Yes we hosted a meet with the WC team - Mark Gettleston attended and residents and businesses - we asked them to postpone the application in order that we could resolve matters between all parties - their comment was 'we have no intention of postponing'.
We offered solutions as to how to accommodate matters within their site - and as posted before - they did not want the compactor to 'spoil the facade of their offices' and they did not want their 'staff inconvenienced by having deliveries through their space'.
The proposals in December did not show a compactor or loading bay in the yard. I attended the show, spoke to the lead architect and specifically asked whether there would be changes to the yard and was told there would be none.
At the meeting we hosted they said that following the December proposal they realised their architects had made a mistake in the design and that the workshops could not be sited where intended as they had miscalculated the roof height and therefore they had to site them near the yard and so needed easy access to bring timber straight in.
I would characterise their response as arrogant and most definitely intransigent but hey they are a for profit company and every penny counts - this is not a funded gallery like all those offering their support. Their architects did not consider 'lay' people to know much about space layout. It clearly got up their nose that we knew what we were talking about and also knew our rights in terms of access and planning process.
We also requested the case officer to instigate a visit by the committee members in order that they could see the yard and the nature of the access issues. She said not it was not necessary.
The Recall access rights are yet to be presented to us despite numerous requests. Ours are clear and were made available to all parties.
So as Nick Stanton so aptly put it 'We might create a mess tonight but it's not a mess we'll have to sweep up'. Well congratulations Nick you have created an almighty mess and we did not need to be here but you may regret those words and indeed you may well have to do some sweeping.
[So as Nick Stanton so aptly put it 'We might create a mess tonight but it's not a mess we'll have to sweep up'. Well congratulations Nick you have created an almighty mess and we did not need to be here but you may regret those words and indeed you may well have to do some sweeping.]
actually I truly applaud this stance by Nick Stanton. Too often councils hold back development on niggling minor issues - here we have a great example of when the benefits to the many vastly outweigh inconvenience to the few. And as for property prices ? Who cares!
We have been chasing Southwark for the written verification of the planning decision which they are obliged to produce. However, there is no obligation on the date to publish it if at all. Finally, we have been sent a copy - it appears that their website was not working properly and so it could not be published. It should be noted that there are various deadlines in relation to the planning process and we now have a date when the decision was officially made.
As for the compactor - Southwark have approved planning permission which positions it in Royal Oak Yard.
As for the prices of property in ROY I do not think we will see an immediate increase.
The only point on which I agree with shaggy is that I don't care about the price of the property. What I do care about is the quality of life and community, due process by our representatives and the corporate social responsibility and values of corporate entities.
As for the benefits of the many - shaggy might wish identify the 'many' and their benefits - some of which may well be linked to property prices!!
No 106 applied whereby the community benefits from planning permission given to developers - ie they put something back - normally enhancements to the environment for 'many' in the community. Deemed not applicable due to short term nature - no 106 details disclosed when requested.
Educational and charity activity - a great play was made of this at the planning committee. Take a look at the WC website - none evident to 'many' kids.
Also notice that WC is registered in British Columbia - pity about that as 'many' a taxpayer will not get a share - but then it is understandable given the BC tax rates.
Of course the actions of N Stanton and Southwark could in the end affect the 'many' ratepayers in the borough if they have got it wrong!!
As for 'niggling minor issues' I note previous comments by shaggy in respect of the earlier Recall site when 'rights to light' were also dismissed in favour of the grand project for the 'many' no doubt. Fact is that people and communities do have rights - human rights - and thankfully these are now incorporated into the planning process to avoid such glib dismissals as the benefits to many outweigh the inconvenience to a few. Human rights are not granted to the many they are granted to the individual and there are - thankfully - processes in place to allow those individuals to protect their rights and sweep up any mess created by others.
The new roof looks great - and the noise wasn't too bad. However - the early morning noise has been appalling this week.
Has anyone else been disturbed by contractors parking in Royal Oak Yard, shortly after 6.30am? Car doors slamming, sliding; loud 'jocular banter'; cigarette smoke entering the flats; general banging and crashing.
I'd be interested to know if anyone has been in touch with LIFE and what kind of response was forthcoming.
Can I ask whether Bermondsey street residents wish to have the WC around or not?
I thought it was a great thing for SE1.
Bermondsy street has lost the shunt company and some stores are closing down. In fact this makes that street far less enjoyable. I think the community we refer to here, comprises also the surrounding areas and not only B street people.
Many years ago (10?..) when the flats in Bermondsey street were built we were all biting the dust that was coming up to abbey street with a good wind. Nobody complained. What is going on now? Se1 is a building site at the moment. Everybody takes benefits and pains.
In my street we are going to have works for two years!! and bins are emptied every morning at 7 with huge bangs under the windows.. But we survive. Also night shift people survive..
Don't you think the W C gallery is going to benefit the area? Many people in design and fashion are already taking about this. And in addition that empty site was shockingly clashing with the rest of the street. So what is the big issue with the gallery?
Thank you for your explanations as until now I struggle to see anything wrong with the WCGsllery.
Luckily we only work in ROY and don't live here and so have not been disturbed by the early morning noise. We won't experience the late night noise either from events and deliveries which will occur as the Council granted WC usage over and above the terms of their lease.
Also - we won't experience the disturbance either from the very large external lights that have been installed around the walls in ROY.
The only things we have noticed to date are:
Contractors vehicles going the wrong way down Bermondsey Street as it is easier than obeying the traffic signs and one way,
A crane that clearly flies over freeholders land without permission
The most appalling health and safety working on site I have ever seen (other than in Beijing last week) with no idea of CDM regs
Builders throwing material from the roof to the floor with no barriers
Vehicles having to reverses out of ROY onto Bermondsey Street because as we informed the Council there is no room to turn in ROY despite WC showing drawings to that effect
Pedestrians and mothers with prams having to give way to contractors vehicles because there is no footpath for pedestrians in ROY
Numerous vehicles now accessing ROY when there was no right of access
The churning up of the road by contractors steel caterpillar vehicles
The refusal of courier vans to deliver when ROY is blocked
Contractor deliveries in trucks much smaller than those proposed by WC for constant deliveries that cannot park in the space that WC said was possible and so blocking the road - including a transference cement mixer that was operating with no pedestrian barriers
Of course we are yet to experience the compactor and deliveries that will operate regularly for the next 15 years (an interesting time period for developers for lots of good reasons)
But then again - what does it matter about the impact on the rights of a few people when the project serves the interests of the wider community. Perhaps this is a principle to adopt in support of the Thames Water project.
no moaning just facts because I care about others, irresponsible planning decisions, H&S and CDM as a professional and sustainable communities - but hey that's irrelevant as you say - I don't live there - don't live near Fukushima either so no problems there