Planning for people who live in Southwark now

Further to the above, when I was 16 I started my apprenticeship on £60 per week, my friends were labouring on building sites and getting in excess of £200 per week. There is not a hope in hell of a school leaver getting those jobs in this day and age, London or anywhere else in the country.
There are not the opportunities for these young men that people think. Similar would apply for young women, I have tried numerous hairdressers over the last 10 or so years, all from foreign lands, barmaids, all from foreign lands, these come to the country already trained as do plumbers, electricians etc etc.

Totally agree. As one who ran a building firm, I heard all my guys saying that their kids were going to "go into computers" and I said THEN, skip that, send them to learn a trade. They'll always be able to feed their families. And you know what..they all did. Now the sons are plumbers and electricians and are never out of work.

Well done you Jackie, but although some effort is now being made RE: apprenticeships, for years those opportunities didn't exist and you know what? We now blame the children and call them workshy and feckless, me included.

central london for the right kind of people only? http://www.peoplesrepublicofsouthwark.co.uk/hold-news/news/2809-bedrooms-taxed

Boroughnian,

You are mis-understanding and over-complicating the simplicity of my proposal.

There is no contradiction in allocating Council Housing to local working people.

You refer to the impact of well-educated European migrants on the London job market - but this should not be used as a justification to allow the long-term unemployed to sit around in their Central London subsidised council home.

Change is on its way in any case - the London Assembly is currently investigating the future of Council Estates - including looking at demolition of run-down, energy inefficient estates which do not represent an efficient use of land.

If we are going to house London's growing population - then we are going to need some radical ideas - so let's hope that the GLA come up with some innovative solutions when they report in the Autumn.

Floodplain wrote:

including looking at demolition of run-down, energy inefficient estates which do not represent an efficient use of land.

Gosh, if you really thought that, you would also be fighting to demolish the Roupell St conservation area as these buildings lack cavity walls, and are low density, and will contain, as do "estates", both tenants and owner-occupiers. I imagine the Lloyds building is also hugely energy inefficient.

Where would you draw the line, and why?

The London Assembly investigation looks like a massive waste of taxpayers' money.

At the risk of turning this thread back into one about planning (lets have the debate about council housing in the council housing thread http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/160167)

It's worth pointing out the SE1 news story about what happened to Neighbourhood Planning in Bermondsey http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7803 and then the background to this sorry tale http://yourbermondsey.org/2014/08/neighbourhood-planning-in-bermondsey-the-story-so-far/

This may prove informative

Luke,

I was referring what the GLA Housing Committee are looking at. Their task is to find ways to house London's increasing population. (For the record, I definitely don't think that such a task is waste of taxpayers money.)

There is no information provided on areas or boundaries for their investigation - so you'll have to ask the GLA. If you get an answer, please post it here because that will be very interesting. They do however cite 'Inner London' has having an disproportionately high percentage of social housing in relation to other cities in the UK.

Before you draw any conclusions - I looked into the composition of the Housing Committee and it has only one Conservative member - the remainder are Labour, Green (Chair) and Lib-Dem.

Conservation Areas have no statutory protection from demolition contrary to common belief - for that you need a Listing (e.g. the Lloyds Building) - but even a Listing cannot offer full protection as I think the recent demolition of London Bridge Station exemplifies.

In the end, I think you already know that the State can basically do what it wants, when it puts its mind to it.

Your examples are private property which receive no taxpayer subsidy - I don't have to pay to support the Lloyds Building or Georgian Houses in Lambeth - the building owners have to pay for all repairs.

Council Housing is subsidised by me as a taxpayer - so it is correct that appropriate scrutiny over how it is allocated and planned should involve everyone - that includes (working) tenants and the people who pay for it - taxpayers.

Council Housing should be allocated to local working people.

jpm wrote:

At the risk of turning this thread back into one about planning (lets have the debate about council housing in the council housing thread http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/160167)
It's worth pointing out the SE1 news story about what happened to Neighbourhood Planning in Bermondsey http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7803 and then the background to this sorry tale http://yourbermondsey.org/2014/08/neighbourhood-planning-in-bermondsey-the-story-so-far/

This may prove informative

jpm I think you make a very good point.

I noticed myself that this thread has now departed from its original central theme as started by pros.

Whille there is obviously a clear link between planning and council housing, as you have helpfully pointed out, there was already a separate thread on this forum for the very important issues surrounding council housing.

I think it would make a lot of sense if the council housing discussion were to be brought back into the specific thread that was created for it - especially because people who were folliowing that original thread may well have missed out on all of these posts over the past week about council housing.