London SE1 community website

Social Cleansing in Southwark

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Current: 5 of 10
Wednesday 29 October 2014 12.53pm
Floodplain wrote:
Until I manage to get hold of this Stirling Ackroyd report the following is Pure speculation, however, a number of clues keep pointing to the Rockingham Estate.
This estate lies inside the Elephant and Castle opportunity area - a planning designation specifically aimed at promoting new development.

Secondly, it lies within the Chaucer Ward - possibly the largest estate in the Chaucer Ward under Southwark Council control? The Stirling Ackroyd report cites Chaucer as the ward with the greatest potential for intensification of housing development.

Thirdly, the estate is comprised of several large open areas between the blocks of varying decades in the twentieth century which are not optimised for either open space nor housing.
Wednesday 29 October 2014 12.56pm
Meant to put the little adventure playground dickens square is sure to go.
Wednesday 29 October 2014 2.19pm
Anyone who wishes to get some protection for any open space then value in their locality should send a representation to the consultation for the New Southwark Plan that is coming along very soon.

Walk around, note and map open spaces. And hassle your ward councillors too (for what it's worth).

It's quite simple and easy to do.

Then your wish to protect a space can be considered by a Planning Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. The best hope, not withstanding legal action.
Wednesday 29 October 2014 11.36pm
Building on local open spaces?

Here's what it says in the London Plan:

Improving Londonís open environment

3D.8 Realising the value of open space and green infrastructure

The Mayor will work with strategic partners to protect, promote and improve access to London's network of open spaces, to realise the current and potential value of open space to communities, and to protect the many benefits of open space, including those associated with health, sport and recreation, children's play, regeneration, the economy, culture, biodiversity and the environment.
Wednesday 29 October 2014 11.40pm
Building on open spaces?

Here's what the National Planning Policy Framework says:


Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities. Planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. The assessments should identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in the local area. Information gained from the assessments should be used to determine what open space, sports and recreational provision is required.


Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless:

an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or
the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or
the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss.


Local planning authorities should:

set out a strategic approach in their Local Plans, planning positively for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of biodiversity and green infrastructure;...

Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 37-005-20140306
What is Local Green Space designation?

Local Green Space designation is a way to provide special protection against development for green areas of particular importance to local communities.

Paragraph: 022 Reference ID: 37-022-20140306
Can a Local Green Space be registered as an Asset of Community Value?

Land designated as Local Green Space may potentially also be nominated for listing by the local authority as an Asset of Community Value. Listing gives community interest groups an opportunity to bid if the owner wants to dispose of the land.
Wednesday 29 October 2014 11.57pm
just for the record, the camberwell green orchard (with established fruit trees, shrubs etc) was, in council's books, not a 'green space' at all (i think they referred to it as 'vacant land' or something equally unbelievable).
Thursday 30 October 2014 11.01am
The new residential tower being built next to the Shard with no affordable housing is a disgrace. The Qatari consortium successfully managed to convince councillers that because they had to adapt the building for the poor entrance it would make it look ugly. WTF ?

So instead they barter a deal to increase the affordable housing % from 25 to 35% for a development in Peckham ?

How much money has gone under the table for this to happen ?
Thursday 30 October 2014 12.43pm
jinkazama wrote:
The new residential tower being built next to the Shard with no affordable housing is a disgrace

Keeping this here, instead of the related thread... Couple of questions..

Is any existing affordable housing being demolished to make way for this?

What does your 'original' 25% affordable housing represent i.e. where did you get that number from?
Thursday 30 October 2014 1.50pm
The new residential tower being built next to the Shard with no affordable housing is a disgrace.

Really? Do you know any of the actual details?

There are 148 apartments & lets say 25% should be affordable to make the calculations easy. You can then force the developer to make 37 affordable apartments. If they lowered the rents and offered the flats to doctors / teacher then everyone would be happy. But why not explore an alternative?

Let's say each affordable flat is 500k less than the market rate: 37 x 0.5mn = 18.5mn. So rather than providing 37 apartments you take this 18.5mn (actually 18.8mn) and build 100 apartments somewhere else in the borough. There is no point saying it should be next to the site as land prices are the same. If the developer doesn't build the apartments then they have to pay 18.8mn in cash to the council. anyways

Genuine question: with the alternative site, are they building 37 apartments or are they building more? If they are building 37 apartments, then yes, I agree this is unfair but if they are providing 100 homes somewhere else in the borough rather than 37 apartments in one of the most expensive places in the world then it makes sense to me.
Thursday 30 October 2014 5.55pm
Came across this article just now in the Guardian online.
Be interested in what others think
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Current: 5 of 10
Related news & features

To post a message, please log in or register..
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