Given that the Berkeley Homes towers on the old coach park at Tower Bridge have got planning permission now, rather than trying to overturn that entirely why not try to modify the plans in favour of locals by arguing for the tops of the towers to be made into greenhouse roof gardens open to locals for free - and to tourists if they pay a bit. You could link the tops of the towers by suspension bridge walkways and create a garden in the sky. Hell of a tourist attraction (Southwark might even like it - they want an "attraction" on the site) and you could reserve it for local residents during evenings. It would actually extend the Potters Fields green space rather than contract it and it could give everyone in the area a great shared amenity which tourists could pay to maintain and Berkeley Homes to build. A bit nutty perhaps but any support for this out there ?
As I recall, when the GLA building was being planned, the space at the top of the building was punted as 'Londons Living Room' and was going to have a cafe, open to the public at all times ... now it's a venue for Ken's glad-handing of various bigots and hug-ins ... the public have access for extremely limited periods which aren't excatly well-publicised.
No because Southwark council have a good plan for the site based in its importance in relation to the south bank and Tower Bridge ,and they should be allowed to do it with out interference from central government.
The Berkeley development would consign the park to no more than a grass verge around a housing development. that's not good enough with or without token gestures.
With regards to Paul's comments about the GLA building what do people here think about restrictions now put in place to many public building due to 'security reasons'?
To me it seems ridiculous that we cannot get access to many places now due to terrorist threat. I think the post office tower, Canary Wharf, the GLA building and quite a few more all had public viewing areas that are now unavailable due to the perceived danger.
Do we all not think that if a terrorist decided they wanted to blow a building up they would do it anyway? And by closing down these areas is in a way giving in?
Also what about using the same reason to take bins away from stations.
I remember about 10 years ago the Standard did a small piece on By-Laws, which mentioned that pubs by right had to allow non-customers to use the toilets, and I saw people whipping a cut out copy of the article when confronted by landlords. I think the By-Law got changed due to the increased IRA activity at the time but I could be mistaken. I know it's going off the original topic but again with elderly relatives who come to visit regularly it's a nightmare finding a public loo when you are out and about.