Higgs Development, Loughborough Junction (2019 design)

Discussion in 'Brixton' started by teuchter, Feb 3, 2019.

  1. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    Thanks. Problem I have mainly on weekends is that I can't log in with my planning account to make a comment..Really infuriating. I've emailed planning about this before and received no reply.
     
  2. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    Good summary; I was there too.

    One thing that was also raised was the idea of CPO-ing the Sureways site, as suggested on here by CH1 previously. That to me would completely make sense and prevent what is quite a big missed opportunity to develop that site in a way that has side benefits for the centre of LJ. I'd previously thought it completely unlikely that Lambeth would ever put their neck out to do anything like that and therefore assumed it was a non-starter but a few people at the meeting seemed to think it might be worth putting as a suggestion amongst objection comments. Maybe if enough people mentioned it there'd be a chance of it being considered. Seems unlikely to me but no harm trying I guess.

    A bit later I might try and write out an explanation of the technical objection to the density calculation, as that's something that I think is a strong point, relating to a contravention of policy. Unfortunately the previous committee (on previous application) seemed fairly happy to ignore this, setting an unhelpful precedent with the previous approval.

    Also some good points against the transport assessment were raised at the meeting. Might try and add those in later too.
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  3. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    Here is the technical bit about density.

    The London Plan (produced by Mayor's office) gives allowable densities for housing developments based on the site's PTAL (public transport accessibility level). The relevant table is below:

    Screen Shot 2019-03-03 at 21.59.34.jpg

    The rating for the site is a mix of PTAL 3 and 4 (the south part of the site falls into a different category to the north part). Here is the map that shows this. I would say it's actually mostly in the 3 zone.

    Screen Shot 2019-03-03 at 22.02.17.jpg

    So looking at the London Plan table it should be somewhere between the PTAL 2-3 figures and the PTAL 4-6 figures.

    Then you need to decide whether the site is 'urban' or 'central'. The planning application claims it is 'central'. To me it really does not fit the definition given for 'central':

    Even if it is 'central' then it should be somewhere around the overlap between the PTAL 2-3 figures and the PTAL 4-6 figures: around 650 hr/ha.

    However the proposal is for a development with a density of 1036 hr/ha. (See the extract from their D&A document below)

    If it is classified as 'urban' (which seems by far the more appropriate for LJ) then the density should be somewhere around 450 hr/ha (the top end of the PTAL 2-3 range, or around the middle of the PTAL 4-6 range).

    On that basis the development (at 1036 hr/ha) is well over twice the density specified in the London Plan.

    (below: extract from the planning application. 'Consented scheme' refers to the scheme that was given permission in 2015)

    Screen Shot 2019-03-03 at 22.13.09.jpg
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2019
    Gramsci and Crispy like this.
  4. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    On the transport issues - in the meeting the reasonable point was made that their transport assessment almost certainly underestimates the number of prospective residents who will use the Thameslink trains from LJ station to commute into town, rather than other modes such as buses or Brixton tube. This is because the development will be right next to the train station and inevitably will be marketed to, and appeal to, people who are attracted by this proximity. In other words, people are likely to choose to live in the development exactly because of its location right next to the station (which to anyone not familiar to the reality of the morning rush hour there, will appear the ideal location for easy and fast commute directly into the city).

    The transport assessment doesn't take this into account, so the number of people it will add to the demand on morning rush hour trains is very likely to be more than the single-digit numbers they predict.
     
    Gramsci and Crispy like this.
  5. Crispy

    Crispy The following psytrance is baṉned: All

    THAT is how you object to a planning application
     
    teuchter likes this.
  6. Cold Harbour

    Cold Harbour Well-Known Member

    It's worth pointing out that this is bollocks and Lambeth don't enforce it - I live in a newish block with no parking and Lambeth have been issuing neighbours with residents' permits for the surrounding streets. It just pushes cars onto streets that are already overcrowded and there is no spare space anywhere near this developmnent.
     
    editor likes this.
  7. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    Really? Is that for a zero-parking development - that is, one with planning conditions on it that state this should be the case? Because that's something that a fuss should be made about.
     
  8. snowy_again

    snowy_again Slush

    You have to provide evidence of your tenancy / home address when you request a permanent parking permit, so it can't be hard to cross reference that to the list of zero parking developments can it - but then this is LB Lambeth we're talking about.
     
    editor likes this.
  9. Cold Harbour

    Cold Harbour Well-Known Member

    Not sure of the planning details tbh but the general view is that Lambeth will issue permits if you have a Council Tax bill as proof of address. I guess they don't check against their stated policy of car-free housing developments.
     
    editor likes this.
  10. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    I would be very interested to hear about any specific examples of residents in zero-parking developments being given parking permits and if anyone could give me evidence of it having happened I'd be willing to pursue it with Lambeth because it shouldn't be happening.
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  11. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    This is really interesting but won't Peabody say that the application they are putting in is not much different density to the previous one that was agreed?
     
  12. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    Out of interest do you agree in principle with car free developments?
     
  13. Cold Harbour

    Cold Harbour Well-Known Member

    Yes, I cycle.
     
    editor likes this.
  14. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    Yes, and I'm not fully clear about what the legal implications are from that. I think that even if the 2015 planning committee was, basically, wrong in its interpretation of policy, Peabody will argue that their decision to purchase the site, and so on, was based on this. It seems that it would at least provide them with solid grounds to appeal against a decision that was different from the previous one. Obviously it would be a bit awkward for the planning committee themselves to effectively acknowledge that last time they didn't do their job properly. Maybe that depends a bit on how many of the current committee were also on the 2015 one.


    E2A...having just gone back to check what was argued in the previous application, basically it was that the Mayor's office guidance is just guidance, and that there's no obligation to stick to the densities in the relevant table - it all depends on circumstance (but that cuts both ways - the planning committee should be free to decide that there aren't justifying circumstances). Their planning statement is here

    https://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onl...icy_Analysis__Planning_statement_-1508606.pdf

    One thing (I think) that has changed since then is that the London Plan has been revised. I don't know if there are any changes that would mean things should be assessed differently now. Don't have time at the moment to look into that.

    The first application, last time round, was refused on the basis of overdevelopment/density. The second attempt, they passed, even though they'd only reduced the density by a token amount.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2019
    Gramsci likes this.
  15. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    I managed to put a few comments on the planning website.

    There are now a lot of comments. Good ones.
     
    editor likes this.
  16. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

  17. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    And this by Peabody tenant:

    What you can do to stop HAs selling off properties meant for tenants - Peabody Family Voice
     
  18. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    The Peabody plans for Higgs site are like a property developer. Doing what they can get away with in planning.
     
  19. editor

    editor Forked with electrons

    Anyone fancy putting together an article for Buzz about this development so more people can be informed and register their objections (or approval)?
     
  20. CH1

    CH1 "Red Guard"(NLYL)

    Seems to me that Peabody have caught the MUSE disease (ie get a Town Hall extension in exchange for luxury flats).
    Mark you Guinness Trust started it in our area with "Electric Quarter".
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice