Berkeley Homes @ Potters Fields & ex-St Olave's Grammar School

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Current: 44 of 47
kellandj Thursday 12 August 2010 9.39am
noone at today's 'surgery'only an email to front desk staff saying cancelled because of no requests.
probably something to do with not answering the 'phone southwark!
mickysalt Saturday 14 August 2010 3.28pm
The Evening standard article uses the more acceptable looking view of the development,
The Buildings nearest tower bridge which are an improvement on the Richi scheme,

It's the Campanili and the seventies frontage faceing they tower of London that's the problem
The don't show that,

And im always sceptical when they talk about Consultation processes and local residents,
There was no one at the exhibition when I was there , and I don't live in the area.

They don't really know what the majority of people think.
Gavin Smith Tuesday 17 August 2010 2.36pm
They've affixed an artist's illustration of the proposed scheme which, in my opinion, looks like a Benidorm hotel - not at all sympathetic!
Michael Place Saturday 21 August 2010 7.19pm
On 19-8-10 I wrote as follows to Gary Rice of Southwark Council:

In planning application 10/AP/1935 the proposal includes the words

“including an extension to and improvements of Potters Fields Park”.

There is no evidence of this that I could find or that Daniel Palman or Sophie Waring could show me when I discussed the matter with them on 19-8-2010.

The application actually involves a significant amount of destruction within Potters Fields Park and an apparent reduction in the size of Potters Fields Park.

I therefore consider planning application 10/AP/1935 to be misleading by including an untrue statement about the effects it will have on Potters Fields Park and therefore ask you to have it withdrawn immediately.

mickmac
Michael Place Saturday 21 August 2010 7.30pm
On 13th May 2010 I wrote to Chris Brett of Bartonwillmore:

Dear Mr Brett,
Re: ONE TOWER BRIDGE

As a local resident I was glad to have the opportunity to visit your exhibition on Tuesday.

I have one major concern which is over the planned removal of the existing ‘hillock' (with its grass, trees and hedges) which runs along the southern boundary of the park where it abuts the proposed development.

As shown in your illustration at the exhibition, this will make the park look as if it is now in Oxford Street. It also has the effect of removing the sight of green grass, some hedging and some trees from the view of many people including all of those on the north side of the river at ground level. I consider this to be unacceptable.

I estimate that the ‘hillock' extends to no more than 3 feet above the level of the main areas of grass. Why it is planned to remove it is not clear.

If the ‘hillock' has to go I suggest it is replicated by a 3 foot wall built along that boundary of the park (I assume the path in front of the cultural space is part of the development), with grass sloping gently up to the top of this wall. The top of the wall could well carry suitable planting of greenery and/or flowering plants.

mickmac
Michael Place Saturday 21 August 2010 9.35pm
On 19-8-10 I sent the following
'FORMAL OBJECTION TO 10-AP 1935'
To:'planning.applications@southwark.gov.uk'
FAO Daniel Palman

I wish to make a formal objection to the proposal reference 10-AP-1935 on the grounds that allowing the implementation of 10-AP-1935 will destroy three important features of Potters Fields Park by:

1. Destroying about 100 yards of high and thick hedging which is important in maintaining the character of the park, separating the park from adjacent activity, and in contributing to the green nature of the view from the north bank of the Thames.

2. Destroying around 15 trees which are an important feature in maintaining the character of the park and in separating the park from adjacent activity as well as contributing to the green nature of the view from the north bank of the Thames.

3. Destroying several hundred square yards of grass covered ‘hillock' which I estimate to be some 4 or 5 feet above the adjoining level grassland of the park. This is an important feature of the park which makes it a true park, and not just a garden. The ‘hillock' also contributes greatly to the green nature of the view from the north bank of the Thames.


I also strongly object to the wording of the ‘Proposal' as quoted in the letter which states “ including an extension to and improvement of Potters Fields Park;” and which appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead people when they fail to study all of the massive documentation involved and the erosion of the park that the proposals imply. Where is the extension? What is the improvement?
Michael Place Saturday 21 August 2010 9.52pm
On 19th August I sent an e-mail

TO: 'planning.applications@southwark.gov.uk'

FURTHER FORMAL OBJECTION TO PLANNING APPLICATION 10/AP/1935: FAO Daniel Palman

Dear Daniel,

I wish to make a further formal objection to the proposal reference 10/AP/1935 on the grounds that there are so many errors that the documentation is not to be trusted and therefore must be rejected because it cannot reasonably be expected to form the basis for any valid decisions by the Council.

In addition to all the previous errors reported to you, I have now learnt that LAMBETH COLLEGE is in the Borough of Lambeth and therefore is unlikely to be anything to do with application 10/AP/1935 which refers to LAND ADJACENT TO LAMBETH COLLEGE. Based on the evidence to date I would expect there to be many more errors throughout these planning applications.

It is not helpful to submit documentation so full of errors that it could easily lead to the wrong decisions being made because of deliberate or accidental ‘mistakes'.

mickmac
James Hatts Saturday 21 August 2010 10.01pm
Michael

The former St Olave's School building was until about 5 years ago the Tower Bridge Centre of Lambeth College.

I agree that referring to it as Lambeth College - as planners and others have done for some time - is unhelpful and ambiguous.

As for the park boundary issues, these are best explained in the recent report to the Southwark cabinet, which says:

Quote:
To facilitate the development, it will be necessary to vary the boundary with Potters Fields Park. The Council in its lease to the Potters Fields Park Management Trust has a legal right to vary the boundaries of the park in order to facilitate the development and a key principle of any land swap is that there will be no net loss of Open Space. The current plans propose giving back to the park additional land as MOL over and above that required for the development together with the associated landscaping improvements. The Trust has been fully consulted throughout the development of the scheme. The Council and BH have considered future options for the management of the park in consultation with the Trust and have agreed Terms in principle as to boundary changes as part of the detailed drafting of the DA. The Secretary of State's consent will be required in order to proceed with this change in designation and will be applied through the appropriate statutory process.

The report is at http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=302&MId=3632

and the land involved in the land swap is marked on this plan:

http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=11665

Editor of the London SE1 website and SE1 Direct newsletter
Michael Place Saturday 21 August 2010 10.25pm
This message has been sent to: 'planning.applications@southwark.gov.uk'

In planning application 10/AP/1935 the proposal includes the words

“including an extension to and improvements of Potters Fields Park”.

There is no evidence of this that I could find or that Daniel Palman or Sophie Waring could show me when
I discussed the matter with them on 19-8-2010. The application actually involves destruction and apparent reduction.

I therefore consider planning application 10/AP/1935 to be misleading by including an untrue statement about the effect it will have on Potters Fields Park and therefore ask you to have it withdrawn immediately.

mickmac
Michael Place Sunday 22 August 2010 9.21am
James,

Many thanks.

The planning process does not decide what will happen, only what can happen.

What will happen is decided by those with rights over the land involved.

My concern is about what could happen to Potters Fields Park as it actually exists today if the requested planning permission is granted.

My objective is to prevent the destruction of trees and hedges and raised grassland within the present Potters Fields Park. This destruction would affect users of the park and those viewing the park from elsewhere, particularly from the north bank of the Thames

I believe this proposed destruction would have the effect of turning Potters Fields Park into a garden for the proposed Berkeley Homes development rather than a park which is enjoyed and admired by hundreds of thousands of local residents, employees, visitors and tourists from virtually every country in the world. The illustration of the proposed buildings along the boundary between the park and the development makes the point - Oxford Street by the Thames?

To support these efforts to preserve our delightful Potters Fields Park I hope your readers will e-mail their views to: planning.applications@southwark.gov.uk by 24th September, as requested by Gary Rice, Head of Development for Southwark council.
Current: 44 of 47


To post a message, you must be a registered user. If you are already registered, please log in.

Subscribe now

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,300+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum

Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions