Homes & Pub to be knocked down on Blackfriars Road

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Current: 8 of 18
Monday 10 March 2014 12.47pm
Sorry the building is ugly and needs to be demolished. Of course residents should be offered clean, new, energy efficient social housing. We could easily stop all new developments because there is always someone who will be affected. If that were the case Southwark and Lambeth would remain the blighted spot of central London and further feed the "never go south of the river attitude" of north Londoners. The new tower blocks will add to the councils revenue as there will be additional revenue from council tax. No doubt the Liberal/Labour councils will make good use of this revenue to benefit the existing residents of the area.
Monday 10 March 2014 3.09pm
It is a shame your "never go south of the river attitude" goes malnourished, jon9521 - but thanks for your 2 cents.

The main worry from most people, by the way, is that there will not be that much additional revenue from council tax as that only applies to the number of people actually living there... with most new flats owned by foreign investors, and remaining empty, the additional revenue will be lower than the shiny facade would suggest.
Monday 10 March 2014 3.35pm
jon9521 wrote:
Sorry the building is ugly and needs to be demolished. Of course residents should be offered clean, new, energy efficient social housing. We could easily stop all new developments because there is always someone who will be affected. If that were the case Southwark and Lambeth would remain the blighted spot of central London and further feed the "never go south of the river attitude" of north Londoners. The new tower blocks will add to the councils revenue as there will be additional revenue from council tax. No doubt the Liberal/Labour councils will make good use of this revenue to benefit the existing residents of the area.

Are foreign investors exempt from this Southwark policy;

'If the property is empty and unfurnished you may be able to claim a 100 percent discount for the first two months by completing our online form. If it remains empty after that time, you will be liable for full council tax unless the property fulfils the requirements of another category of exemption or discount. If it remains empty for two years or more you will be liable for 150 per cent of the charge.'

[url=http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200028/council_tax/103/council_tax_discounts/3][/url]
Monday 10 March 2014 4.55pm
Hold on a minute. I struggle to see anything going up around me that is not ugly.QH certainly does not stand out as the worst offender. We had new windows fitted in 2005, and cavity wall insulation at the same time so the building is energy efficient. We have just had the interior redecorated, and the building is clean and well looked after.
This is no blighted spot, friends. This is decent, affordable social housing for working people. I very much doubt that these "new tower blocks" will be well built and of good quality in a place that feels safe and at a price that we can afford.
If you think my home is ugly then that is your opinion.
I love it here, and so do the other residents.
Monday 10 March 2014 5.34pm
Jon9521 - which particular building do you think is ugly? The four earmarked for demolition are, Quadrant House, 230 Blackfriars Road, Edward Edwards House and The Prince William Pub, so which do you so take exception to and do you live within sight of any of these buildings? Also, what tower blocks are you suggesting will bring in council tax revenue if these properties are demolished? No replacement housing is planned, apart from the alms houses, just yet more office space.

On a final note, local residents in the Blackfriars Road area have been surrounded by demolition and redevelopment for the past 30 years, most of which has been of benefit to the area. However, we think it's reasonable to expect the existing empty buildings, of which there are far too many on Blackfriars Road, to be either refurbished or rebuilt, before developers bulldoze homes which are in an excellent state of repair.
Monday 10 March 2014 8.44pm
suziq wrote:
No replacement housing is planned, apart from the alms houses, just yet more office space.
To be scrupulously fair, the developers' response to the SPD did say this:

"It is likely that the scheme will include residential uses to replace existing units, and will include a replacement public house."

(As noted in our original story)

Not much comfort if it means demolition of your home I realise, but not the same thing as removing residential use from the site completely.

(And I don't think, that even in the current climate, completely removing affordable housing from the site as a whole would be politically acceptable even if that's what the developers wanted)

Editor of the London SE1 website.
Subscribe to our SE1 Direct weekly newsletter.
Tuesday 11 March 2014 10.05am
Every day another piece of the jigsaw puzzle fits into place. The cynical may say "Nothing new here" What is new is that we are finding out more and more about what has been going on behind our backs, and information gives us knowledge and the power to act to do something about it. Don't forget these are elected representatives.
Have a read of this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26451025
Tuesday 11 March 2014 2.56pm
I do not understand the post from James Hatts. No-one is saying that there are no plans to replace - and indeed increase - residential development. It is the nature and target price of that development and the market at which it is aimed that is the problem. James says - "completely removing affordable housing from the site as a whole would [not] be politically acceptable." Again no-one is talking about "complete removal" of affordable housing but cutting it down to a derisory token amount. JazzyQ has posted a lengthy BBC news piece. One quote from it says it all -

"Mr Johnson is also taking a more active role in the planning process, threatening to over-rule individual boroughs who want to block developments or demand more social housing.

Plans to build 700 private flats - 81 of which will be "social rented" homes - on the site of a Royal Mail sorting office, in Mount Pleasant, North London, is the latest big project to be "called in" by City Hall's planning team.

Developers say this is the only way London will get the new homes it so badly needs.

The Royal Mail says it cut its original target of 20% affordable homes to 12% as that was the only way to make the site, which will continue to house a sorting office, financially viable - but the final decision rests with the mayor."

Now let's just guess what that decision might be!
Tuesday 11 March 2014 7.12pm
I think I have guessed what the decision might be, denis loretto.
I think we are being lied to, and betrayed and we need to do something about it if we want to live in London. QH today, your home tomorrow.

Read this

http://radicalhousingnetwork.org/southwark-social-cleansing-and-the-right-to-return/
Tuesday 11 March 2014 7.39pm
It makes me laugh the constant insinuations in the piece supplied by JazzyQ and the attitudes of plenty of se1 posters that the area was full of criminality, there will probably be more criminals living in the area post regen.
Current: 8 of 18

To post a message, please log in or register..

Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

Proud to belong to

Independent Community News Network