Tanner St Park - Sun bathing area under threat

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 Next
Current: 2 of 4
Monday 27 February 2017 2.43pm
Richard, the road name was Kinross Street. It can be seen on this map here (http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/southwark.jsp?mapcfg=Historical_Selection&tooltip=Hist_tips).
Monday 27 February 2017 3.13pm
Yeah - but that was when the area was basically massively over crowded and full of tenements. It was cleared through the work of Dr Alfred Salter (who has a memorial near Rotherhithe and a tree in the park) in a bid to give the people of the area a place to breathe and play.

He lived trying to improve the lives of the people of the area and creating the park and the open space was one of his finest acts. He is also one of the reasons this area is so special.

Ironic then somewhat using those old maps when it was slums as justification to bring back their modern, far more expensive, counterparts to justify such a massive development that will impact everyone using the park.

Might as well fill the whole park with flats under that reasoning..

https://londonrewind.wordpress.com/tag/dr-alfred-salter/
Monday 27 February 2017 3.19pm
The Running Man, with respect to you, you need to know about local history before lecturing on it. Alfred Salter died in 1943. These "slums" weren't cleared until the 1960s. How do you link the clearing of the slums to Alfred Salter? Slum clearance didn't take place until much later.

I'm struggling to reconcile all of this with the title of this thread: "Sun bathing area under threat". How dramatic! Then again, dramatic, too, is the comment: "To justify such a massive development that will impact everyone using the park".
Monday 27 February 2017 3.27pm
dunno. using the fact there were tons of slums on there as justification for building more high rise development that will probably knock out a huge swathe of a green area used by everyone getting any sunlight and probably putting a wall of trees in doubt just seems a bit iffy to me.

but hey the internet runs on drama. and yeah it will, by the very nature of what it is, impact everyone who uses the park as it will change the park. so wouldn't say that was TOO DRAMATIC.

THE PARK IS GOING TO BE DESTROYED!

That's a bit more dramatic.

Can do that if you'd prefer. Can defo crank the dramatic levels higher.
Monday 27 February 2017 3.36pm
Well, I've expressed my view. Perhaps semantics, but we're not talking "tons of slums" vis--vis the open space - just a small street's worth.

If you applied such objection to planning applications across the board then chances are you wouldn't be living in the "village" to begin with since the development in which you live wouldn't have overcome the planning hurdle on the basis that it destroyed the character of the area.
Monday 27 February 2017 3.42pm
I agree. But hey if you believe something is going have a bad effect it's always worth putting up a fight. At least that way you can feel like you tried to do something about it, even if it doesn't make a difference.

Better than just doing nothing and moaning.

I personally believe it's worth a fight to try and keep the park as full of trees and sun as it can be.. No probs with those who don't... Each to their own..!
Monday 27 February 2017 5.12pm
Yes - Kinross Street was demolished in the early 1960's and the park was enlarged, but it was never a part of the park though and I'm not clear of the relevance this is to the planning application in any event?

Parks are one of the few community assets open to anyone and everyone, and are especially important in highly built up areas where there is a premium on just about everything. There were no high buildings abutting the park until the one pictured in my earlier photo. Unfortunately, that development set a precedent in planning terms. It also demonstrates clearly what will happen to additional areas of Tanner Street Park if the planned building project is built. That would be a real shame for everyone living and working in the Bermondsey Street area.

www.richardqmiller.com
Tuesday 28 February 2017 5.46am
One point in terms of the existing tall buildings being a "precedent" for planning. The area behind the tennis courts was basically Tarmac (except for a v small slither of grass) up until 3-4 years ago before it was landscaped. So this was not a 'green space' being used by the local community when they were constructed. This is very different from the existing green area under threat now which is popular and used all the time in the summer. it is clear from many of the comments in the council's website that others are concerned about this, so I would not assume planning consent is a slam dunk!
Tuesday 28 February 2017 9.46am
Scott77 wrote:
it is clear from many of the comments in the council's website that others are concerned about this, so I would not assume planning consent is a slam dunk!

I don't think that makes an iota of difference - well, not really. When determining contested applications members have very little discretion where the proposed development complies in large part with the council's relevant built environment policy/design policy statements/whatever they're called and the relevant statutory provisions.

I drove past the park this morning and was struck by the fact that it is surrounded on all sounds as it is.
Tuesday 28 February 2017 1.03pm
therunningman wrote:
THE PARK IS GOING TO BE DESTROYED!

Frankly, the park cannot be more trashed than it is already. Anyone who goes sunbathing here or... shudders .... has lunch on or allows their children to play on the grass needs their head examined. I work overlooking the park in that building you find so offensive and daily watch the sheer volume of dog dirt and urine deposited on said grass. The thought of going anywhere near it disgusts me. Fact is, with the windows open in summer, the office smells of dogshit, plain and simple. Hence, the windows are never open... other than when the organised gangs of tooled up burglars, who prowl the park at night, break in.

Please also stop referring to the proposals as 'high rise'. They are not. They are reasonably scaled proposals that reflect the character and scale of the surrounding buildings. They are, in fact, no where near as high as those next door and certainly not as high as those on the east side of the park. Claims that this counts as 'high rise' are utterly absurd.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 Next
Current: 2 of 4

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

Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from: