London SE1 community website

Plans for Jubilee Gardens

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 Next
Current: 2 of 3
Monday 24 April 2006 12.20pm
Yes - that's true, of course. And that does guarantee a litter - free, skateboard free, and to an extent, numbers - hugely - reduced occupation.

But after a brief look at the illustration and reading the description, I can't see anything dramatic in the plans that justifies calling it trophy architecture - it just seems like they're landscaping the lawn, planting trees and putting a path in - of course you can't restrict access to only those that will sit down and read nice books - but I don't see anythign there that would encourage a use of the site in any way other than calming people down.

Of course, maybe I've missed something.
Monday 24 April 2006 5.37pm
Tom Lewis - Reynier wrote:
Of course, maybe I've missed something.

The three metre high concrete boundary walls which are meant to resemble the white cliffs of Dover
Monday 24 April 2006 5.50pm
Sounds awful.

Though I suspect the kids will enjoy the challenge of rock climbing. I love the way that design features get morphed into play equipment. However there is an equal chance, presumably, that these walls will quickly be covered wtih graffitti.

Can we suggest that footholds are formed and some pulleys attached to allow kids to use them as a climbing wall. Better than Legoland.

The plans I saw several months back looked pretty green and uncontentios. I now understand why the Friends group have some issues with the boundaries.

The last Planning Applications Committee which took the Founders Place item was astonishing, and well worth attending. This one looks as if it will be just as interesting.
Monday 24 April 2006 7.21pm
Lang Rabbie wrote:
Tom Lewis - Reynier wrote:
Of course, maybe I've missed something.

The three metre high concrete boundary walls which are meant to resemble the white cliffs of Dover

How do they come up with such nonense? I only hope these cliffs act as a deterrent and keep Blair et al away fom our neighbourhood. In fact I really don't want Al here at all.

But Sarah is correct they will be subverted by some adventurous youths or if we are lucky Banksy. Is Dame Vera Lynn still alive to sing at the inauguration ?
Tuesday 25 April 2006 8.22am
Yes - I've just read the details and seen the description of the walls. I think that they would be disastrous - ripe for graffiti indeed but more just a blank blocking of views and a prescription of the open, breathing space that I envisaged. It says in the details that views into and across the park will be free from all angles - not if you're stood up against a wall that's over 3 metres high they won't.

How do I register my disapproval of them in a way that will help eradicate them ?

I think I will send an e.mail to West 8 (the architects) anyway.
Tuesday 25 April 2006 11.12am
At the end of the Save Some Trees post I have given some links of people who might be able to influence.

There is a sense that this additional planning meeting is an attempt to rush things through before the local elections.

The message to be given to the Planning Committee might be that this is such an improtant site that proper consideration must be given.

Also you could go to the Planning meeting on Thursday, and if you phone the Committee Secretary in advance you can have your three minutes worth of objection. I will be there for the Founders Place item so happy to buy drinks after.
Monday 21 May 2007 3.48pm
Does anyone have any news/updates on this?

I believe that Ted Inmam and SPEG were unable to get any funding and nothing is going to happen now. This seems extraordinary as the site must be one of the most important in London and you would think the Mayor or some other govt./quasi govt. body would be interested in turning it into a garden for the Olympics.

The Hungerford Car Park is even more of an eyesore.

I believe another problem is Shiriyama who has covenants over both sites and no development can hapen unless he releases them.
Monday 21 May 2007 9.40pm
It is all very stange - I had thought the funding was in place when they were trying desperately to get the planning application pushed through thirteen months ago.

South Bank Partnership manifesto wrote:
There is remarkable unanimity on ambitious plans
for Jubilee Gardens, but legal problems may yet
prevent their realisation and there is no guarantee of the necessary funding for a beautiful riverside park.

I know that Shell have covenants preventing any development over the centre of the Gardens, which date back to LCC days, but what legal rights could Shiriyama have???
Tuesday 22 May 2007 9.16am
My understanding is that Shiriyama have rights to build UNDER the gardens, eg car parking. However part of the deal a couple of years back which allowed the project to move forward was that they agreed not to assert their rights, as long as noone else asserted theirs. (It struck me as a clever proposal.)

The proposals did appear to be rushed through. I assumed it had something to do with the ending of the Waterloo SRB. I did then hear that a major Lottery Bid failed. (Given the amount of public funding flowing into East London I woudl have though that there is next to no chance for major funding for another London project perhaps for the next decade.)

There was a Friends of Jubilee Gardens meeting last week but I was not able to attend. There was something on the agenda about terms of reference for a Trust. I did wonder whether the proposals were for a Trust for Jubillee Gardens or for a wider Waterloo Green Spaces trust which, as I see it, has been the ambition of various Waterloo Groups for a while. Dopes anyone know.

I have real reservations about the wider trust, but can see the logic of one for Jubilee Gardens alone. Not least as a way of bringing the various stakeholders together. But the wider one would probably be more sucessful in capturing potential S106 contributions for green space for the wider area and funnelling them into JG.
Tuesday 22 May 2007 4.10pm
Shiriyama have rights to build under Jubilee Gardens which everyone says are worthless because they'd never get planning permission to do so and there is no practical way currently known to build under such as a piece of land. BUT Shiriyama still wants to be paid to give up those rights claiming that it is a private family company and will hang onto them for decades (and even centuries) and things could/will change in that time. Basically they want lots of money and claim they could build a car park or conference centre there in decades to come.

Plus Shiriyama has rights over both the gardens and car park and does exercise those rights over the gardens at least as you can often see their vehicles there. The rights were given to them to use to repair and maintain their building.

Unless some party can negoitate away or buy these rights nothing much can be done on either the car park or Jubilee Gardens - certainly the much publicised design by West 8 could not go ahead.

Shell have rights of view only and don't want tall buildings on the land.

What is needed, I think, is a CPO.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 Next
Current: 2 of 3

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