Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Was just looking at the agenda for next week?s Cabinet meeting: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7042.


One of the Lib Dem councillors has tabled a motion calling on the Council to rethink its current policy of addressing the housing shortage in the borough by building on green spaces in existing estates, and that these green spaces be protected: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s99857/Report%20Motions.pdf


I haven?t seen much discussion of the issue on here even though there?s a fair bit about it in local newspapers and social media so thought I?d flag for general awareness, I?m not quite sure where I think the balance between the conflicting policy goals lies - my instinct is to favour protecting the green spaces but I?m not sure I know enough of the background detail to be sure about particular developments.


Some background articles


https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/campaigners-protest-against-plans-to-build-on-a-much-loved-green-space-in-peckham/


https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/peckham-green-protesters-feel-new-hope-after-southwark-council-cancels-nearby-developments/

There's a lot of conflation in the campaign with infilling on estates (which it seems to me is problematic unless residents are on board and compensated) and other developments. So I absolutely get why eg Brenchley residents were up in arms. But then the some of the same campaigners (eg XR Southwark) also seem to be campaigning against building anywhere else, including on what seems to me to be a brown field site near Burgess Park. There are other areas such as "Peckham Green" where the choice is between keeping a seldom used grassed over area which once contained lots of housing, and building around 100 council homes. There is potential there for a new small park, which people would no doubt use. But then in the middle of a severe housing crisis the goal of around 100 new council homes is perhaps more needed. Lots of bad faith on all sides. And the Leo Pollak incident undermined trust in Southwark horribly.
My understanding of the background is:- When Southwark sold the land they owned near the River, they justified not using it themselves to build housing, on the grounds that they could get a high price for their land in the North of the borough, so would use the proceeds to build their own new housing on land they already owned in the south of the borough, where the land has less value.

Glad you've brought this to the fore legalalien.


Back in February my very vulnerable family member was posted lots of glossy leaflets by Southwark Council about how they are looking to build more social homes on top of blocks of flats in the area i.e. the Denmark Hill Estate.


Family member is on the fourth floor with no lift. The plans are for lifts to be built and new flats to be plonked on top of the fourth, fifth, sixth etc. floors where these blocks of flats go to.


Where there are any green spaces or garage spaces the Council wants that too for development.

Flat owners have building on top of current flats.


The problem for both issues is it won't be done tastefully with nice looking buildings that don't damage the neighbouring buildings - it'll be cheap tat that may catch fire or flood or cause noise issues.

  • 5 months later...

For those who followed the Leo Pollak incident, the external solicitors?s report into whether his behaviour breached the Code of Conduct is now on the website


https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7252.


The draft report apparently found that all of the anonymous tweeting activity was outside the scope of the Code, the final one concludes that the tweets relating to specific housing projects that the councillor was involved with were within scope, but the content of the tweets was such that there was no breach, but operating anonymously in that specific context was problematic.


Interesting discussion of the law relating to freedom of speech in this context. And also worth noting that sometimes a political remedy (public outcry leading to resignation) is more effective than a legal one.

"Complainant states that...the use of the word "nimbyism" was offensive".


He was obviously being provocative and rude, but it's stretching it to claim that being called a NIMBY is offensive. It's hardly an epithet or swearword.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
    • Most countries charge for entry to museums and galleries, often a different rate for locals (tax payers) and foreign nationals. The National Gallery could do this, also places like the Museums in South Kensington, the British Library and other tax-funded institutions. Many cities abroad add a tourist tax to hotel bills. It means tourists help pay for public services.
    • Having just been to Co-op to redeem a 50p off Co-op members' card voucher on an item that is now 50p more than it was last week, Tesco can't come soon enough
    • Surely that depends on the amount.  It can be quite piffling.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...