Connection understood but do you think Potters Fields is large enough to be an Olympic venue?
I suspect you are correct in saying that there exists a close Balance between the government's desire to build (anything, anywhere) and the case for putting up the loo rolls in such a precious site failing on almost every count. I am afraid however that Berkeley (and its directors) give their large donations to New Labour, and employ expensive lobbyists, precisely to ensure that such balancing acts are resolved in their favour when the time comes. One can only hope that both the Inspector and Mr Prescott have sufficient regard for the cultural, physical, and historical relevance of Potters Fields and the fact it is unique.
Should, however, they not:
1. who is going to join me at a sit in to protect this magnificent site ( I will arrange for Sting and er.... Bros (aren't they local residents?) to play a benefit with Prince Charles working the decks);
2. perhaps more seriously, who wants to help me raise funds to buy the site from Berkeley and hand it back to Southwark Council, in the name of all people of this fine borough , on the basis they carry out their planning brief for a public amenity (or amenities)? That may be the only way to prevent this monstrosity blighting London forever.... just think of the hash they continue to make around St Paul's.
100,000 people give £10
10,000 people give a £100
1,000 people give £1,000
100 people give £10,000
10 people give £100,000 and
a few decent civic and heritage donations......
This from the recently issued Berkeley Homes plc 2004 annual report:
"Berkeley is concentrating on replanning a number of sites in its portfolio and densities have been increased whenever appropriate in line with best planning practice. This has the advantage of improving numbers and gross margin without incurring further land costs. It also allows us to ensure that our schemes are meeting market demand and are affordable."
It has also the "advantages" of ruining a uniquely historical riverscape and forfeiting the opportunity to create a cultural focal point for this part of London. We should all however be re-assured by the fact the flats will be "affordable".
Still, if we ever doubted it we now have confirmation that the height of the towers had nothing to do with aesthetics.
Beware enquiries... These ruddy developers have a way of bringing in all kinds of firemen to plead their case, they dont care what it costs, everyone has to be THERE and VOCAL. Ask one who knows. Our fight with St. George (part of Berkeley has been in my view lost because the only one really ready to get on the barracades and stay there was ME.