Ever since we at Quadrant House heard the news that our homes may be demolished, I have set about finding out all I can about what is going on. This report recommended to me by Hetty on the forum is well worth a read.
Forewarned is forearmed.
The title accurately describes how many of us here are feeling too.
What I just do not understand is why destroy perfectly good homes and disperse thriving communities before building replacement homes, and additional homes for the projected population growth?
Read Anna Minton's report. It paints a very different picture of the redevelopment at the Elephant than the one in the press.
I think Southwark council has a lot of questions to answer.
We elect these officials to represent us, and listen to us or am I being naive, and do they only operate in their own interests?
The latest development regarding the 'calling-in' of the Strategic Planning Document [SPD] is a good illustration of the lack of force attached to documents that are classified as 'guidance' rather than 'policy'.
The council appears to have made the significance of this different in status apparent in the course of the current debate. In effect, then, 'guidance' is something susceptible to wider consultation, on the basis of having no independent force, in contrast to policy, decided by members.
As such, the content of the SPD appears to be a red herring, and illustrates the sham nature of much public consultation, which leads to the production of documents that Council members are free to either take account of or disregard as they wish.
It is also depressing, albeit unsurprising, that the view expressed by other commentators on this thread of 'capital inflows' and their value is regarded as being of greater importance to the area than the economic viability of the affordability of either local business or residence, whose vulnerability is regarded as simply a form of latent 'collateral' damage.
Working-class residents of inner London could historically claim a 'heritage' based on duration of residence in a given neighbourhood, one that was diversified and enriched by the influx of new communities of equivalent economic profile. That apparently counts for nothing when compared with the benefits apparently associated with 'capital inflows', which as was the case of the Isle of Dogs/'Docklands' rarely, however, flow towards existing residents.
It is not a semantic coincidence that Londoners talk of 'their manor', since this is as likely in many cases to have the same historical resonance for them as the stately homes of the rich.
we've been doing an 'audit' of all planning decisions made in 2013, for the whole of borough (and no, nobody made us do it :P)
and some of the findings are really interesting (the articles are called 'the planning points' and there's 9 articles so far, we're looking at type of development by community council area and postcode, how many people respond to those one A4 sheets of council letters 'consulting' them etc)
here's the link to number 1, http://www.peoplesrepublicofsouthwark.co.uk/hold-news/news/3334-the-planning-points
(feel free to comment on any of them on our website, to keep this clear for blackfriars spd stuff?)
Hi Pros, I'm pretty sure that everything I have seen says the 11,000 properties will be council properties, managed as part of the current housing stock, but on top of that Southwark will develop more, for example private properties used to subsidise the council building costs. Of course whether this is changed in the future is a different matter, but I haven't seen anything that says they will be RSL properties. Do you have the link to the thread as I couldn't find it?
in this thread, peter john says 100% council homes, then he agrees that, in reality, they'd have to build lots more new homes, of which the 11,000 would be council homes...i may well have got muddled there. being old does that to you :)