London SE1 community website

Seven storey hotel on Bermondsey Street

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Current: 6 of 11
Tuesday 21 March 2006 7.15pm
Trevor G

Sorry, I didn't realise it wasn't clear. I was talking about the proposed hotel in Bermondsey Street on the site of what was Titan House.


The Bermondsey Street hotel application was made by Sunlight Projects, a developer, not a hotel. They plan to manage the aparthotel themselves.
Wednesday 26 April 2006 4.07pm
That's great, more jobs for the locals who aren't lucky enough to work in the City etc. I'm sure it won't be as garish as that ghastly Zandra Rhodes building and that horrible development on Leathermarket Street that looks like a Barratt House prison.It's good that local people will be able to share in the success.
Friday 28 April 2006 1.49pm
Aren't Sunlight the people behind the never ending development on TBR next to the Mary Magdalen churchyard?

If this is anything to go by, the hotel won't be ready for another few years yet.
Friday 28 April 2006 3.01pm
Regarding the development in Bermondsey Square - I am not from Bermondsey, but remember jogging down there once, and coming across a really charming square, open on 2 sides, with a nice bush in the middle, with a little path around it - and quaint terraced cottages (with really nice curtains and doors) on the 2 sides. I think this was at the bottom of Bermondsey St., or it may have been Tower Bridge Road. I stopped in my tracks and was taken aback by the other-timeliness of it - and remembered feeling good that a bit of the old community's fabric had been preserved.

Recently I went there again, and unless I am mistaken, the houses and bush seemed to have been demolished and there was a big metal fence blocking outr everything.

Please don't tell me that's really the case.....??
Friday 28 April 2006 4.17pm
Bermondsey square has large terraced houses on two sides, and did have a kind of oval private garden thing in the middle - grass encircled by a hedge with a black iron gate. Not sure if that is the square you are thinking of, as the houses are not particularly cottage-like. The oval garden thing now has a very large pile of earth on it.
Friday 28 April 2006 4.39pm
I think it IS what I am thinking of - and my nostalgia goggles have clouded by perception of the cottage / mansions.

So, has that whole area been bulldozed ? Or have they retained at least the houses ?
Anonymous User
Saturday 29 April 2006 12.38am
The houses are there, nothing has been bulldozed - there is an archaeological dig in the sqaure which has revealed remains of Bermondsey Abbey and the various bulding that have been on the site since.

The remains are being preserved in situ, some of them to be visible under a glass floor.
Saturday 29 April 2006 8.08am
"I've objected to significant loss of light and loss of privacy"

Sorry to tell you this, but it is a major preconception that this is a valid objection. It isn't. You have a right to neither outside what the building regulations provide - that's the building regulations, not planning law.
Saturday 29 April 2006 8.46am
boroughbloke wrote:
"I've objected to significant loss of light and loss of privacy"
Sorry to tell you this, but it is a major preconception that this is a valid objection. It isn't. You have a right to neither outside what the building regulations provide - that's the building regulations, not planning law.

Actually, you can object to a development on the grounds of loss of light and privacy.

Loss of light: there is a measurement of the amount of light that enters windows called the Vertical Sky Component (VSE). The guidelines contained in BRE (Building Research Establishment) Report 209, 1991, 'Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight - a guide to good practice' indicate that new buildings should not reduce the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) by more than 20%. If they do, then you have grounds for objection. The easiest way to find out if this applies to you is to check the plans - most will contain a light assessment report.

Privacy Southwark's UDP and the Southwark Plan both contain protection of amenity policies that cover privacy. Someone in my building had planning permission for a roof terrace refused because "The proposed development would result in an un-neighbourly form of development with the roof terrace leading to overlooking, loss of privacy and loss of amenity for the residents of nearby residential properties. The proposal would therefore prove contrary to policies Policy E.3.1: Protection of Amenity of the Southwark Unitary Development Plan 1995 and Policy 3.2: Protection of Amenity of the Southwark Plan [Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan] March 2004."

Southwark also refused planning permission for a building adjoining my block of flats, giving loss of privacy in adjoining properties as one of the reasons: "The proposed window openings and positioning of balconies and roof terraces of the new building will adversely affect the amenity, in particular through loss of privacy, of the properties in XXX and XXX... and would be contrary to Policy E.3.1 "Protection of Amenity" of the Southwark Unitary Development Plan (adopted July 1995) and Policy 3.2 "Protection of Amenity" of the Southwark PLan [Revised Draft] February 2005."
Wednesday 17 May 2006 12.42pm
Just for anyone who doesn't know the current situation:

1. The revised plans have now been submitted to the council - a reduction in height by 40cm and now a 124 bed hotel.
2. There is still time to object/support - email to planning f.a.o. Michele Sterry but needs to be in the next week.
3. Many of you may not be aware but this 7 storey monster actually includes demolishing the 4.5 storey building that is currently immediately behind the site in Blue Lion Place (the "Generator Building"). That building is only 4 years old and has never been occupied - hardly a good environmental use of resources. The current building work has yet to start demolishing this building.
4. The hotel will apparently have a gym/pool - someone local will be on the receiving end of the pool/aircon outlets and chlorine fumes really do stink.
5. I don't think Bermondsey Street needs a 124 bedroom hotel - something on a smaller scale may be acceptable but not something of this scale. The proposed depth of this building does impact privacy of Royal Oak Yard, BLP and the apartments (Leatherworks ?) on Long Lane.
6. I admit that I am biased as I will lose my view and daylight - I suspect far more than the 20% quoted above but the developers architect wouldn't povide details on who or how their light survey was conducted.

I moved to the area 18 months ago because it was clearly on the up but this, in my opinion, is over-development and greed rather than a sympathetic development that adds to the zone.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Current: 6 of 11
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