London SE1 community website

Planning for people who live in Southwark now

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Current: 3 of 8
Saturday 9 August 2014 3.51pm
Thank you, Bumbly. I had a look at the photos.
I subscribe to the view that "Less is More" and these towers crowded into the area look horrible.
Even the ones in the money mad City of London are not as dull, or as densely packed as all the stuff planned for the south bank of the river. The planners will kill the golden egg laying goose that is SE1, and I don't want this to happen. The residential component will lie empty, like so much that is built already, sold off plan to speculators.240 Blacfriars has filled up a few of its floors of offices, but the retail units are empty and one chap lives (in the week) in one of the flats at 235 stuck on the side of 240.
We need planners who address need, not greed.
Saturday 9 August 2014 6.54pm
JazzyQ wrote:
Thank you, Bumbly. I had a look at the photos.
I subscribe to the view that "Less is More" and these towers crowded into the area look horrible.
Even the ones in the money mad City of London are not as dull, or as densely packed as all the stuff planned for the south bank of the river. The planners will kill the golden egg laying goose that is SE1, and I don't want this to happen. The residential component will lie empty, like so much that is built already, sold off plan to speculators.240 Blacfriars has filled up a few of its floors of offices, but the retail units are empty and one chap lives (in the week) in one of the flats at 235 stuck on the side of 240.
We need planners who address need, not greed.

JazzyQ, I am totally with you on this. With certain estate agents actively marketing the new "luxury" flats in this area to buyers in Dubai, we all know what lies ahead: Blackfriars Road treated like a bank account for people who will never live here, non-wealthy locals squeezed out of the central zone, empty apartments, and high-rise, soul-less steel and glass office blocks. I am glad that local people are now totally fed up with not being listened to when they express their well-founded concerns about what is being planned in this, OUR home, and that we are starting to shout up more loudly about it. How many councillors, developers and architects actually live here and will feel the impact of these developments? The consultation on the Blackfriars Road Draft SPD evoked a very clear response from local people: we do not want to live in the shadow of tall buildings! At one such consultation the person from Southwark Council had the cheek to say, "Well, the Mayor likes tall buildings" and implied that it could actually be a lot worse! That says it all really. And as for the Mayor, the last time I checked he was living in a period house in a leafy street in Islington. No tall buildings towering over his home! I have studied in detail the effect the Barratt development will have on Peabody Square and the flats around Library Street and beyond in terms of loss of light, and I was really shocked. Even though the closing date has passed, those who still want to object to the scheme have the right to do so. And if anyone on this forum wants a summary oof the key concerns, simply PM me and I will assist.
Saturday 9 August 2014 7.33pm
"local people are now totally fed up with not being listened to when they express their well-founded concerns about what is being planned in this, OUR home, and that we are starting to shout up more loudly about it"

EXACTLY Bumbly. OUR HOME.

I sat through the SPD call in meeting where councillors voted in zombie like fashion. They seemed surprised when one of the QH residents asked to be allowed to comment.

So what can we DO to make our voices heard?
Saturday 9 August 2014 8.12pm
I, too, am awaiting a response from Floodplain.
Saturday 9 August 2014 9.09pm
Well I agree with all the above, but as far as Peabody sq goes, an hours sunlight per day would be lost, I don't think that would be seen as a reasonable objection to be honest.
Saturday 9 August 2014 9.37pm
JazzyQ wrote:
I entirely agree, jackie, the whole process is a shambles and residents who care about their local area have to find out all they can in order to stand a chance of fighting back.
At QH we are circulating this document

http://justspace.org.uk/2014/06/19/staying-put-an-anti-gentrification-handbook-for-council-estates-in-london/

[email protected] this looks like an extremely interesting document, I will spend time going through it. The more awareness we have about planning the better.
Saturday 9 August 2014 9.48pm
Thebunhouse wrote:
I should have given the figures of the LibDems election results in Lambeth in my earlier post, here they are.
LibDems pre-election = 14 councillors
LibDems post election =0 (zero).
That indicates an anti LibDem vote as did the results in Southwark not a pro-planning result.

Spot on. I think the local election results for the LibDems were the ultimate price they paid for forming a coalition with the Conservatives. That was never, ever going to go down well.

I'm not sure how Floodplains concluded that these results were an endorsement of Labour's planning policies in the borough?? Tenuous to say the least.
Saturday 9 August 2014 10.08pm
bumbly2013 wrote:

I'm not sure how Floodplains concluded that these results were an endorsement of Labour's planning policies in the borough?? Tenuous to say the least.
not tenuous, it's 'fairer for all' :) (that's yet another huge thread, please don't get me started :P)
Saturday 9 August 2014 11.31pm
boroughonian wrote:
Well I agree with all the above, but as far as Peabody sq goes, an hours sunlight per day would be lost, I don't think that would be seen as a reasonable objection to be honest.

boroughnian, can you please point me to where the one hour's loss of sunlight per day is stated in the supporting document to the application, entitled IMPACT ON DAYLIGHT, SUNLIGHT, OVERSHADOWING, LIGHT POLLUTION AND SOLAR GLARE (Source: ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT - VOLUME 1 - CHAPTER 12 - DAYLIGHT, SUNLIGHT, OVERSHADOWING, LIGHT POLLUTION AND SOLAR GLARE 2014-06-17)?

I studied this document in detail and made extensive notes, and I can't recall seeing the information you have mentioned, so it would be helpful if you could let me know where it is.

What I actually found in that document was the following very worrying information:

Of the 944 windows within 711 rooms in 13 properties which were assessed, for 572 windows, the Vertical Sky Component (i.e. basically, light coming through the windows) was beyond those recommended by the BRE Guidelines, with the impacts to these rooms ranging from minor adverse to moderate adverse.

Of 711 rooms assessed to establish whether one or more of these rooms would experience alterations to their No Sky Line (NSL) beyond the BRE recommended levels, for 272 rooms the alterations are beyond the levels detailed in the BRE Guidelines for a principle habitable room, with the impacts to these rooms ranging from minor adverse to moderate adverse.

The actual breakdown by each property tested reveals that for ALL of the following there are moderate adverse impacts and major adverse impacts in terms of Vertical Sky Component and No Sky Line:
115 Blackfriars Road
Block C Peabody Square, Blackfriars Road
Block B-A Peabody Sq, Blackfriars Road
Block R Peabody Sq., Blackfriars Road
Block T Peabody Sq., Blackfriars Road
1-27 Tadworth House, Blackfriars Road
1-32 Markstone House, Lancaster Street
1-32 Bazeley House, Davidge Street
E & C Early Housing, Library Street

Furthermore, in terms of sunlight to surrounding properties, there are impacts beyond the BRE Guidelines to 151 windows located within the following properties:
1 Mclaren House
115 Blackfriars Rd
Block S Peabody Sq, Blackfriars Road
Block R Peabody Sq, Blackfriars Road
1-27 Tadworth House, Blackfriars Road
1-32 Markstone House, Lancaster Street
1-32 Bazeley House, Davidge Street
42 Davidge Street
E & C Early Housing 2nd Block
E & C Early Housing, Library Street

In view of these no doubt unwelcome results for the residents who live in the above-mentioned buildings, the authors of the report then decided to use "mitigation" to deal with the impacts, and concluded in their trying to justify them by saying that the 128-150 Blackfriars Road site is "uncharacteristically underdeveloped for an urban location", and that this had had a "significant effect on the results from the analysis."

Well, of course, we all know that the existing site could do with considerable improvement, but this does not justify replacig the 9-storey heights of the current buildings with a tower THREE TIMES that height. Because that would mean, would it not, that by "uncharacteristically underdeveloped", we should actually understand "not enough tall towers".

Furthermore, as far as I'm aware the Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Stage 2 Tall Building Study (December 2009) is still an official policy, despite the adoption of the Blackfriars Road SPD; that study identified areas in Blackfriars Road which were appropriate for tall buildings - these areas were all situated NORTH OF THE CUT. Nothing I saw either in the original SPD or the slightly revised version convinced me that this SPD had the right to override the Tall Building Study of 2009.

I have heard many people say that they believe the Blackfriars Road SPD was created specifically to allow Barratt to build that enormous tower in that totally inappropriate location. Anyone (and I know there were a lot of us) who followed the tortuous process of the SPD being doggedly pushed through by the planning committee against huge local objections is highly likely to take the same view.

As residents all we are asking for is that developments respect the local context in terms of building heights and materials, that our heritage buildings are respected and protected, and that the developers come in at the correct levels on affordable housing. Everyone knows that land in this area that was bought in, say, the 1990s and prior to that, was relatively cheap by London standards. Therefore, any developer looking to profit from the Blackfriars Road's "new price tag" shouldn't have to build to anywhere near as tall as 27 storeys in order to make their money back and tons more on top.
Saturday 9 August 2014 11.45pm
pros wrote:
hm, not sure what you mean by 'initiative we're embarking on'?
just so there's no confusion, here's part one of the planning points thing (there's 15, 16 of them in total, forgot to include all the links into that first part)
http://www.peoplesrepublicofsouthwark.co.uk/hold-news/news/3334-the-planning-points

pros, what an excellent piece of work this is. In July I asked for a similar range of information for 2010-present day and have been directed to trawling through the Council's online documents for those years, so I'm guessing you had to do the same kind of trawling for 2013, and it's a huge amount of work. I would love to see the actual data on the voting patterns, particularly for the highly contentious applications; I imagine they would throw important light on the "voting alomg party lines" argument that I hear time and again in my particular part of Southwark.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Current: 3 of 8

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