aoibhneas wrote:John_Coreys points seem sensible to me and in his last para he touches on something I've had in mind since seeing Shiva's posters etc. It may or may not be that the Council's planning dept. is failing to run a proper consultation process, but a process exists, is paid for by the taxpayer, has known deadlines and perameters, and is accessible to all on an equal basis. IMO Shiva's deciding to set up another process of discussion simply isn't helpful. Already it's required the council to generate letters clarifying some of his/her asserions and the misleading implications of his/her leafleting, which has also had to be done at the taxpayers' expense.
Gneral discussion in fora such as this seems a useful way of sharing opinions and information. But calling ad hoc meetings and circulating apparently authoritative, easily misread/understood, information doesn't.
urbanite wrote:I think the problem here is we are talking about 2 different aspects of the whole process but those of us who are worried about the draft SPD feel that if it is agreed then when it comes to deciding on individual planning permission, and were that to be for a tall building, then de facto it would in principle be already agreed that that type of building could be built...the planning process would basically revolve round the aesthetics of the building rather than the relevance of the building itself within the community...and that's why I (INMHO) think it is better to try to engage this subject at this juncture rather than later at an individual planning stage.
I agree that the current areas we are looking at when thinking about the 3 Towers/Sisters project (car parks etc) are unsightly and need to have something happen to them but until decisions are made about what can be built on them they will remain in suspension hoping for the highest possible bid for the land i.e that with the most (highest?) development.
aoibhneas wrote:I'll probably be proved wrong but I think the idea of cladding Guys is fairly ghastly. It is what it is and if it's not to be knocked down then it should be left as it is. Having said that, it may be that the cladding has something to do with its current fairly low level of energy efficiency?
For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.
7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?
Read the latest issue before signing up