Development on top of Southwark Station

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  1 2 3 4 5 Next
Current: 1 of 5
Thursday 5 March 2015 8.21am
As I've been awake since 4am worrying about this I thought I'd open up a thread. The press release from DevSec is talking about a one acre site which covers the station, Algarve House, and land owned by Southwark Council 'around' the station. In order to make up the one acre, I'm guessing that DevSec could be including Joan Street in its plan. I think it also mentions Isabella Street, and talks about 'significant public realm', which I can only assume, will be on Isabella Street. So, we are looking at something incredibly big, not just tall. I'm assuming a lot here, but I guess it will be luxury housing with Southwark Council taking an 'in lieu' payment for 'affordable' housing. From what I can see from DevSecs website, they don't do social housing and they don't do green. Their site is all about their property portfolio and its Shareholders dividends. So, good, kind people of SE1, I hope you will be supportive of local residents who will be affected by this development (it's not going to be for the good of human kind) and make your views known during the consltation phase. Oh, and if you are asked if you would like to see the ugly, derelict building go, don't just say yes, because this will later be interpreted as 'all people consulted said they would be happy to see the development replace the old building' ;)
Thursday 5 March 2015 9.56am
Karen I am not sure what you are riling against.

You come across as quite nimbyish in all your posts. Are you saying they shouldn’t build anything here? Southwark tube station has always been built so something can be built on top. The site is in an increasingly busy and popular part of central London.

The actual specifics as to if it will contain affordable housing or if the developer will pay in lieu for housing elsewhere will surely be up for discussion when the application is progressed and it’s up to Southwark, with pressure from the public and councillors to accept a responsible figure.
Thursday 5 March 2015 10.15am
Indeed.
Thursday 5 March 2015 10.22am
If an in lieu payment is made, that will mean housing somewhere other than in this "busy and popular part of central London". We need inclusive housing.
Thursday 5 March 2015 11.06am
Oh that Nimby word, I bet the person who came up with it wished they had it copywritten.

Lambeth Local, the last time this developer came up with a scheme for Algarve House it involved demolishing one of our blocks of flats, our storage sheds, our boiler house and our tenants hall. Oh, and they would have to move the electricity substation for the whole area. The block of flats was council and was to be replaced by a 24 storey office block. I think that is just cause for me to be worried. As for affordable housing, the council do not pay any attention to any consultees on this matter, and if you are of the wrong political persuasion on the planning committee, they don't listen to Councillors either.

You comment that I come across as a nimby in most of my posts. I am an active member of the community and will do all I can to ensure that the people who live here can continue to live here in as comfortable manner as possible. I will also support Your backyard too if needed.

One last comment, if anyone builds on Southwark council land, it should be Southwark Council.
Thursday 5 March 2015 11.27am
I agree with Karen I. Se1 is finally being regenerated for the better and becoming a more pleasant place to live. I for one want to see the continuing improvement and if the council were to guarantee tenants a home on or near the site I don't see what the problem is. We're currently living through a housing crises and if a small number of homes have to go in order to help build 300 homes on site plus lots more affordable homes through section 106 payments then it makes sense to go ahead with this. As long as the tenants are still housed in SE1. I would happily be re-housed if it meant the area around me is improved.
Thursday 5 March 2015 12.20pm
*sorry I meant I agree with lambeth Local
Thursday 5 March 2015 12.21pm
I hope whoever approves the application is very strict on the social housing aspect. The area needs more social housing not less!
Thursday 5 March 2015 1.27pm
I smell a lot of sock-puppetry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29) going on in this thread.

@lambeth local - you have precisely 9 posts on this forum all championing large development and pro southwark council

and @Manson34 you have 2 posts on this forum both in this topic

Having been a long term resident of RHH i have had my environment systematically degraded

- i used to have a view of St Pauls - Gone (Palestra),

I used to have a view of big ben - Gone (Valentines place & another development between here and waterloo),

I currently have a view of the shard - Going (music box),

We used to have light all day on the square -Going (Linden homes)

and

We used to have a local thriving set of independant shops & theatres (removed by Network Rail & increasing tesco and sainsbrification)

None of which have added any significant social housing or small independant businesses to the area.
Thursday 5 March 2015 1.48pm
mojonojo wrote:
I smell a lot of sock-puppetry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29) going on in this thread.
@lambeth local - you have precisely 9 posts on this forum all championing large development and pro southwark council

and @Manson34 you have 2 posts on this forum both in this topic

Having been a long term resident of RHH i have had my environment systematically degraded

- i used to have a view of St Pauls - Gone (Palestra),

I used to have a view of big ben - Gone (Valentines place & another development between here and waterloo),

I currently have a view of the shard - Going (music box),

We used to have light all day on the square -Going (Linden homes)

and

We used to have a local thriving set of independant shops & theatres (removed by Network Rail & increasing tesco and sainsbrification)

None of which have added any significant social housing or small independant businesses to the area.

You are undoubtedly lucky to have had all of these views!

All of these buildings (from St Pauls to the Shard) were newly built at some stage in history though, and blocked out sightlines themselves when they were first built.

Back on topic, I also hope that this new housing benefits the community.
Pages:  1 2 3 4 5 Next
Current: 1 of 5

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

Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from: