LJ MASTERPLAN RESPONSE

From: Loughborough Junction Action Group 25 Loughborough Park

London SW9 8TP

www.loughboroughjunction.org [email protected]

Councillor Lib Peck
Leader
London Borough of Lambeth Olive Morris House
18 Brixton Hill
London SW2 1RD

10 October2016
Dear Councillor Lib Peck

LJAG response to the consultation on the Loughborough Junction Masterplan

The Loughborough Junction Action Group (LJAG) is writing in response to the final consultation on the Loughborough Junction Masterplan

LJAG values its relationship with Lambeth council as one of its funded forums and has enjoyed working co-operatively with the council on the DSDHA Loughborough Junction Plan, public realm improvements, the road closures programme and other community and place-making programmes and events.

We believed we shared with the council a common vision for Loughborough Junction as a vibrant mixed-use neighbourhood and had established a co-operative and community-led way of working to bring improvements to the area. However, in the case of the Hawkins\Brown and Fluid Loughborough Junction Masterplan we find ourselves seriously at odds with Lambeth council for the following reasons:

1. The LJ Masterplan lacks a vision for Loughborough Junction

We accept that the LJ Masterplan was principally about determining the future of the many potential development sites within the area. In the early stages of the development of the Masterplan a steering group was established to lead the masterplanning process. It was this steering group that appointed Hawkins\Brown and Fluid but it failed to meet after August 2015 for reasons that remain unclear. However, it was always LJAG’s understanding that the Masterplan would go beyond the simple presentation of proposals for the development sites and would include a clear vision for the whole area. In the end this has been boiled down to a series of so-called Masterplan principles which while laudable hardly add up to a comprehensive vision.

2. The LJ Masterplan fails to address the issues raised during the planning discussions over the future of Higgs Industrial Estate on Herne Hill Road.
   These were:
   1. (i)  Housing density: the LJ Masterplan has not addressed the issue of housing densitywhich was the major issue brought up during discussions over the future of the Higgs Industrial Estate and whether the correct housing density for the area should be the higher “central” density, or the lower “urban” density as defined in the London Plan.
   2. (ii)  Height of new buildings: the Masterplan makes no mention of whether or not there should be a limit on the height of new buildings. Many local residents felt that the planning permission for the Higgs Industrial Estate which included residential buildings of seven storeys and a commercial building of ten storeys were unacceptable high.
   3. (iii)  Zoning: The masterplan was an opportunity to re-zone some areas in order to create the sense of place and destination that residents and businesses want for the town centre along Coldharbour Lane and near the railway station. It is disappointing, for example, that the Sureway church site, on the corner of Coldharbour Lane and Herne Hill Road, which is acknowledged as suitable for intense redevelopment, is not zoned as retail at ground floor level reinforcing the retail area which already exists on the south side of Coldharbour Lane
   4. (iv)  Infrastructure: While we recognise that the Masterplan proposes greatly improved connectivity (principally pedestrian) between sites, which we support, the Masterplan makes no attempt to collate what would happen if all the LJ development sites were in fact developed over the next 15 years. There is no information about how many extra residential and/or commercial units this would involve and how many extra residents and/or workers this would entail. There is no attempt to place this in the context of Lambeth’s council undertaking in its Local Plan and in the London Plan to build 17,925 new homes between 2015 and 2030. There is no analysis of the effect additional residents and workers would have on capacity in local schools, doctors’ surgeries and other services.Our transport infrastructure is of particular concern to our residents. We have recently circulated Thameslink’s post-2018 timetable consultation to our mailing list and have had a large number of responses from local residents telling us that they no longer use Thameslink from Loughborough Junction station during the morning rush hour because of the difficulty of boarding trains; that some residents wait three quarters of an hour before being able to board a train making them late for work; of pregnant women being forced to stand because no one can see their plight and offer a seat; and the effect of cancelled and late running trains. The proposed post-2018 services show little improvement in frequency, only trains with more capacity which will only exacerbate the dangerous overcrowding experienced currently within the station when trains arrive on both sides of the island platform at the same time.
3. Marcus Lipton and Grove Adventure Playground site Consultation Board OneBoard One proposes building a block of flats on Minet Road and repositioning the Marcus Lipton Youth Centre on the Grove Adventure Playground site and providing a route through Styles Gardens, Major Close and Gordon Grove. At the options workshop held in July 2015 at

the Marcus Lipton Youth Centre several options for this site were considered but this was not one of them.

LJAG is concerned to know how a proposal that has not been consulted on has made its way through to the final draft of the Masterplan.

LJAG is opposed to the loss of children’s play space in Loughborough Junction. We believe that the Marcus Lipton and Grove Adventure Playground sites should be safeguarded as community assets. We appreciate that the previous management of the Grove Adventure Playground were unable to maintain the service but there has been no attempt by the council to find an alternative operator or discover if there is any appetite within the community itself to come forward with a solution in the spirit of the co-operative council. The decision to consider selling part of this site for housing is one which permanently damages one of the few opportunities for play in what is one of the most deprived corners of Lambeth.

4. Wickwood Street Yard & Styles Gardens Consultation Board TwoLJAG would like to see the Town Centre boundary extended to include part of the LJ:Works site on Loughborough Road to allow for greater animation to the frontage of the LJ:Works development.
5. Rathgar Road & Station Avenue Consultation Board ThreeA large development is shown on the site bounded by Rathgar Road, Loughborough Road and Station Avenue. Although this might be the preferred option for this site it seems unrealistic as part of the site (on the corner of Coldharbour Lane and Loughborough Road) is currently being developed.

The Loughborough Junction Masterplan appears to us to be driven by Lambeth council’s desire to sell the assets it owns as quickly as possible and to encourage developers to come forward to build as many high density homes as possible with scant regard for the people who already live and work in Loughborough Junction whose priorities – even those defined in the Masterplan principles – are not being met.

Yours sincerely

Anthea Masey
Chair
Loughborough Junction Action Group