London SE1 community website

Councillor Stanton's Failure at Potter's Field

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 2 of 16
Friday 25 May 2007 6.38pm
Councillor Stanton does not deserve this vitriol. I posted a message on another thread recently that he has assured me (as one of the original protestors)that the buildings would not be built and at the opening of the Park last week it was apparent that BH had indeed moved off the site. He has been against the development from the outset. Hopefully one day soon he will be bale to present an alternative scheme for the site which we can all accept.
Friday 25 May 2007 6.50pm
I agree wholeheartedly with Alan on this. In these situations it is often the case that the powerful developers overcome local councils, but Nick has been doing everything possible to prevent this happening and it looks like (hopefully) he has been successful.
Friday 25 May 2007 7.08pm
I'd like to add that my small experience of Clr. Stanton while dealing with him in relation to the Potters Fields license has been good and I am certainly not a LibDem. He's been prompt, courteous, hard-working and constructive.
Friday 25 May 2007 7.09pm
duplicate
Friday 25 May 2007 10.59pm
Pardon my interjection but what exactly is this thread about.
Saturday 26 May 2007 1.07am
david200 wrote:
Yes Des but do we just want a housing estate on the Potter's Field site for rich Arabs?

My word, just listen to yourself.

Let alone that this is not 70s... if you must stereotype then at least get it right, ok?
Saturday 26 May 2007 6.56am
Neil, I doubt the original OP cares. They're just venting venom and Cllr. Stanton seems as good a punch bag as any for someone so clearly misinformed.

As far as I'm aware the facts are that most of the site is owned by Southwark Council with a portion owned by Berkley Homes. Berkley Homes applied for planning permission to develop the entire site as a residential development.

Southwark Council refused to grant planning permission. Berkley then appealed to The Planning Inspectorate, and having being reviewed by them it reached the in tray of John Prescott, on whose sole discretion any such appeal is ultimately decided. Mr Prescott overruled Southwark's rejections and granted permission anyway.

Of course, none of this changes the fact that L. B. Southwark still owns most of the site and while they do the proposed development is dead in the water.
Saturday 26 May 2007 8.05am
Does anyone have a map showing which land belongs to whom?

What is to stop Southwark making their land part of Potters Fields even if on temporary loan?

Why does Southwark have to do anything with Berkeley?

Anyway having this prime, publicly owned site boarded up for years feels wrong.
Saturday 26 May 2007 8.47am
As I have frequently said on this Forum, John Prescott always did what Tony Pidgely wanted (I leave you to speculate why this was) and simply told his inspectors to pass whatever came up against opposition from councils or residents. Councils, alas, have no money. Hence to fight the appeals is too expensive for them which is why the developers always get their way. They have unlimited funds for expensive lawyers which no council nor residents association could possibly raise. This is at the root of all these failed protests by people against OTT developments, of which Potters Fields is a perfect example. Furthermore, what the developers do is to sit quietly and wait for the protesters to take their eye off the ball assuming that they've won the day. Then they whack in another plan, almost, but not quite, identical to the previous one and it slips through because everyone is too weary to take up cudgels again. Watch this space.
Saturday 26 May 2007 9.26am
cholmondeley wrote:
What is to stop Southwark making their land part of Potters Fields even if on temporary loan?

Well it wouldn't be a loan since it's their own land anyway. That aside, money is most likely the reason they don't. A park is not as cheap as you might imagine. Moreover, if they did cover it in grass the precedent of it being grass, however scruffy, will have been set and it will be ever harder down the line to develop it because anyone and everyone locally will raise merry hell about the loss of amenity.

cholmondeley wrote:
Why does Southwark have to do anything with Berkeley?

They don't. However, they don't have the money to do anything at all with it without a private sector developer in tow who will want absolutely, definitely, and as profitably as possible, to build either flats or offices on a significant portion of the site.

cholmondeley wrote:
Anyway having this prime, publicly owned site boarded up for years feels wrong.

I couldn't agree more and in my mind perhaps the most tragic thing that could happen to it is for it to become a 'park' because no one could agree on what to do with it. I'm sure others will disagree, but a park here would be a euphemism for another one of those random, unkempt, bits of green space that seems to serve no purpose other than as a canine toilet or a place for drug dealers and vagrants to sleep and associate. We have enough of them already.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 2 of 16

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