Tanner St Park - Sun bathing area under threat

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 Next
Current: 3 of 4
Tuesday 28 February 2017 3.27pm
boroughbloke wrote:
therunningman wrote:
THE PARK IS GOING TO BE DESTROYED!
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.

Height clearly is the principal issue of contention with this proposal as the new buildings will form the boundary of the park and cast a large area in shadow for long periods. The area of park behind your office building is barely used and demonstrates the issue perfectly. The only other building of a significant height abutting the park and acting as a boundary is No 4 Tanner Street. The park is certainly not boxed in by high buildings on all sides - yet.

www.richardqmiller.com
Tuesday 28 February 2017 3.36pm
"Can defo crank the dramatic levels higher."

haha, made me laugh!!!

1) whoever lets their dog pony all over the park and doesn't pick it up is an arsehole
2) in the summer the park fills up with Franco Manca boxes- more bins are required.
3) it's nice to have some open space in inner london, but I'm not going to cry about the sun being blocked by a building.
Thursday 9 March 2017 9.16am
I can't see how Southwark can pass this application. 48 comments -46 negative . One positive from the owne and one from the architect. The plans have errors all over them... if it gets passed someone will have taken a bung.
Thursday 9 March 2017 9.30am
"Concerned" of SE1 wrote:
I can't see how Southwark can pass this application. 48 comments -46 negative . One positive from the owne and one from the architect. The plans have errors all over them... if it gets passed someone will have taken a bung.

Well, that's not right. I'm neither the owner nor architect and I've left a positive comment.
Thursday 9 March 2017 9.37am
ConcernedofSE1 wrote:
I can't see how Southwark can pass this application. 48 comments -46 negative . One positive from the owne and one from the architect. The plans have errors all over them... if it gets passed someone will have taken a bung.

That is appalling allegation that I hope you can prove.

Passing or not passing is not a race between the numbers of usually ill informed positive and negative comments. There could be thousands of negative comments, but all go for nowt if the application does not breach local and/or national planning policy. Less so when the policy actually might encourage such development. Just because you do not like it does not mean that it should not be built.
Thursday 9 March 2017 11.04am
ConcernedofSE1 wrote:
I can't see how Southwark can pass this application. 48 comments -46 negative . One positive from the owne and one from the architect. The plans have errors all over them... if it gets passed someone will have taken a bung.

For the record, if permission does get refused the applicant can appeal. More often than not, the odds are stacked in the favour of the applicant- not because of corruption, but because of how the law/ process works.
Thursday 9 March 2017 11.54am
ConcernedofSE1 wrote:
Am afraid most residents and businesses have a low level of trust based on these headlines

How do you know?
Thursday 9 March 2017 12.34pm
So no one thought that there was anything dodgy about the Heygate turnout? There was people on here going on about tickets for Olympics and trips to Malaysia (or somewhere), positions on boards etc. I don't think what concernedofSE1 has suggested is anything out of the ordinary for this forum.
Saturday 18 March 2017 9.53am
[img]https://flic.kr/p/SsUpxm]
[/url]FullSizeRender-4 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/shardview/][/url], on Flickr[/img]

Photo taken from earlier in the week showing the impact the shadows from the new development will have on the park.

The large shadow on the tennis court is cast by a building which is exactly the same height of the proposed new development. If the new block is built, it will mean that the majority of the sunny green space between the tennis courts and Bermondsey St, including the public benches, will be cast into permanent shadow. The area to the left of the tennis court in the photo never receives any direct sunlight and is therefore never used by the community. It will be a real shame if we relegate the most popular area of the park to the same fate.

Southwark's consultation is open to the 29th March for anyone wanting to register an objection. Ref 17/AP/0469
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 Next
Current: 3 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: