London SE1 community website

Founders Place Development - Appeal

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Current: 5 of 6
Tuesday 12 December 2006 11.49pm
Loafer,

Have you read the current or about to be adopted UDP.....

The about to be adopted (eg final draft deposit) UDP says that the Holy Trinity Centre MUST be preserved. This language was strengthened by the Planning Inspector. In his report to Lambeth he confirmed that this was a statutory position.

The rest of the land can be used for Park expansion, or compensation should be paid.

Have you actually been inside the Holy Trinity Centre? It is genuinely lovely.

Should you be using words like objective or strident if you are not familiar with the documents themselves. As far as I am aware, I was the only member of the Friends Committee who attended all the various site visits, planning meetings, and even the UDP meetings. Please give me credit for being on top of the detail.

I have offered to take you through the relevent documents. That offer remains. I have no particular motive, other than to try to preserve the setting of the park. On a personal level I feel that developers do hold many of the cards in the planning process. I do think it is right that local people should articulate local concerns. The best outcome is a proper Balance between the needs of the developer (and we wait with interest to see who the developer actually is - St George or Berkeley Homes seem the obvious) and the needs of the community.

In many ways it does not matter what the Friends group decides. They, rightly or wrongly, see themselves representing a wide group of users, from Blackfriars to Walton on Thames. It was noticeable that despite concerns expressed at the AGM, proxy votring was enforced on the group, and there was not attempt to ask for declarations of interest.

We all have our own views. Loafer may feel safer if people can look out over his kids when they are playing in the Archbishops playground. This is valid and seemed to be the prevailing view amongst those who attended the Friends of Archbishops Park AGM. But I am confident there are lots of local people who prefer green to yet more flats. The planning process allows everyone to contribute.

I recognise this sounds a little agressive. It is not meant to be. Would Loafer feel the same if a similar development threatened the trees and privacy within his own garden, rather than in a park 20 or so minutes walk away from where he lives. From what I can see, the real division seems to be between those who have access to private gardens and those who dont. Simple really for the 95% without gardens, the park is the chance our kids have to enjoy calm and green.

Given the number of misunderstandings about the planning process that seem to prevail amongst members of the Friends group (Loafer is on the Committee and Fred has said that he was standing, and I assume, if he is who I think he is, was elected) it would be nice if I could see the draft consultation. The version shown at the AGM was barmy, and only referred to the one of the two grounds on which the applicaiotn was rejected. Not the one that is relevent to park users.

I wait with anticipation.......
Wednesday 13 December 2006 1.03am
loafer wrote:
THEREFORE, whether or not THIS development gets approval, a development is extremely likely to take place on the site. The existing buildings on the site are of no particular architectural merit, and certainly not enough to warrant not providing homes to over 1,000 people, plus the other service provisions proposed.


But wasn't THIS development rejected by the council? My understanding is that the arguments are against these particular plans, rather than development per se.

loafer wrote:
GIVEN that any development will need to meet British Standards for the protection of the trees and so on, just as this one does, the arguements all boil down to whether this development design is acceptable or abhorrent.

Highlighting mine.

But wasn't THIS development rejected by the council?

So presumably the council didn't think this development met all the legal requirements, and didn't find the designs acceptable.

loafer wrote:

Now, whilst wanting more of something or less of something is great in theory, it is pointless if the development complies with policies. We live in a democratic society, we have rules and processes. We need to live with the consequences.

BUT WASN'T THIS DEVELOPMENT REJECTED BY THE COUNCIL? Presumably, if it had complied with all its policies, they'd have had no grounds to reject planning permission.

And you can't say that the fact it has gone to appeal means the council didn't have sufficient grounds to reject the proposal - many of us who live in SE1 know that developers will take things to appeal even when there aren't sufficient grounds for doing so simply because they have the money to do so, and know that ordinary people, and councils, don't have the money to continually fight these appeals.

Loafer - are you arguing in support of THIS development, or in support of development of the site in general?
Wednesday 13 December 2006 7.18am
Sarah - I stand corrected - the Holy Trinity building is mentioned in the UDP as being of merit and that it should be retained. (Policy MDO121).

If the FoAP decide to object, I have no doubt that I will spend part of Christmas reading the UDP. I will come to my own conclusions, however, but thanks for the offer.

You won't see the consultation until you vote on it. I'll get my crystal ball out and guess you won't like it, but then I don't think that is much of a leap given you are at one end of a bi-polar arguement.

TLMJJ - I have made my position extremely clear. On Balance I don't mind the development. What more do you want me to say? Do you want detailed policy statements from the Loafer household?!

I can't recall whether the planning officers supported the proposed development - I am sure Sarah can remind me, it was before I got involved. Whether or not they did, planning policy is a mish mash of conflicts (note that MDO121 says to keep Holy Trinity and then talks about the scale of buildings on redevelopment!), and it is rare that a site such as this will comply completely with every policy because of these conflicts.

I would be interested to know what you and Sarah want on the site. Perhaps you could let everyone know....?

Loafer
Wednesday 13 December 2006 9.04am
Just to clarify, when I wrote "Strident" in reference to Sarah, it was not meant as an insult. I meant definition 2 below, not 1!

stri·dent [ strd'nt ]


adjective

Definition:

1. loud: harsh, loud, grating, or shrill
strident tones of voice


2. strongly expressed: loudly, strongly, or urgently expressed
strident opposition


[Mid-17th century. < Latin strident-, present participle of stridere "creak"]


stri·dence noun
stri·den·cy noun
stri·dent·ly adverb


Apologies for any confusion.

Regards,

Loafer
Wednesday 13 December 2006 9.58am
Fred wrote:
The tree issue is a dead issue so far as this planning appeal is concerned.

With respect Fred this really is for the inspector to decide and not you. Sarah and others (including myself) still have concerns about the trees. The planning process is absolutely the appropriate (indeed only) place to raise these. The developers have been saying all along that the development posed no risk to the trees yet a couple of important concessions (pushing the development back 3m and removing the balconies) have since been made on this point (the first because of changing minimum standards the second presumably because of pressure from people like Sarah). These concessions may have been enough to satisfy you (indeed you may have been satisfied without these concessions) but others will make up their own minds and bring their points of view to the inspector.
Wednesday 13 December 2006 10.24am
Loafer I dont understand what you are saying.

The Holy Trinity Centre does not take up the whole of the Northern boundary of the park. Lambeth planning policy for this area is quite clear. The 24 storeys was for the northern part of the site. It needed to be lower at the southern part. Otherwise it would overshadow both the Holy Trinity Centre and the parks trees. (And the view from Lambeth Palace!)

There is absolutely no reason why I could not be shown the consultation paper before it goes out, and be given the opportunity to ensure there were on factual errors. (You yourself agree that you are not up to speed on the detail.)

It is not extreme that I would want to support Lamebth's position on a developemnt that breaches their current and future planning policy.

And I dont think it is odd that I am concerned that a paper written by you Fred and a few others, will determine the policy of a group who is there for speak up the park and its users.

PLus I don't think it is for the Loafer household to decide over Christmas what line anyone, other the Loafer household, should take on this appeal.
Wednesday 13 December 2006 10.39am
That's it. I have been pushed too far. I am fed up with being berated and I will not engage in this discussion any more.

If you are so certain of the validity of your arguements, then make you own representations the developers haven't got a chance.

No doubt, if your representations fail, it will all be a conspiracy, but we'll cross that mental health bridge when we come to it.

Just to be clear, if anyone wishes to make a personal representation to the appeal, they are due in to the planning inspectorate by the 4th January.

I will, with others at the FoAP, help draft any representations required by the members following the consultation. I will not be discussing these on this board.

Happy Christmas.

Loafer
Wednesday 13 December 2006 11.07am
Wow.

I have tried to be as factual as I can. As has Neil. I recognise that I was very frustrated by your post last night and was probably quite sharp, and you too have acknowledged that the first meaning of the word strident is quite offensive.

But "mental-health bridge" and more. I would suggest you reread some of Fred's posts. I am informed, tell me if I am wrong, that your worked with Fred on drafting the consultaiton document. And presumably the two of you will lead on the Friends group approach to the appeal.

Again this is a statutory process. Lambeth feel that the current proposals contradict their planning policies. I agree. So do others. You may have different views.

There is no reason either to take it personally or to be personal. JQL disagreed with me quite strongly but was happy to to share his knowledge and opinions, in a way which may provide opportunity to protect the trees even if the current refusal is over-turned. I have attempted to correct some of your statements, and you have acknowledged that I was right on some (MDO 121).

I am very happy for you and Fred to continue posting. The aim is to clarify facts and prevent misconceptions. As a member of the Committee, who needs to hit the ground running on a difficult area, this forum represents an important opportunity.

But we all need to keep it factual, and echoing James, make sure that there is a degree of openess and honesty. Here I should say that this almost certainly applies to Fred rather than you.
Wednesday 13 December 2006 12.07pm
Sarah,

I don't give a flying fig if you are "happy" for me to continue posting. It's not your forum or your decision. I am choosing to disengage.

I think you will do better on your own - after all if you get rid of opposing views, you always win the arguement.

Loafer
Wednesday 13 December 2006 12.49pm
I've got some of the old toys left for you loafer, if yo've thrown all yours out the pram.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Current: 5 of 6

This thread has been closed
Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

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