London SE1 community website

Berkeley Homes development at Potters Fields

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Current: 9 of 20
Friday 7 May 2004 4.58pm
I have now managed to put the Inquiry Timetable on the website -
www.pottersfields.com
It is likely to be revised as the inquiry proceeds.
Friday 7 May 2004 10.38pm
I tried to go today ,but discovered it had been adjourned until Tuesday when I got there.

Im actualy finding it fasinating and griping entertainment.

I can highly recommend it.

I don't know how often I will be able to go though.

Friday 7 May 2004 11.41pm
I was the only resident who spoke at the Inquiry on the Renzo Piano building (not to object to the building per se, before you get all hot under the collar by making assumptions based on a 'not in my backyard' stereotype, Ruck and Maul). I got the feeling that the inspector would have allowed other residents who registered interest after the initial day to speak. I really dont know the rules, but am guessing its down to the discretion of the inspector.

Even without speaking, it makes a big difference when lots of residents turn up on particular days. Three residents objecting would be much more powerful if on that day, several dozen others came along. Inspectors really dont expect many residents, and it creates an impression when there's a bit of a turnout.
Saturday 8 May 2004 10.11am
Thanks Ms Jo
I agree that as many residents should turn up as possible when we are "on".
We plan to organise a petition in Potters Field Park at the beginning of June to collect as many signatures as possible, which we can then present to the Inspector.
Also we will be using the voting figures from the poll on this site so if anyone has not voted yet please do so now.
Sunday 9 May 2004 1.58pm
I don't want to alarm anyone but,

I've been watching the inspector and he seems to look happier when he thinks Berkeley Homes have won a point.

It may take the storming of the Bastille to stop this development.

Monday 10 May 2004 9.20am
Pretty cool under the collar here Ms Jo... You are a resident and are absolutely entitled to your opinion - more so than others not so affected (has been my point all along). I can respect that completely even if I may disagree...

Staying collar cool - best regards...
Monday 10 May 2004 12.46pm
What's built at Potters Fields is an issue of national importance.
affecting the whole of London every one that lives in it and its international reputation and cultural standing around the world .

Monday 10 May 2004 4.44pm
It's important but doubt its impact on the world is quite as you describe... There are bigger issues out there with far more impact on the world... If it's as important to everyone as you say I am sure that the turn-out to the enquiry will run into its thousands by the end... Or not.

My mate in Hampstead's not that fussed for one...
Monday 10 May 2004 7.38pm
Hmmm... let's see. Shall I rise to the bait quite as easily as this reply deserves? No, I think its cyncism and short-sightedness is so blatant that other readers (not in Hampstead, daahling,) will be able to dismiss it out of hand too.

Oh.... go on then...

Leaving aside the merits or otherwise or the actual proposals, it seems to me that it is an issue of national importance which will affect the international reputation and cultural standing of London around the world. Maybe not in a genocide in Rwanda or torture in Iraq way, but in terms of people making subtle but important judgements about London and the UK on the basis of how the country/city/neighbourhood cares for its built environment.

The Tower of London is a World Heritage Site, recognised by UNESCO as being of global cultural significance. Tower Bridge is regularly used by Hollywood feature films, which help to shape millions of peoples' perceptions, as an establishing shot to show that the action which follows takes place in London. When I think of Paris these days, I inevitably think of the modernist arch at La Defense, as well as Notre Dame, the Louvre etc - even though I've never been to La Defense when visiting Paris. It is therefore not overstating it to say that what is built in the neighbourhood of the Tower and the Bridge is of international significance - as I think Norman Foster understood when proposing the designs for City Hall, and as Ian Ritichie and Berkeley Homes would probably claim for their own proposals.

I've recently moved from Tooley Street to Wellington, New Zealand, and I can tell you, I'm making judgements all the time about the city, its administration and the values people here have, based on the sort of built environment they are encouraging or prepared to tolerate. For example, I think it is pretty crackers of them to have a four-six lane road between the city centre and the waterfront of the harbour, at a time when the city is spending millions to promote tourism. I care about the building that will replace the World Trade Centre in New York City, even though I don't live there, because how a society shapes its built environment is an indicator (though not infallible) of its cultural values.

If someone can name me some solid examples of proposals to build a significant modernist development near to a World Heritage Site as old as the Tower which aren't controversial enough to be commented on internationally, then I'll accept that I'm wrong in supporting Michael's comment above. But if you can, the mere fact that you have means you'll have proved my point, since the proposal will have registered as culturally significant enough for it to be internationally commented upon. Certainly I think it's unlikely that we wouldn't care to some degree if there were proposals to build something next to Notre Dame in Paris or in the middle of Rome, or next to the Acropolis. This is not to be anti- anything new/modern, simply saying that a site is sensitive and people care about what happens there.

Finally, while it is important that a lot of residents of the area, and other places in London (maybe Hampstead, even), turn up to the Inquiry, to try and suggest that it's not important if they don't is not a very sound argument. There will shortly be a very low turnout for elections to the European Parliament, but I don't think most (intelligent) people would accept that as a valid indicator of that institution's importance. I'm too young to remember it, but having spoken to people from Coin Street, I don't think there were exactly London-wide demonstrations when they were fighting to stop the proposed office development there.

Just for the record, since I should be clear on my stance on the Berkeley Homes proposal, I think the architecture of the proposed buildings themselves, although incredibly mediocre, has a bare level of acceptability (that's why they hired Ian Ritchie after all, to give them some quality). However, they would look much better elsewhere (next to the Dome or in Canary Wharf) than on the site proposed, where they would be positively damaging. This debate is not just about the buildings themselves, but the location it is proposed they be built.



Post edited (10 May 04 20:23)
Monday 10 May 2004 9.34pm
Thanks Andrew

That was blinding,

Nothing I can add to that.
Current: 9 of 20

To post a message, please log in or register..
Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

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

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