London SE1 community website

Berkeley Homes @ Potters Fields & ex-St Olave's Grammar School

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 3 of 47
Thursday 20 September 2007 12.09pm
Fair point, Jonathan.

From a very cursory search I can't find a site-specific policy in the 1995 Southwark Plan.

On the other hand the restrictive covenant mentioned by Lang Rabbie in the previous thread does seem to have some bearing on the situation.

From a report to the Southwark executive in 2004:

The land owned by Berkeley Homes has the benefit of a restrictive covenant over that part of the former coach park now owned by the Council. The restrictive covenant provides that the Council's land is not to be used for any purpose other than for residential purposes.

It seems that this isn't an insurmountable obstacle; does anyone know if the council has tried to get this covenant discharged?

Editor of the London SE1 website.
Subscribe to our SE1 Direct weekly newsletter.
Thursday 20 September 2007 1.09pm
“It has now come to the point where it might be the first time that I use a compulsory purchase order on council-owned land” - If Ken is to pursue with such action not only the Media but the Tory will pick up on such blander. His action would be perceived as abuse of power and in the pocket of large companies.
It would be the downfall of Red Ken! If anything he should be supporting his local government.
Thursday 20 September 2007 6.26pm
Ken, like all communists, is more interested in himself than the community. What is the view from his office window? Why, that wilderness; that's why he wants to see it developed.

I am also led to believe that following a change in ownership restrictive covenants are very hard to enforce.
Thursday 20 September 2007 6.43pm
The Mapmaker wrote:
I am also led to believe that following a change in ownership restrictive covenants are very hard to enforce.

It rather depends on the type of covenant. Positive covenants are very difficult to enforce against successors in title, restrictive ones rather less so.

You might think from looking at the description that James has set out above that the covenant is positive ('the land shall be used as follows'). In fact, it would be considered as restrictive because it limits possible uses for the land.

There are other requirements - the covenant must benefit the land owned by the person seeking to enforce it, and the two bits of land must not have been in common ownership since the covenant was imposed etc.

The Lands Tribunal can modify or discharge the convenant however - and one of the things it is entitled to take into account is a signficant change in the character of the neighbourhood. I suspect More London and City Hall might just qualify... ;-)
Friday 21 September 2007 2.27pm
IIRC the covenant for housing use goes back to the early days of the whole riverside site, when the loss of housing on the St Martins Property site was to be compensated by new build at Potters Field, and that the ownership of the land was transferred to Southwark so that they could implement this. To ensure the land was not just used to maximise financial return the covenent was included as well as a seperate legal agreement to build houses with Berkeley. There was a sort of sqiggily caterpillar housing design proposed at one stage that came to nothing. If this is right then Berkeley could legally oppose any attempt to amend the covenant, and quite rightly so. If it were a private developer and not Southwark Council who owned the land, we would all be shouting to get the promised housing built, ( though maybe not the dalek towers or squiggly caterpillar designs ) in the interests of fairness and mixed use riverside.

And if Southwark want to develop the site as a cultural centre, then they should tackle the land issues head on, agree a payment to Berkeley for the cancellation of the legal agreement, and get to the courts to get the land free from encumberances. Because if they don't, all this work by those developing alternative ideas is wasted effort, and the 'compromise' will be that Berkeleys will eventually build almost exactly what they want.
Friday 21 September 2007 8.21pm
Ken Livingston Is trying to frighten away any interesting proposals for the site like the Hill and the Sports museum,
So much for his supposed support for the Olympics,
Surely it would bring UNESCO back if ken Livingston Did that.

Also I don't think Ken Livingston will still be the Mayor this time next year.
He Mustn't be aloud to wreck London be for he is kicked out.
Saturday 22 September 2007 6.56pm
I forgot to mention It must also be time for a demonstration of sorts
I was going to say a march to city hall , but from Potters Fields that wouldn't be very far.
May be Downing st to hand in a letter.
Sunday 23 September 2007 1.30pm
What you should know is that Stanton's claim in response to the mayor's CPO, that ‘we will fight them all the way' is a sham. Councillor Stanton and his boss Annie Shepperd have been caving in for months to Ken's pressure and using our land at Potter's Fields to become Residential property developers. As you read this they are planning to sell our land without our permission for lots of money to Berkeley Homes for an even bigger residential development. Ask anyone who works in the Berkeley Homes office at St Olave's School. Give them a call.

Not only are Stanton and Shepperd offering to sell our land to Berkeley Homes they are willing to INCREASE the amount of residential space that Berkeley Homes can build to beyond the current “Dalek” levels so that even more money can be made from the sale of private apartments. We can forget its ‘mainly cultural' use.

Stanton's hypocrisy is mind boggling, particularly after his 5 wasted years without finding a cultural user for the site and the money the Council has spent on legal fees and a new Unitary Development Plan that designates Potters Fields for “MAINLY CULTURAL USE”. All hot air!

Shepperd and Stanton don't care a jot about the residents of Southwark who live around Potters Fields or, more importantly, for the future generations of Southwark residents who will have to live with the consequences of their actions. All they care about now is raising as much money as they can from Berkeley Homes Residential apartments.

Surely there must be somebody left in Southwark who can explain to Stanton and Shepperd and the Officers involved that this is WRONG!
Sunday 23 September 2007 5.35pm
"Ask anyone who works in the Berkeley Homes office"

I wouldn't believe what they say!
Sunday 23 September 2007 10.36pm

Ahh good an image that works at last.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 3 of 47

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