One Tower Bridge

Gavin - that was the intention, but Southwark seem to have decided to retain an interest in the land.

From the 3 February planning committee report:

Quote:

Ownership of the One Tower Bridge site is split between Berkeley Homes and the Council. The legal agreement currently binds Berkeley's half of the site. At the time that the legal agreement was entered into, it was envisaged that the cuncil's [sic] half would be transferred to Berkeley, at which point Berkeley would enter into a supplemental deed to ensure that the Section 106 agreement bound all of its interest in the site (i.e. both halves of the site).
[snipped for brevity]

Berkeley Homes advise that the cuncil's [sic] interest in the site has never been transferred to them and so the One Tower Bridge development continues to be administered by the joint venture between the Berkeley's and the cuncil [sic]. It is understood that this arrangement will continue and that there are no foreseeable plans for the council's interest to be transferred to Berkeley.

This of course raises the interesting prospect of the council itself being part-landlord of the controversial no-social-tenants garden.

Apologies, James, on re-reading your previous post, I now understand that the Corporation's ceding of the land to Southwark for the purposes of building council homes 'awards' LBS the formal status of having commissioned these further 43 properties, albeit this was an unanticipated benefit to the Council, inasmuch as they gained land which they would not otherwise have had on which to build homes, thanks to the Corporation's decision.

I completely agree with Zoe that access should be a small matter, but this is my point - property developers inflate the price of inner-London homes by providing a guarantee to prospective buyers that they will not have to actually encounter/be aware of low-income local residents.

When the Isle of Dogs was being gentrified, it was proudly boasted that, in effect, incoming rich residents never 'set foot' on the Island, in that they drove into underground garages in the basement of their developments, and thus never had to enter public space.

jimfearnley wrote:

Apologies, James, on re-reading your previous post, I now understand that the Corporation's ceding of the land to Southwark for the purposes of building council homes 'awards' LBS the formal status of having commissioned these further 43 properties, albeit this was an unanticipated benefit to the Council, inasmuch as they gained land which they would not otherwise have had on which to build homes, thanks to the Corporation's decision.

I'm not sure where you get that from. The corporation hasn't ceded the land to Southwark and the homes were not commissioned by LBS.

Horace Jones House remains City property and the homes are part of Guildhall's housing stock, not 160 Tooley Street's.

In regard to Horace Jones House, Southwark is simply acting as the planning authority.

Here's a map I made a few years ago showing the approximate land ownership:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zRUPOZkHzwpk.kLOzwEFMhO2k

Horace Jones House is the bit on the right that is not shaded, next to the 'A100' label on TBR.

(The map was made before the City Corporation land was brought into the equation, hence it is not labelled.)

The disputed garden is in the middle of the Southwark plot of land.

Thanks, James, I think it was your previous use of the term 'council homes' rather than the more generic 'social housing' that led to my subsequent incorrect assumptions and confusion.

Cheers James. Good on Southwark in that respect.

Is the £10m that Southwark made in selling their option to build their own council housing on the site ring-fenced for housing development costs (elsewhere) or does it simply go into the general budget? Zoe, maybe you could help us out here?

Jim - it's ring-fenced for Southwark's programme to build new council homes across the borough.

The specific cash from 1TB was allocated toward some of the first 1,000 such homes back in 2012: http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/6383

Karen I wrote:

That's a bit nasty Davies.

But is it in any way inaccurate?

Zoe wrote:

Just in response to Davies, council housing is self funding, no taxes are being used, so your taxes are not paying for this housing. The housing revenue account for councils is a stand alone fund and legally can't be charged to council tax.
Some people actually argue that it is housing residents who are paying to subsidise council tax payers, as they pay council tax and if they live on an estate, pay again for lighting, cleaning and their bins to be emptied, which is covered in the council tax for those who live in streets.

This is a lot of fuss about 43 residents, just let them have access to the garden.

So you are personally guaranteeing that the occupants of these 43 1M pound flats, i.e. 43 million pounds worth of property which seems to me worth making a little bit of a fuss about, won't buy them cheap under right to buy and sell them off at vast profit and its all fine because it doesn't affect how much tax I pay? And meanwhile lets worry about their garden access?

I do know that there is a two tier arrangement for Council Tenants and everyone else where Council Tenants get garages and things cheap and free pest control and anyone else out there gets to pay extra to subsidise them.

Zoe can you explain why I have to pay so much more to hire a garage and can't get pest control just because I'm not a council tenant and I frankly don't believe my council and income tax doesn't go to subsidise all this.
Please be so kind as to provide links to the relevant documents to substantiate your argument.
I thank you in advance because I don't keep up with this stuff, I just always feel I'm paying and paying for no benefit to me I can see, and and I genuinely want to know.