Thursday 30 November 2006 11.01pm
Who is benefiting from the housing scheme?
The following will benefit:
* over 400 NHS staff who will use the key worker housing
* 45 new households who will rent affordable flats
* 39 existing tenants who will be rehoused in new flats with a view of the Park
* over 300 households who will buy flats
* 102 children who will be in the nursery & their parents who work in the hospital
* the families of sick children who will use the 22 rooms for staying visits
* members of the community who will use the new health care facility
* patients from the hospital who will use the patient hotel
* local businesses that will benefit from the increased trade
* Park users as the Charity will pay a considerable sum to the Council for the Park
* the whole community due to the environmental improvements
* everyone in Waterloo due to the vibrant community that the development will enhance.
The present tenants are ... being treated in a shoddy fashion.
The landlord will only be able to develop the site if it can rehouse its tenants. To do this it will probably have to offer suitable alternative accommodation. The key word being suitable
, which is not the same as comparable
. Despite the fact that many of the tenants have lived in their flats for many years it is the law that an offer of a flat some distance from the Park could be considered suitable. I am not suggesting the Charity should have acted in this way but the fact that it is proposing to rehouse its tenants into the new development with a Park view hardly indicates a shoddy attitude.
The present tenants are opposed to the scheme.
I have heard some tenants say they support the scheme. Others support it but are concerned about light levels in their proposed new flats. The Council fully considered this issue and found that the lack of light in three
habitable rooms could be cured with some revisions to the plans, hence this was not considered a reason for refusing planning permission. I would also suggest that if there were such a strong sense of opposition to the scheme from the Charity's 39 existing tenants then Sarah ‘the most vocal person on this site about this issue' (to quote Neil) would have faired much better in the recent FoAP AGM (where she got 22 out of the 98 votes that were cast for the 2 candidates who stood to be chair) and the motion that she supported calling for FoAP ‘to oppose' the Charity's planning appeal would have received more than 21 votes and would have been carried. This is not a dig at Sarah it is merely to make the point that her views do not carry majority support.
the proposed development would "harm the setting of [Archbishops] Park".
Thanks for drawing my attention to the Lambeth website Neil & you are right that this was one of the two reasons given by Lambeth for turning the scheme down. I would urge readers to look at the plans and form their own view.
To me the development would enhance the appearance of the Park. The buildings nearest to the Park are not tall and there are large gaps between them unlike, for example, the York House block of Peabody flats on another side of the Park which is tall, solid and close to the Park. I accept that there are other differences but the fact that the Peabody flats provide a welcome boundary on one side of the Park shows how people can soon grow to accept and welcome buildings close to a park. I suspect that many have used the highly subjective argument of ‘harming the setting of the Park' as a means of attacking the development for reasons that have little to do with proper planning criteria. Consider for example:
- “a project that is all about big business sticking the boot into the little guy” (westofbank, 29/11/06)
- “The key word is greedy” (sarah2, 5/11/06)
I look forward to hearing what others have to say.
Fred the thread