Thursday 22 January 2004 10.19pm
Thanks again - I am learning a lot more about how it all works. I understand from what you have said that in my example question, Southwark Council
have the responsibility and the ability to affect what is given planning consent to quite a large degree. Therefore they are actually to blame for a lot of the problems of bad development.
I am not anti-free market but I do believe in managed markets and in my experience Southwark Council
is not doing a good job of managing the development market in this area.
I was co-ordinator of the Bankside Residents Forum back in 2001/2 and the dealings I had with Southwark Council
Planning seemed to me to reveal a council often unable to manage the range and scope of development in this area.
I think you are wrong about the impossibility delivery of "low cost office/retail" as some of this has in principle been achieved as part of the St Christopher's House deal (although only a small amount).
I say again, Southwark Council
has been unimaginitive in its dealings with developers (and its allocation of s106 or planning gain too, but that's another moan). It may be that it is no more unimaginitive than other councils but that is hardly an excuse.
I suppose the one mitigating factor is that, as you say, it runs the risk of losing appeals to really bad developments if it takes too tough a line on developers (e.g. Tate Tower) - so maybe I ought to cut the Council some slack.