Mayor consults on protecting London's river views

Talk about locking the gate after the horse has bolted
John prescot has just approved the St. George's wharf tower that will dominate west Minster
The Lloyds building is almost invisible from the river now.

And what's that building rising up behind Southwark cathedral.
However its good to hear the mayor of London talk about the importance of river views

Even if his actions suggest he doesn't give a damn



Edited 1 times. Last edit at 22 April 2005 12.11pm by mickysalt.

The link to the view manegment framwork dosent seem to be working
It sounds like its worth comenting on .

I wonder if it includs any view's of city hall

Will someone please go and blow up the main offices of St. George, they are the most greedy and unprincipled people EVER. They will put up a high rise on anything resembling a spare piece of land, and no one dares to confront them because they are so rich they can out-legislate anyone...I should know. They are probably going to get away with putting a high rise on our carpark opposite the Coronet Cinema, which is just OUTRAGEOUS, but they wheel in all these QCs and the office of John Ruddy Prescott capitulates (what,one asks, is the quid pro quo?).

Jackie, this isn't meant to be provocative but you can't live at the top of a high-rise block that was responsible for blocking other people's views and then become sanctimonious when the same thing happens to you.

It is a fact of London living that it has become necessary for developers to build higher and higher blocks in order to make a decent profit from creating housing units. It is stated government policy that housing densities should be almost as high as possible so that they can burden the developers with building "affordable housing" so that they don't have to do it themselves.

You should be bemoaning the fact that the local authorities aren't developing their own considerable landbank of brownfield land to provide good quality housing for key workers and the like rather than forcing developers to do it for them. When a developer is forced to ensure that up to 50% of their units are "affordable" it simply pushes up the price of the private units so that they can make their required profit thereby exacerbating the situation that made housing unaffordable for the key workers in the first place.

Anyway, just to clarify, I live in a flat that is in the middle of a building site that, when completed,
will result in me having very little light and no view. I knew that the land beside me was under-developed and that eventually a new large office block or the like would be constructed next to me. If you were unaware that there was potential to have a large building constructed on the site next to you then maybe you should seek recourse from you solicitor or surveyor who should have pointed this out to you during conveyancing.

By the way I am no fan of Berkeley Homes as I once tried to view one of their developments and I couldn't actually get in as they said that I had to have pre-registered months in advance and were very rude to me and many others.

Far from being a fact of London life

Its totally unacceptable for the river side to be given to developers to build massive unaffordable devlopment.overlooking the most famous land marks On the basis that they will provide a small amount of affordable housing else where.

There are better uses for the river side

Maybe the next episode of Dr who should be set in the head quarters of Berkeley Homes .
And it gets nuked from outer space.

ps

Rose Tylers flats are fine as there away from the river side and are 100 % social



Edited 1 times. Last edit at 25 April 2005 7.09pm by mickysalt.

All

Its really easy to pick a target then make them the scapegoat for all of society's ills. The usual suspects are 'the Council' or 'the Developers' but I rarely hear anyone being critical of the public who buy the product which so many people critiscise.

Most new buildings in Southwark (and Britain for that matter) are unmemorable and that certainly seems to be the view of many others. But people still buy whatever is on offer irrespective of its height, mass, finish, density or any other characteristic. The developers are only satisfying the demands of the market and the market is driven by the British obsession with property ownership - any property.

If the public were to stop buying ticky-tacky 2 bed boxes then the developers would stop building them. If the public were to refuse to buy badly designed, badly built buildings then developers and builders would pull their socks up. But they don't so they won't.

So maybe we should consider the real culprits, the property buying public, and put the blame where it belongs.

Regards

Niall

Not that argument again

your in favor of more illegal hot dog stands just because people buy them then

No

I thought not .

We have to have planning laws and constraints otherwise there wouldn't be any parks or

Public space.

And our cites would be unfit for human habitation

In fairness, the car park being built on at Metro Central Heights looks rather small and tight and unsuitable for a tall building, especially one meant for people to live in.

Mickey

With the 'illegal' hot dog vendor it is possible to point to specific legislation that defines their activities as being 'illegal'.

The same cannot be said about, for example, the current Tabard Square development. It went through the planning process (however corrupt or biased people may claim or believe that to be) which is governed by legislation and which it satisfied. The individual might not agree with the outcome of the process but that is what passes for Democracy.

The 'illegal' hot-dog vendor, with their lack of Health&Safety and with their mystery meat, should make people think twice about the product. But they don't.

Regards and best

Niall

but that is what passes for Democracy.

Its the complete lack of democracy that creates bad planning decisions