London SE1 community website

Demolition threat to 'Colorama' Victorian warehouse buildings, Lancaster Street

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 Next
Current: 2 of 4
Tuesday 1 May 2012 9.53pm
146 objections!

Apparently consultation packs were sent out on the 30/04/2012 - and the consultation date has been extended to 23/05/2012

( NB- The planning Dept have made some errors, as although they have defined the area and housing blocks for consultation, they havn't listed every flat number within the housing blocks. If you are expecting to be consulted, check that your address is listed and let them know if it isn't)

Also not all of the information is available on Southwark Website and key documents are missing from view, such as the design and access statement. This lists the justifications and the intentions of the developers in more detail - so it is one to look out for!
Thursday 3 May 2012 10.34am
The missing documents have now been uploaded.

The planning department's pre-application advice says that the loss of the buildings is "not seen as problematic".

Editor of the London SE1 website.
Subscribe to our SE1 Direct weekly newsletter.
Thursday 3 May 2012 2.52pm
Buildings 52 - 58 have been there since 1896 or before.

Buildings 44-50 have been modified over the years. Between 1916 and 1951 the modification took place for the current foot print - however it looks as though the original facades remain, as these closely match 52-58. I will double check on the facades, yet the rest is confirmed.
Wednesday 16 May 2012 6.53pm
Remember the consultation deadline has been extended to the 23rd May
Friday 18 May 2012 10.55pm
UPDATE UPDATE

There are many questions arising, some of which I will put out to you all, and of which you might be able to answer...

The Core Strategy ( Main planning document for southwark) has deleted the Borough and Bankside action plan. Is anyone aware of a replacement document?
( If there is, it doesn't seem to be available online and if there isn't, shouldn't the council hold off from approving major planning applications in the area until there is one in place?)


There are also some interesting developments as follows:

Information to date suggests that the planning dept are unaware of their own Character Assessment, which includes a recommendation to locally list the buildings.

In the pre application letter ( included on the planning statement, submitted as part of the planning docs on line AP1066)Planners have stated that these buildings date back to the 1950's and do not recognise that they go back to before 1896.

In this same letter, they note that the loss of these buildings would not be problematic...Who do the planners have in mind here? The developers.. If the ipetion is anything to go by, their loss would definately be seen as problematic to the community.

Local listing will not prvent the buildings from being demolished - however English Heritage Listed status may have more strength in protecting a building.

However, developers do not need planning permision to demolish a building, so if you do feel strongly that local heritage should be protected - make your voice heard and comment directly on the planning application.


Some of the occupiers of these buildings over the years....

1868 (used to be called Union St)

1882
44-46 Millar Robert (engineer)
48 Sharp, Samual, file cutter
50 Cowling George, beer retailer

1896
44-46 Millar Robert (engineer)
50 Fairburn Joseph, Chandler Shop
52,54,56 and58 Wix Charles &Son, Sauces and pickles


1900
44-46 Millar Robert (engineer)
50 Fox John Chandlers shop

1910
44-48 Millar Robert (engineer)
50 - Pauling Joseph, haberdasher
52-58 Marshalls and Hyatt Ltd, sewing machine manufacturers

1914
50 Reitzo Domenico Chandlers Shop

1923
44-50 Premier Press Ltd

1931
44-50 premier Press Ltd
Revell E and Son, postal tube manufacturers

1940
44-50 Newnes George Ltd (publishers)
Friday 18 May 2012 11.22pm
UPDATE

The consultation date has been extended until the 23rd May for commenting directly on the planning application. (Although planning dept have stated they are able to recieve comments for a short time after.)

If you would like to add your name to the ipetito, please do so by 1pm, 23rd May, as this is when it will be sumbitted to Southwark Planning Dept.

This project is likely to need approval from the Members Committee and the meeting is likely to take place in June. An update will follow on this.

Interesting developments

Information to date suggests that the planning dept are unaware of their own Character Assessment, which includes a recommendation to locally list the buildings.

In the pre application letter ( included on the planning statement, submitted as part of the planning docs on line AP1066)Planners have stated that these buildings date back to the 1950's and do not recognise that they go back to before 1896.

In this same letter, they note that the loss of these buildings would not be problematic...Who do the planners have in mind here? The developers.. If the ipetion is anything to go by, their loss would definately be seen as problematic to the community.

Local listing will not prvent the buildings from being demolished - however English Heritage Listed status may have more strength in protecting a building.


Links below


Link to Southwark website, planning application:

http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9544617

Link to Southwark character appraisal below(page 5 to 9)

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/4119/south_of_union_street_and_north_of_borough_road_character_area


http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/demolition-threat-to-colorama-victorian/

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/demolition-threat-to-colorama-victorian/
Saturday 19 May 2012 12.34pm
Finlay someone wants to build 3-4 bd flats where families can leave (if they can afford it as I am sure it will not be cheap  ) . What’s the value of the run down warehouse like it is? How much character does it add? I would be more worried about trying to get the new development slightly smaller, with less 1bds (which I am sure will be rental investments) and a good investment in the surrounding.
Saturday 19 May 2012 8.57pm
YNB79 - I am loving your response as it is refreshing.

There is great value to preserving victorian character buildings as they reflect the past _ which gives the area its identity - otherwise it will become an area unidentifiable form anywhere else.

Take a look at the converted victorian buildings along shad thames. Would you want these converted victorian buildings demolished, or do you appreciate their existance?

These buildings on Lancaster St could be converted into reidential buildings or otherwise - yet it seems the potential for this to happen has actively been neglected by the developers, where they have allowed them to fall into disrepair.

The councils objective of incresing housing needs in this area is one thing, but bear in mind this location isn't a site which they have actively identified as a housing opportunity site and has been one where they too have actively promoted as being preserved.

The fact that over 270 people have signed the petiton to retain these buildings only confirms this further.

It is too easy to bulldose the past and replace with copycat housing. More creative solutions are required, which embrace both the present and the future.
Sunday 20 May 2012 11.52am
Charly,

I understand your point but I am just pointing out that only being against any demolition/development is as easy as just bulldozing everything.

What we need is a Balance approach that looks at the merits of any development proposal and considers the alternatives.

Looking at the site from outside, I see limited conservation potential apart from making more super luxury apartments or funky office space but in both returns for a developer would be probably too low to undertake (alas it's not Shade Themes yet).

So in my book the discourse needs to move form: “stop work” to “this is the type of development we want to have”.

My 2 cents on this: I will make them keep the facades, add 3 floors, have some commercial/office space on the ground floor and force a mix of 1:2:3bs at equal ratios, with a public space in the center redeveloped.
Sunday 20 May 2012 12.28pm
YNB79,

Your suggestions are great - and I agree that feeding back on the planning application has to contain information on not only 'retain the building' but as you suggest, adding constructive alternative proposals for further consideration and analysing those which are in conflict with the surrounding.

You idea if retaining the facades is a great one. It is intresting as the proposed facade has many alcoves, of which do not meet secure by design guidelines and of which the police have already expressed concern on these proposals,as a statutory consultee. (See plannning statement) The proposals could actually make the area less safe and I would not feel comfortable walking down certain streets, with the idea that you could get jumped on and not see it coming.

It is this type of feedback which needs to be submitted - so I am in agreement with you.

Why would you consider raising the height by three floors? The housing on either side of the buildings in question are three stories on one side and five on the other, yet I would prefer to see a stepped height increase, ( it is presently 2 stories high) to three floors maximum. I think five floors in this location would be too high and would block the South west sun for the residents living opposite the buildings on Lancaster Street, of which is a three story block.

I am not sure about the ratio you refer to in living accomodation. I think the residential proposals have to meet Southwark affordable housing guidelines, but I am not yet up to speed on this aspect, of how that pans out in ratios.

Also, this location, wasn't a location which has been identified as housing on the Proposals Map 2012 and there also seems to be evidence that a community facility here would also be worthy of consideration - yet I am not sure if the developers have previousy marketed this building for this purpose ( which would be a change of use from its current use) or whether previous marketing of this property focused on letting as offce space only.

Keep your queries and ideas coming as they are great to work through.

I do hope that you feedback on the planning applicaiton, because it sounds like you have some great ideas and know your stuff!

(The deadline is Wednesday 23rd May)
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 Next
Current: 2 of 4

To post a message, please log in or register..
September at a glance
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