All credit to the work you and the others do with BSAP. You e-mailed your members, good move, but could you have put something on your website or mentioned it here? I'm somewhat disappointed that none of the members who received the e-mail thought to disseminate the information to a wider audience.
If you reply that maybe I should join, fair enough, you and the BSAP team are not obliged to me. I raised the issue here though because I thought it important to tell as many people as possible.
I've thought about joining BSAP but I never seem to be able to make the meetings. Looks like membership has further benefits (e-mails to members) that I was unaware of. I shall print off my application form this week.
I also only noticed the posters on Friday and I'm almost positive they only just went up then. The images of 3 Centre Point monstrosities leering over Bermondsey Street where I live is certainly misleading given that the 3 building proposals submitted to the council by Irvine Sellar are by the world class architectural firm Herzog and de Meuron who designed the refit of Tate Modern and the beautiful Bird's Nest Olympic stadium in Beijing as well as many other beautiful buildings around the world. That they would be so insensitive to the area's surroundings is highly dubious. Further the proposal does not clump the 3 buildings together as shown in the poster but rather strings them along St Thomas Street at various locations. The buildings proposed to be 30, 64 and 53 stories tall. More here
I'm now doubtful that these are Southwark Council posters. I'll try to find out for sure and report back.
This is a bizarre plan and I have commented on it several times on a different thread (Three Houses [major London Bridge development by Sellar, designed by Herzog & de Meuron]). Enough to say that it has no ability to fit within the density of the area, not only physically, but based on needs of possible proposed residents (current and new) in the area, and should be refused at first request.
I've been in contact with Michael Carnuccio who is the team leader for the Council on this project. He has written back:
The posters on Bermondsey Street, and I believe similar flyers that have
been distributed, were NOT produced or endorsed by the council.
Council's press office is looking into the matter. Please note that
there is currrently no formal application in for the site pictured in
the poster and we are not consulting on a specific proposal or scheme
for the site through the SPD - we only set out land use, design and
public realm guidance for the site.
Team Leader, Planning Policy Team
Regeneration and Neighbourhoods
PO Box 64529, London SE1P 5LX
T: 020 752 55475 F: 020 7084 0347
I disagree with Urbanite, I don't find the project a bizarre plan, nor do I agree with the density argument. I think a world class set of buildings on St Thomas Street would bring jobs and shopping and be a magnet for other improvements to the area and it would not destroy the local character though it would obviously change it. That's the story of a city through time in any case. Things don't stand still in a world class city like London. We are so close to the tall building centre of London that its inevitable that this type of growth would happen here. What you have to work for IMO is that the changes have integrity and add something interesting and exciting and the effects are thought through and proper provisions made (schooling, policing, water, electricity, play areas, etc).
In any case I find it absolutely pathetic that someone has taken the Fear Uncertainty and Doubt approach to arguing their point. Shame on them!
I have no fear (?)about this project. If you live close by you will know that even some of the pavements are so narrow peopel find it difficult to walk along some of the local roads, and that is just to start with. I love the Shard and see that as part of the whole London Bridge station/London Bridge City redevelopment of that area, but to use a phrase "mission creep" we can't have plans which are monstrously out of proportion to their Locale being crammed in just because you like big buildings. The sign of a great building is all about its location AND its design, not one without the other. Roll on tall buildings in the right place!
That is precisely what I hoped to stimulate when I posted on the SE1 website on Tuesday 9th December 2008 to start the thread “Three Houses [major London Bridge development by Sellar, designed by Herzog & de Meuron]”[b][/b] , which alerted SE1ers to the project and invited comments after the initial outline plans were unveiled at the Bermondsey Street Area Partnership's (BSAP) 2008 Christmas bash.
So just to point out, MiltonF, that the BSAP scooped the story and rushed it straight to a public forum in 2008! As you say, our first duty is to BSAP Members (all local residents and businesses are welcome to join!), but we have disseminated this important information in an honest and responsible way to a broader audience.
As the bogus Southwark Consultation fliers have demonstrated, ethical behaviour can sometimes be in short supply when Planning issues are at stake!
Just to clarify that we've mixed 2 separate issues together in this thread.
First, the posters are about the Council's consultation document which is a general outline of the councils' attitude towards tall buildings and general development in the river strip from Waterloo to London Bridge. It is not specifically about the Sellar proposal for the 3 tall buildings or any other single project which may come later.
If the consultation paper is approved then developers can submit specific proposals and I'd be surprised if Sellar didn't then submit the project. At that point the normal consultation regime would begin and local opinion sought and we can have an intelligent and civil discussion about the merits of the particular project.
And one further clarification sent to me by Michael Carnuccio.
An application for the [St Thomas Street or any] site could be submitted to council before the SPD is finally agreed - it is up to the owner/developer when they
choose to do this. But the draft SPD would still be some consideration
in the application process, though obviously it would have much more
weight if it was fully agreed and adopted when an application came in.
If you read MiltonF's first 4 posts when he started this thread (to himself, presumably, since he was uninterrupted by any other poster, over a hyperactive 28-hour period), it is clear that his focus, in every single post, is not on the broad-based title of the thread, but on the specific topic of the "3 Spires".
Up to MiltonF to post whatever he likes on the SE1 website - and fair play to you for pointing out the discrepancy between the author's pretext in the title and the actual content of the posts.
But this thread does not really "do what it says on the tin".
In my personal view, you are correct in saying that we need real information before coming to any conclusion about the SPD or the 3 Spires.