother to reply to emails" part of the system works?


----------



## paolo (Jan 5, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Did they explain how the "don't bother to reply to emails" part of the system works?



*chortle*

No. The charity was trying to educate ordinary people in the general mechanics of the planning process. In two evenings, we skipped statistics on email response rates of various relevant parties


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jan 5, 2015)

Lambeth enforcement was on the ball back in 2009 on the corner of Clapham Road and Crewdson Road.

Absolutely NO planning permission applied for. But a greedy landlord added an extra floor.

Before:







And after when Planning got involved


----------



## SpamMisery (Jan 5, 2015)

Is there an "after" shot or is that a recent image?


----------



## prunus (Jan 5, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Is there an "after" shot or is that a recent image?



'During' I think - here's an 'after':

https://goo.gl/maps/GSUYc


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2015)

prunus said:


> 'During' I think - here's an 'after':
> 
> https://goo.gl/maps/GSUYc


I hate those cheapo windows.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jan 5, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Is there an "after" shot or is that a recent image?



Didn't take a full after pic with the scaffolding taken down.


----------



## SpamMisery (Jan 5, 2015)

Oh right, I totally misunderstood. I thought they were adding a floor on top of the "before" photo.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jan 9, 2015)

Council press release put out today:

"Council Planning Enforcement officers tackled a wide range of problems from ‘beds in sheds’, unauthorised house conversions and extensions, houses being used for multiple occupancy and unauthorised shop fronts to the wrong type of windows and intrusive advertising hoardings.

In one case, the defendants were not only fined £26,000 and ordered to pay the council’s £7,000 costs, but under the Proceeds of Crime Act, were also ordered to pay back the money they had made breaching the terms of the notice (over £143,000) of which 37.5% comes back to the council to be used for future planning enforcement activity.

Building Control officers tackled a wide range of problems associated with unauthorised house conversions, extensions and structural alterations as well as houses being used for multiple occupancy. They also dealt with the installation of windows, boilers and undertaking electrical works without consent, some of which are being pursued through enforcement action."


----------



## editor (Jan 11, 2015)

Here's how it was looking yesterday:


----------



## ChrisSouth (Jan 12, 2015)

editor said:


> Here's how it was looking yesterday:
> 
> View attachment 66230


No change from your Jan 2 picture apart from more litter and the rather sweet Charlie artwork.


----------



## Rushy (Jan 14, 2015)

Relevant blog post on enforcement costs (is it ok to cut and past a whole article like this?)



> *Martin Goodall's Planning Law Blog *
> *Financial incentives to be offered for injunctions*
> 
> Posted: 13 Jan 2015 08:23 AM PST
> ...


----------



## Ann-marie Upton (Jan 29, 2015)

teuchter said:


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


I have spoke to planning and dangerous buildings dept and they are going to go and have a look. I have sent them some photos aswell


----------



## Ann-marie Upton (Jan 29, 2015)

Ann-marie Upton said:


> I have spoke to planning and dangerous buildings dept and they are going to go and have a look. I have sent them some photos aswell


I cant bear to see a historical building being violated in such an awful manner!  I am sickened!!


----------



## teuchter (Jan 29, 2015)

Ann-marie Upton said:


> I have spoke to planning and dangerous buildings dept and they are going to go and have a look. I have sent them some photos aswell



They know full well what's going on as I reported it to them about 3 months ago and a formal enforcement case was opened. No evidence they are doing anything about it though. They don't even reply to my emails.


----------



## Beasley (Jan 29, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I notice an article has appeared on the LJAG website.
> 
> http://www.loughboroughjunction.org/loughborough-house-redevelopment



It seems a bit hypocritical of LJAG to fret about this “refurbishment" when barely a year ago they wanted Loughborough House and the neighbouring buildings knocked down to make “the new public space at the heart of Loughborough Junction”. [See page 52 et seq in the Loughborough Junction Plan - September 2013].
http://lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Loughborough_Junction_Framework_Plan8.pdf.

Perhaps LJAG would have been wiser to calmly pursue that idea instead of upsetting so many people with an alternative (and hastily contrived) plan to close Loughborough Road.
See http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...mprovements-consultation-begins.327812/page-5

Can anybody explain what went on behind the scenes to bring about the change of tack?


----------



## CH1 (Jan 29, 2015)

Beasley said:


> I seems a bit hypocritical of LJAG to fret about this “refurbishment" when barely a year ago they wanted Loughborough House and the neighbouring buildings knocked down to make “the new public space at the heart of Loughborough Junction”. [See page 52 et seq in the Loughborough Junction Plan - September 2013].
> http://lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Loughborough_Junction_Framework_Plan8.pdf.
> 
> Perhaps LJAG would have been wiser to calmly pursue that idea instead of upsetting so many people with an alternative (and hastily contrived) plan to close Loughborough Road.
> ...


This about Loughborough House:
My opinion here is as follows.
I think there are 2 strands of LJAG thinking.

1. the attempt to use strategic planning to improve the environment - they say they want public spaces/squares (called "Yards" page 35 - proposed top look like page 53 in the document) and they also want more "permeability". This implies major clearance of existing  buildings, including residential/shops and industrial.

2. LJAG are clear that buildings with features should be retained and protected.

As you so rightly point out there is a clash here, and I would suggest the Loughborough House case is the most obvious case of clash (so far).

Ironically IMHO the activities of the owner of Loughborough House are rapidly making the case for clearance!


----------



## teuchter (Jan 29, 2015)

I don't think increasing permeability neccesarily has to mean major clearance of existing buildings.


----------



## Ann-marie Upton (Jan 29, 2015)

teuchter said:


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


I have


----------



## ChrisSouth (Jan 30, 2015)

Beasley said:


> I seems a bit hypocritical of LJAG to fret about this “refurbishment" when barely a year ago they wanted Loughborough House and the neighbouring buildings knocked down to make “the new public space at the heart of Loughborough Junction”. [See page 52 et seq in the Loughborough Junction Plan - September 2013].
> http://lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Loughborough_Junction_Framework_Plan8.pdf.
> 
> Perhaps LJAG would have been wiser to calmly pursue that idea instead of upsetting so many people with an alternative (and hastily contrived) plan to close Loughborough Road.
> ...



I'm not sure why this is hypocritical.


----------



## CH1 (Jan 31, 2015)

Beasley said:


> It seems a bit hypocritical of LJAG to fret about this “refurbishment" when barely a year ago they wanted Loughborough House and the neighbouring buildings knocked down to make “the new public space at the heart of Loughborough Junction”. [See page 52 et seq in the Loughborough Junction Plan - September 2013].
> http://lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Loughborough_Junction_Framework_Plan8.pdf.
> 
> Perhaps LJAG would have been wiser to calmly pursue that idea instead of upsetting so many people with an alternative (and hastily contrived) plan to close Loughborough Road.
> ...


It did at least occur to me that if the owners of the properties in the space in front of the station had been consulted and involved in drafting of the Framework plan that it might have ended up with upgrading those buildings.

As it is, it seems the owners were either not consulted or they did not want to be involved. Anyway the architects have fallen back on the traditional approach beloved of urban planners in the 1970s and before - if it doesn't fit in - CPO it and demolish!

As you say this is hardly conducive to co-operation. The owners of property in front of the railway station will see LJAG and Lambeth council as the enemy if they have seen any of this framework documentation.

If there is going to be a further "Masterplan" because of the Higgs controversy interested parties should raise the station yard. Its all very well proposing a Parisian public square, but what happens if your sidewalk cafes have been demolished? It could end up being a square that needs 24 hour CCTV monitoring because of the local propesnity to drink Special Brew, urinate etc.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Jan 31, 2015)

CH1 said:


> It did at least occur to me that if the owners of the properties in the space in front of the station had been consulted and involved in drafting of the Framework plan that it might have ended up with upgrading those buildings.
> 
> As it is, it seems the owners were either not consulted or they did not want to be involved. Anyway the architects have fallen back on the traditional approach beloved of urban planners in the 1970s and before - if it doesn't fit in - CPO it and demolish!
> 
> ...




I thought you supported this public space?


----------



## CH1 (Jan 31, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> I thought you supported this public space?


The LJAG AGM before last I queried this part of the plan - asking how they proposed to get rid of existing buildings. The response I met with was to not answer the question.

Why are you saying I supported it? I think there might be something on the thread to do with Loughborough Hall - in particular the fact that the Framework document does not even identify correctly the ownership and current used of a building it proposes to demolish.


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2015)

Look at the state of the place. Makes me well angry.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Feb 2, 2015)

editor said:


> Look at the state of the place. Makes me well angry.
> 
> View attachment 67170



I've not seen any work happening on this since the New Year. I agree with the editor, it makes me well angry. But also disappointed that this was allowed to happen.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 2, 2015)

What's it being redeveloped as? Some kind of derelict building/haunted house?


----------



## teuchter (Feb 5, 2015)

Scaffolding going up today. Time to say bye-bye to the "Loughborough House" lettering, I suspect.


----------



## editor (Feb 5, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Scaffolding going up today. Time to say bye-bye to the "Loughborough House" lettering, I suspect.


Really fucked off about that.


----------



## editor (Feb 5, 2015)

*Criminal*


----------



## SpamMisery (Feb 5, 2015)

I'm keen to see how it looks when it's finished.

[edit] do we know the expected end date? I assume some time this summer


----------



## leanderman (Feb 6, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> I'm keen to see how it looks when it's finished.
> 
> [edit] do we know the expected end date? I assume some time this summer



I think they might surprise us

But the bar is set very low


----------



## SpamMisery (Feb 6, 2015)

I can't help thinking that after months of lambasting it on here, it could end up looking absolutely inoffensive. Think I'll reserve judgement until it's finished.


----------



## editor (Feb 6, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> I can't help thinking that after months of lambasting it on here, it could end up looking absolutely inoffensive. Think I'll reserve judgement until it's finished.


Boy are you missing the point.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 6, 2015)

SpamMisery


----------



## SpamMisery (Feb 6, 2015)

Just trying to remain positive


----------



## ChrisSouth (Feb 6, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Just trying to remain positive



Remember, that on here, inoffensiveness and positivity are the _worst _possible combination.


----------



## editor (Feb 6, 2015)

Rushy said:


> SpamMisery


You don't think he's missed the point here? It is one of the few architectural landmarks in central Loughbourgh Junction with any character and turning it into something bland and 'inoffensive' is the very thing some of us have been fighting against from the start.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 6, 2015)

editor said:


> You don't think he's missed the point here? It is one of the few architectural landmarks in central Loughbourgh Junction with any character and turning it into something bland and 'inoffensive' is the very thing some of us have been fighting against from the start.


I think there are a number of important points which arise from this matter, not just one. All he said was it might not end up being as offensive as he was anticipating. It's a perfectly valid opinion and not necessarily at odds with the point which you have designated _The _point.


----------



## editor (Feb 6, 2015)

Rushy said:


> I think there are a number of important points which arise from this matter, not just one. All he said was it might not end up being as offensive as he was anticipating. It's a perfectly valid opinion and not necessarily at odds with the point which you have designated _The _point.


I don't think anyone said the new building would be 'offensive' architecturally- just hideously bland and devoid of any notable historic features, which are now being all stripped out. That is what the discussion has been about - what we're losing and what it's being replaced by. 

Not sure why you're choosing to argue for him though. I'm sure he can speak his own mind.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 6, 2015)

Why are you so determined to close down and invalidate the expression of honestly held views? Surely that's missing the point of a public forum?


----------



## editor (Feb 6, 2015)

Rushy said:


> Why are you so determined to close down and invalidate the expression of honestly held views? Surely that's missing the point of a public forum?


I thought he'd missed the point with his one-line comment. And then you charged in. Why? Why don't you let him argue for himself? Why do you have to pipe up every time? I'm sure he can argue his own viewpoint very capably and I'm happy to have the discussion. With him. Not you.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 6, 2015)

editor said:


> I thought he'd missed the point with his one-line comment. And then you charged in. Why? Why don't you let him argue for himself? Why do you have to pipe up every time? I'm sure he can argue his own viewpoint very capably and I'm happy to have the discussion. With him. Not you.


So now it's also wrong to support another poster's POV or comment on the ongoing discussion. Good work.


----------



## editor (Feb 6, 2015)

Rushy said:


> So now it's also wrong to support another poster's POV or comment on the ongoing discussion. Good work.


It is when it happens on just every about single thread and has long become a personal vendetta. Please stop now. And yes, I am asking nicely.


----------



## SpamMisery (Feb 6, 2015)

<ed: off topic material removed>


----------



## SpamMisery (Feb 6, 2015)

At the risk of instigating another proxy war, might I suggest that referring to it as an 'architectural landmark' is a bit strong?


----------



## CH1 (Feb 6, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> At the risk of instigating another proxy war, might I suggest that referring to it as an 'architectural landmark' is a bit strong?


More a cheaply constructed building of unusual design embellished with some distinctive ornamentation.

It did/does hit people "in their face" if they are driving down Herne Hill Road.

What I would like to know though is why there is this "bating" atmosphere on here? It's a bit like Tom Brown's Schooldays. Are you playing Flashman - or is that Rushy?


----------



## Rushy (Feb 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


> More a cheaply constructed building of unusual design embellished with some distinctive ornamentation.
> 
> It did/does hit people "in their face" if they are driving down Herne Hill Road.
> 
> What I would like to know though is why there is this "bating" atmosphere on here? It's a bit like Tom Brown's Schooldays. Are you playing Flashman - or is that Rushy?


One again you have tagged me and it does not show up as an alert. Weird. Maybe it detected that you are stirring?


----------



## editor (Feb 6, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> At the risk of instigating another proxy war, might I suggest that referring to it as an 'architectural landmark' is a bit strong?


I found it architecturally interesting and I'd say it was something of a landmark in the immediate area. I was always fond of its design and always took photos over the years whenever I passed (this one is from 2007). 

It looks shit now and it's going to end up as a totally forgettable building with no features of note.


----------



## boohoo (Feb 6, 2015)

I see what SpamMisery is saying that the end result might not be ugly. But the point is that it will conceal a rather nice Victorian building - in fact it is destroying many of it's original features. 

It's easy to be complacent - it is after all only one building. I'm sure the Victorians and the developers of the 1930s and 1960s thought there was a lot of pre-Victorian timber framed buildings in London so removing some would still leave many left.  However in the whole of greater London there is approximately only 400 left.

Development across London is happening at a fast rate. We need to be careful that we aren't too laid back as things that are of local historical interest are destroyed.

I go past this building on the train and the side view is appalling. I build better lego towers.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 6, 2015)

boohoo said:


> I see what SpamMisery is saying that the end result might not be ugly. But the point is that it will conceal a rather nice Victorian building - in fact it is destroying many of it's original features.
> 
> It's easy to be complacent - it is after all only one building. I'm sure the Victorians and the developers of the 1930s and 1960s thought there was a lot of pre-Victorian timber framed buildings in London so removing some would still leave many left.  However in the whole of greater London there is approximately only 400 left.
> 
> ...


My understanding, and I'm no longer sure where it comes from, is that the Victorians had quite a different attitude to old buildings than that which we do today. They were not all that interested in how many examples were left to preserves. It was much more "out with the old, in with the new". It was all about "progress". That's what led to the SPAB being set up by William Morris et al.


----------



## boohoo (Feb 6, 2015)

Rushy said:


> My understanding, and I'm no longer sure where it comes from, is that the Victorians had quite a different attitude to old buildings than that which we do today. They were not all that interested in how many examples were left to preserves. It was much more "out with the old, in with the new". It was all about "progress". That's what led to the SPAB being set up by William Morris et al.



yes -seemed to be a similar attitude in the 1960s and 70s. A large percentage of the big old houses around Norwood got taken down in the 1960s. Each generation decides something or another is old hat.

An organisation that appeared in the mid 1970s was the SAVE Britains' Heritage - John  Harris, one of the founders, wrote a book called No Voices from the Hall: Early Memories of a Country Hall Snooper  in which he visits lots of empty manor houses after WW2. He mentions that in one year in the 1960s, one old country house was being destroyed every two weeks ( and many of them designed by top English architects.)


----------



## Rushy (Feb 6, 2015)

boohoo said:


> yes -seemed to be a similar attitude in the 1960s and 70s. A large percentage of the big old houses around Norwood got taken down in the 1960s. Each generation decides something or another is old hat.
> 
> An organisation that appeared in the mid 1970s was the SAVE Britains' Heritage - John  Harris, one of the founders, wrote a book called No Voices from the Hall: Early Memories of a Country Hall Snooper  in which he visits lots of empty manor houses after WW2. He mentions that in one year in the 1960s, one old country house was being destroyed every two weeks ( and many of them designed by top English architects.)


Was that not largely a result of inheritance tax rather than fashion?


----------



## leanderman (Feb 6, 2015)

boohoo said:


> I see what SpamMisery is saying that the end result might not be ugly. But the point is that it will conceal a rather nice Victorian building - in fact it is destroying many of it's original features.
> 
> It's easy to be complacent - it is after all only one building. I'm sure the Victorians and the developers of the 1930s and 1960s thought there was a lot of pre-Victorian timber framed buildings in London so removing some would still leave many left.  However in the whole of greater London there is approximately only 400 left.
> 
> ...



All true. It's rubbish. 

But, it's happening, has happened.

Being laid back, or not, or complacent, makes no difference. 

It's down to the planners. And there may be no grounds, or hope, for complaint. Or a desire to enforce, possibly on cost grounds


----------



## CH1 (Feb 6, 2015)

editor said:


> I found it architecturally interesting and I'd say it was something of a landmark in the immediate area. I was always fond of its design and always took photos over the years whenever I passed (this one is from 2007).
> 
> It looks shit now and it's going to end up as a totally forgettable building with no features of note.


There seems to be an sag in the middle. Subsidence/settlement/damp?

Part of Coldharbour Lane was reed beds. There was a notorious murder case involving the reed beds in 1836/7 - detail here 

Not sure where exactly - though this sort of area makes sense (the bit of Coldharbour Lane running from Loughborough Junction to Brixton was called Camberwell Lane in those days).


----------



## CH1 (Feb 6, 2015)

Rushy said:


> One again you have tagged me and it does not show up as an alert. Weird. Maybe it detected that you are stirring?


----------



## boohoo (Feb 7, 2015)

Rushy said:


> Was that not largely a result of inheritance tax rather than fashion?



I'm not sure of the ins and outs. Here's a wikipedia overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_country_houses_in_20th-century_Britain


----------



## teuchter (Feb 16, 2015)




----------



## teuchter (Feb 16, 2015)

Many congratulations to Lambeth Council planning enforcement team.


----------



## SpamMisery (Feb 16, 2015)

Are the planning on putting a new set of words up?


----------



## leanderman (Feb 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Many congratulations to Lambeth Council planning enforcement team.



are the builders allowed to do that?


----------



## teuchter (Feb 16, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Are the planning on putting a new set of words up?


Not as far as I know.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 16, 2015)

leanderman said:


> are the builders allowed to do that?


The new windows were granted permission IIRC. So, subject to the permission having been implemented in time, etc.. yes.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 16, 2015)

leanderman said:


> are the builders allowed to do that?


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

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

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

That was one of many emails they didn't respond to at all so I assume that means they decided to do nothing about it.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 16, 2015)

As a side point you'll see in that photo an interesting work method. If you remove a portion of brickwork you need to temporarily prop the area above the hole, before you put in the lintel, for obvious reasons. Usually this is done with some kind of steel prop designed for the purpose. Here, however, it seems that the brickwork is being supported by a plank of wood nailed into the face of it.


----------



## editor (Feb 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 67793


I don't know why but that really breaks my heart. It's just vandalism.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 16, 2015)

Makes me sad too. Was expecting it to happen though.


----------



## editor (Feb 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Makes me sad too. Was expecting it to happen though.


Mind if I use your pic for one last pointless rant about the fate of this building? Or would you like to write something? I know it's pissing in the wind but at least we're putting this on record.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 16, 2015)

I'll leave the writing to you but yup feel free to use my picture.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> As a side point you'll see in that photo an interesting work method. If you remove a portion of brickwork you need to temporarily prop the area above the hole, before you put in the lintel, for obvious reasons. Usually this is done with some kind of steel prop designed for the purpose.



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



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



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

E2A: It looks, from your picture like the lower end of the board is sitting on the same scaffold board that the "builder" is standing on. It's probably not even fixed, just free-standing at the bottom, and with a couple of nails at the top. Scarily-stupid!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2015)

Just how busy is the rail-line, by the way?


----------



## Crispy (Feb 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> As a side point you'll see in that photo an interesting work method. If you remove a portion of brickwork you need to temporarily prop the area above the hole, before you put in the lintel, for obvious reasons. Usually this is done with some kind of steel prop designed for the purpose. Here, however, it seems that the brickwork is being supported by a plank of wood nailed into the face of it.


Not sure if that's the case. I think there's an existing steel beam running along the top of that opening.


ViolentPanda said:


> Just how busy is the rail-line, by the way?


The railway line immediately behind the building has a train about once every 10 minutes


----------



## teuchter (Feb 16, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Not sure if that's the case. I think there's an existing steel beam running along the top of that opening.


I think there might be a timber under the inner layer of the brickwork but not the outer. And I would guess that it was there as part of the support for the floor joists rather than having been intended to span an opening. Seems unlikely it's a steel given the sag that is very visible if you look at the before pictures. Hard to say for sure though.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 16, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Just how busy is the rail-line, by the way?


As Crispy says quite frequent but passenger (ie relatively lightweight) only, and generally no trains between about midnight and 6am.


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2015)

Here's what it looks like now.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 19, 2015)

editor said:


> Here's what it looks like now.
> View attachment 70458


LJAG are saying the owner has been advised by Lambeth Planning to put in a new planning application, due to the work being unrelated to the previous approval.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 29, 2015)

Hey Lambeth - here's how to do enforcement properly:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...r-site-torn-down-without-notice-10211892.html


----------



## brixtonblade (May 22, 2015)

I dont really understand the ins and outs of planning but I think that this is an application for that site:
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...iveTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=NNXPLBBO02E00


----------



## CH1 (May 22, 2015)

brixtonblade said:


> I dont really understand the ins and outs of planning but I think that this is an application for that site:
> http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...iveTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=NNXPLBBO02E00


Well spotted.

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

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


----------



## Crispy (May 23, 2015)

The drawings are very amateurish. The whole project is a joke.


----------



## brixtonblade (May 23, 2015)

Crispy said:


> The drawings are very amateurish. The whole project is a joke.


It looked like the application was submitted for  the wrong address!


----------



## teuchter (May 23, 2015)

Well spotted brixtonblade 

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## brixtonblade (May 23, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Well spotted brixtonblade
> 
> I was about to congratulate Lambeth for having finally made them resubmit their application.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't sure what the implications of it being an amendment were and wasn't sure why the street view wasn't included in the plan.


----------



## editor (Sep 15, 2015)

The new, all-bland and character'n'history stripped Loughborough House will soon be unveiled.



The before:


----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2015)

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

Whether this is due to "discussions" with Lambeth or something else I don't know.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Sep 15, 2015)

editor said:


> The new, all-bland and character'n'history stripped Loughborough House will soon be unveiled.
> 
> View attachment 76703
> 
> The before:


It's not that all new. It's been like this for ages.


----------



## editor (Sep 15, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> It's not that all new. It's been like this for ages.


It's new compared to the age of the property. It was still recognisable six months ago.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Sep 15, 2015)

editor said:


> It's new compared to the age of the property. It was still recognisable six months ago.



It's still recognisable now if Tawakal Internet Cafe happens to be your marker


----------



## editor (Sep 16, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> It's still recognisable now if Tawakal Internet Cafe happens to be your marker


Loughborough House looks completely different. It has been stripped of all its architectural character. I'm not interested in the shop next door.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2015)

Work seems to be happening again now.

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

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

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

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


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

Lambeth is fairly much letting them build what they want. Why bother spending money on planning fees eh? You don't really need planning permission after all.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2015)

.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 14, 2016)

In the post above I complained that the decorative string courses and brick arches over the new windows that were promised in the planning application were not apparent. However against expectations I note they have now appeared, I assume faked up and glued onto the new render (which was supposed to be painted brickwork).


----------



## CH1 (Jan 14, 2016)

teuchter said:


> In the post above I complained that the decorative string courses and brick arches over the new windows that were promised in the planning application were not apparent. However against expectations I note they have now appeared, I assume faked up and glued onto the new render (which was supposed to be painted brickwork).


I must come down and have a look.
Sounds like the architectural equivalent of Lilly Savage.


----------



## editor (Jul 13, 2016)

The job that never ends....


----------



## CH1 (Jul 13, 2016)

editor said:


> The job that never ends....
> View attachment 89544


One wonders if there will be the demand for bedsits with no view post Brexit?


----------



## Harbourite (Jul 13, 2016)

editor said:


> The job that never ends....
> 
> View attachment 89544


LJ's answer to the Sagrada Familia


----------



## goldengraham (Jul 14, 2016)

The scaffolding costs must have exceeded the actual value of the building by now


----------



## happyshopper (Jul 14, 2016)

goldengraham said:


> The scaffolding costs must have exceeded the actual value of the building by now


That's not how scaffolding works. The main cost that is incurred is putting it up and taking it down. It can sometimes be difficult to persuade a scaffolding company to take it away; presumably because it's not needed immediately for another job.


----------



## editor (Jul 25, 2016)

The covers aren't off and it's already been tagged!


----------



## ChrisSouth (Jul 26, 2016)

editor said:


> The covers aren't off and it's already been tagged!View attachment 89923



I know, I think it's great to see how South London out-speeds developers.


----------



## bimble (Aug 15, 2016)

Don't know what you're all complaining about, it only took two years to produce this uplifting work of architectural wonderment for us all to enjoy.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 15, 2016)

Such authentic. Much arch. Wow.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 15, 2016)

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

[EDIT] Oh, Harbourite has already beaten me to it in the other thread


----------



## bimble (Aug 15, 2016)

Maybe the smashing up of the old Loughborough House signage was part of lambeth's much publicised plan to give the area a strong 'sense of identity'. By replacing it with pvc windows.


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> Don't know what you're all complaining about, it only took two years to produce this uplifting work of architectural wonderment for us all to enjoy.
> 
> View attachment 90930
> 
> View attachment 90932


By fuck that is one dull, bland, soulless slab of meh.


----------



## editor (Nov 13, 2016)

Update here The death of a local landmark: Loughborough House shows off its bland, redeveloped facade


----------



## CH1 (Nov 13, 2016)

editor said:


> Update here The death of a local landmark: Loughborough House shows off its bland, redeveloped facade


One wonders if ultimately - in several years time no doubt - they will get an Enforcement Notice like this little 7 page beauty served on the London Hotel 413 Colharbour Lane. Note the British Virgin Islands address of the London Hotel company secretary.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2016)

Lambeth are actually enforcing planning restrictions on someone who isn't a small scale householder?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 13, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Lambeth are actually enforcing planning restrictions on someone who isn't a small scale householder?


Oddly enough if you look at the original planning proposal back in 2008 the officer who gave pre application advice was Doug Black (now Interim Head of Planning).

Maybe he feels he has been misled? It's about time some of those officers take their responsibilities seriously I reckon - and this appears to be an unexpected but welcome move in that direction.


----------



## editor (Mar 30, 2017)

Ain't she a beauty?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 31, 2017)

Been looking at the new housing around the cross roads. It's sadly no better.


----------



## editor (Apr 1, 2017)

Most new housing these days looks like office blocks from Blandsville. So many have these daft, full height windows which tenants swiftly block up.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 3, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Been looking at the new housing around the cross roads. It's sadly no better.


Why do you say that?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 3, 2017)

teuchter said:


> Why do you say that?



It's bland bog standard architecture. Adds nothing to the area.


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2017)

What a surprise. An application has been made to turn the one retail unit into a flat. The illustration is right up to the standard we expect from these developers. 

 


17/01411/P3M     |              Application for Prior approval for the change of use of the ground floor from Retail (Use class A1) to 1 flat (Use class C3), together with the installation of an additional window to the east elevation.                  |                                                                      202A Coldharbour Lane London SW9 8SA


----------



## teuchter (Apr 6, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> It's bland bog standard architecture. Adds nothing to the area.


"Bog standard" is subjective but the wraps are mostly off the one on the S side and it doesn't look too bad. I can only comment on the external appearance but to me it looks like considerably more thought and care has gone into the construction detailing than the horrible botch job that is Loughborough House. I don't agree that it's as bad as LH.


----------

