London SE1 community website

Developers have approached the council to buy another block of flats

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Current: 2 of 7
Wednesday 9 October 2013 10.15am
If you look at historical maps you will find that this site was a residential area long before Waterloo East was built, and long before Southwark Station was built. There are still families living in the area who have been here for generations. Commerce and residential properties have worked side by side for many years and I see no reason to make Waterloo into a fully commercial area, I think the many residents is Waterloo - Peabody,Benson and Tait etc - will agree. We have to have people living in the city otherwise it will be difficult to recruit low paid workers because commuting costs would be too expensive for them. But more importantly, why should people lose their homes just because they live in a popular postcode? And why should developers be allowed to run rough shod over peoples' lives, I'm really upset that two people on this thread seem to put so little value on peoples' homes. You know we are not exactly short of offices and office space in central London,this is all about developers wanting to move into the latest trendy area.
Wednesday 9 October 2013 1.36pm
There are so many new or renovated empty office buildings in SE1. That Harlequin building is still empty and from what I can tell the RBS offices on Southwark Street aren' half as full as they used to be.
Wednesday 9 October 2013 1.57pm
Shaggy, we are not talking about a development on top of Southwark Station, we've been expecting that since it was completed, we are talking about a development on the site of Algarve House. This building has been neglected for years and I'm sure we all agree that it does need replacing, and there has been 'ideas' muted for years, most of which, unfortunately, have included land that doesn't belong to the owners ie Styles House. We have tried working with developers, in fact we almost reached an agreement on one design put forward by the original owners but the council vetoed this. Unfortunately, the new owners are not content to just build on their own land, they want more and sadly it looks like the council might give it to them. I feel totally betrayed by the council because they have given a strong indication to the new owners that the land/block of flats will become available once it's passed at cabinet level. They led us to believe that if there was nothing to be gained by working with the developer that would be the end of the matter. And I agree with Zoe, what exactly needs doing on The Cut to 'vitalise' it, it's 'buzzing' morning, noon and night. Please remember; these are peoples' homes.
Wednesday 9 October 2013 3.00pm
Karen I wrote:
If you look at historical maps you will find that this site was a residential area long before Waterloo East was built, and long before Southwark Station was built. There are still families living in the area who have been here for generations. Commerce and residential properties have worked side by side for many years and I see no reason to make Waterloo into a fully commercial area, I think the many residents is Waterloo - Peabody,Benson and Tait etc - will agree. We have to have people living in the city otherwise it will be difficult to recruit low paid workers because commuting costs would be too expensive for them. But more importantly, why should people lose their homes just because they live in a popular postcode? And why should developers be allowed to run rough shod over peoples' lives, I'm really upset that two people on this thread seem to put so little value on peoples' homes. You know we are not exactly short of offices and office space in central London,this is all about developers wanting to move into the latest trendy area.

I'm afraid I don't believe that those two people would campaign for more commercial premises if it didn't involve the demolition of a council block.
Thursday 10 October 2013 5.39pm
I am not shocked but angry that two posters would prosecute the case for the developers and the underhandway the council are trying to sell off our land, our housing stock and sell out the tenants of the maisonettes.
I can imagine the unrevealed plans include offering those tenants wonderful alternative accomodation so as to make it easier to achieve the developer's objective and the councillors and council officers who are in the background advising them as to how to get what they want.
Another office block will not make The Cut a more vibrant and "go to destination area", it will not serve the local residents, the workers in such offices
contribute little during their 9-5 hours and desert the area in the evening as is evident in the City of London. Whereas low rise housing such as that in Dolben Street and Nicholson Street would help the area by their very presence 24/7/365.

One can imagine the fingerprints of Fiona Colley and Richard Livingstone all over this and if so it bodes ill for us.
Monday 14 October 2013 3.13pm
To be dead boring and repetitive, I still struggle with the legality of selling off council property en masse? I wish there was someone on here to challenge the sale according to the original concept of council housing, to provide shelter for ordinary working class.
Tuesday 15 October 2013 12.14am
As a general principle, Southwark Council need encouragement, not derision, for any effort they make to realise revenue for the Public Purse, thereby taking pressure of hard-pressed taxpayers.

The inconvenient truth is that most working taxpayers would never in a million years qualify for the privilege of Council Housing, let alone be able to live in Zone 1.
Tuesday 15 October 2013 12.47am
Styles House looks much more attractive than depicted as in the photograph.

Have any residents been approached by LBS re this 'announcement' of proposed partial sale of Styles land?


There appears to be a deafening silence from local Councillors and local MP.

Presumably,support can be drummed via media contact, petitions?

Perhaps the squatters can join in the protests.
Tuesday 15 October 2013 8.43am
Veritas, the council did not consult us. They encouraged us to talk to the developers who had approached them, but told us that if there was nothing to be gained, that would be the end of the matter. When we saw what they were planning, it was clear that the only winners (by £ms) would be the developers. We got back to the council and said 'no thank you'. Then we found out were were on a list for re-development. Then we found out we were on a list for disposal. Kick in the teeth by Southwark Council. Yes we will fight it, yes we will publicise it, yes we will get as many people involved as possible. Obviously we have written to the council and asked them to take us off the 'disposal' list, once we get a reply, then we will know how to proceed.
Tuesday 15 October 2013 8.52am
Here we are then:

http://www.southwarkmagazine.com/news/5402/DevSecs-plans-Southwark-station-development

I'm not sure what these developers are planning, but they seem to want to build on top of Southwark Station - which is their right - and they want to build on top of Algarve House - which is their right -so where does Styles House come into it? Do you think they want to take up the whole corner including buying up Joan Street? If so, this is not just a Styles House battle. Any development of that size will have huge implications for the whole area. I dread to think what damage could be done to near-by buildings and the arches when they start drilling such deep foundations.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Current: 2 of 7

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