Elephant & Castle shopping centre

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 Next
Current: 2 of 4
Sunday 4 February 2018 6.47pm
I'm no fan of Momentum but accusing it of being behind the E & C and Haringay campaign is exagerrating it's power and importance. I note the evening standard/ (George Osbourne by another name) is harping on about Momentum to persuade all that labour is some commie controlled, Stalinist organisation. Both campaigns have wide support in the community. People have been campaiging about The E &C redeveolpment plans before Momentum existed!
Sunday 4 February 2018 9.44pm
Mental list of people and groups from last Tues 30th carnival outside Tooley St:

Latin Elephant, London Latinxs, Walworth Green Party, Defend Council Housing, Southwark Notes, LCC students, LCC Staff unions, Up The Elephant, Blake Block people, Save Northwald Campaign, Ledbury Estate people, Pullens Estate people, Rockingham Est people, Aylesbury Est people...and Southwark Momentum people.
Monday 5 February 2018 11.56am
My understanding is that the project has stalled because of Delancy who seem to believe that they can win the contract and then afterwards change the conditions.

The quickest way to get this project rolling again is to offer the contract to the outfit who returned the next most favorable bid.

Its not rocket science.
Monday 5 February 2018 12.12pm
[b][/b]Faraday — you have misunderstood.

Delancey (and its partners) are the landowners. The shopping centre is a purely private concern.

The present debate is a question of planning policy and decision making.

The council has not awarded a contract to Delancey. Rather Delancey has bought the site and submitted a planning application. The council then has to be satisfied that the proposal is acceptable.

It is a different matter from the Heygate and Aylesbury controversies where the council is landowner as well as planning authority.

Editor of the London SE1 website.
Subscribe to our SE1 Direct weekly newsletter.
Monday 5 February 2018 12.32pm
Thanks James

I somehow got the impression the protest had something to do with the provision of social housing units.

In the event the units are being provided then its hard to see what the fuss is about.

cheers
Monday 5 February 2018 4.00pm
faraday wrote:
Thanks James
I somehow got the impression the protest had something to do with the provision of social housing units.

In the event the units are being provided then its hard to see what the fuss is about.

cheers

According to a TV interview with one misguided protestor, the proportion of social housing counts as “social cleansing”. Quite how you can socially cleanse a development that has no housing at all at present was not explained. The argument completely applies to the scandal that was the Heygate redevelopment, but is obviously absurd in this instance.
Monday 5 February 2018 4.27pm
Is it true that the project includes the development of residential property in the current location of the LCC building?

The LCC building would be demolished obviously.
Monday 5 February 2018 5.52pm
faraday wrote:
Is it true that the project includes the development of residential property in the current location of the LCC building?
The LCC building would be demolished obviously.

Yes: the current buildings housing the LCC would be demolished, and high rise blocks would take their place.

Residents living on the western side of Oswin Street have voiced their concern over the resulting loss of light.

The development of this site will be a second phase: the shopping centre and the Coronet must first be demolished, then the new LCC campus would be erected on the site roughly currently occupied by the Coronet and the Charlie Chaplin pub.

Only once LCC moves to its new premises would demolition start on the former LCC location.

boroughbloke wrote:
According to a TV interview with one misguided protestor, the proportion of social housing counts as “social cleansing”. Quite how you can socially cleanse a development that has no housing at all at present was not explained. The argument completely applies to the scandal that was the Heygate redevelopment, but is obviously absurd in this instance.

The 'social cleansing' argument isn't specifically about the shopping centre or current LCC sites: it is about the social make-up of the Elephant & Castle as a whole.

This 'social cleansing' is already well underway, as the demolition of the Heygate Estate has given way to homes that will not be offered at social housing rents. Same applies for the erection of a number of towers (Strata, One The Elephant, and Uncle).

No one can deny that all of this results in what can be legitimately described as 'social cleansing'.
Wednesday 7 February 2018 3.26pm
Thanks Jules,

It was my first impression that the protest was about social housing units not being provided.

There seems to be some confusion in this regard.

Appreciate your clarity.

faraday
Wednesday 7 February 2018 5.53pm
faraday wrote:
Thanks Jules,
It was my first impression that the protest was about social housing units not being provided.

There seems to be some confusion in this regard.

Appreciate your clarity.

faraday

You are right: the protest that took place at Tooley Street when the Planning Committee was discussing Delancey's application, highlighted the scarce social and affordable housing in the plan, but the demo was one of the many facets of a general dissatisfaction with the way the E&C social make-up has been changing, and continues to change.

This placard, displayed during that protest, displays Strata: a building that went up over 5 years ago:

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:

Proud to belong to

Independent Community News Network