London SE1 community website

The Heygate viability tribunal

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 Next
Current: 3 of 4
Wednesday 17 September 2014 10.33pm
When will we see the report?
Thursday 18 September 2014 11.09am
good question, graham, no idea, it's well overdue
Thursday 18 September 2014 1.20pm
Presumably Lend Lease has all the lawyers in the world on the case to ensure that nothing is realised until after their recently-submitted new planning application is decided.

Lend Lease's new application also relies on lack of "viability" to argue for another set of non-compliances with Southwark Council's own planning rules, and - surprise surprise - Southwark Council's planners and leaders are saying this is fine, in fact they have got a great deal. But we remain unable to know if this is true, and that is how they like it.
Friday 19 September 2014 10.09am
While we wait for the Report, please endorse this petition on Change.org that calls for an investigation into allegations of governance failure, poor financial management and potential fraud at the London Borough of Southwark, relating to the sale of the Heygate Estate.

I know that online petitions aren't very effective, but at least we can register our displeasure at the way in which Southwark Council has prioritised the developer's profit over the needs of the people it is supposed to represent.
Friday 19 September 2014 10.17am
Luke, when is the application due to be heard?
Friday 19 September 2014 11.08am
Luke wrote:
Presumably Lend Lease has all the lawyers in the world on the case to ensure that nothing is realised until after their recently-submitted new planning application is decided.
Lend Lease's new application also relies on lack of "viability" to argue for another set of non-compliances with Southwark Council's own planning rules, and - surprise surprise - Southwark Council's planners and leaders are saying this is fine, in fact they have got a great deal. But we remain unable to know if this is true, and that is how they like it.

What are the new 'non-compliances'?
Friday 19 September 2014 11.41am
All the detail I have is from Southwark's own site here, and by new non-compliances I mean new instances of the familiar old non-compliances, noting that Cllr Mark Williams is shameless enough to be quoted announcing proudly that he has failed to achieve his council's own 35% requirement for affordable housing, missing it by ten full percentage points, on the basis of a viability assessment that his administration and Lend Lease are still battling to hide from the public on grounds comprehensively discredited by the independent Information Commissioner.
Friday 19 September 2014 11.51am
I suspect that the Heygate mess is symptomatic of similar dissimulation and sharp practice in other central London boroughs, perhaps only distinguished by the scale of the project.

I wonder if there would be any means of carrying out some kind of comparative survey of tenants' and other residents' campaigning bodies across London, as there is mounting large-scale evidence of the transformation of large residential areas in central London into centres of property investment.

Witness Johnson's promotion of the Old Kent Road in Southwark, and associated lobbying to make the proposed Bakerloo Line extension a 'fork', in order to encourage increases in property prices in that part of the borough. This would then presumably push local low-income residents into Kent...
Saturday 20 September 2014 10.30am
Did you see this article in Wednesday's Guardian? Explains how Section 106 provisions are used by rapacious developers to assess schemes as being 'not viable'. Also reminds us how ill-equipped Councillors such as the docile idiot, Peter John, lack the skills, training & nerve required to face down phalanxes of corporate lawyers. As if we were unaware.
Saturday 20 September 2014 6.06pm
Russell Cronin wrote:
Did you see this article in Wednesday's Guardian? Explains how Section 106 provisions are used by rapacious developers to assess schemes as being 'not viable'. Also reminds us how ill-equipped Councillors such as the docile idiot, Peter John, lack the skills, training & nerve required to face down phalanxes of corporate lawyers. As if we were unaware.
Given that Peter John is a barrister specialising in all aspects of contentious probate, trusts and property litigation in the High Court and County Courts, I don't think he at least lacks the skills to face down developers and corporate lawyers. If he wanted to.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 Next
Current: 3 of 4

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