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

    • We’ve got a gap on the roof of our shed that needs patching  don’t want to buy a huge roll so hoping someone has some leftover  happy to collect/reimburse 
    • I never said I thought it was targeted or deliberate. There also has never been a “stand off” or confrontation, we’ve spoken to them in a friendly manner about it. Our experience is they don’t seem to care. That’s the frustrating thing for us, if someone politely raises a concern at least take a second to reflect. Treat others how you would want to be treated.  I don’t want them to lose their job, far from it. But considering it could cost me a days work to fix any damage, I’m within my right to try prevent it.   
    • The SE22 Evri delivery family are lovely, and always say hello wherever we spot them in the area. We gave them a box of chocolates during Covid as they were working their socks off at Christmas
    • What was he doing on the stage at Glastonbury? Or on the stage at the other concert in Finsbury Park? Grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst pissed and stoned 20 somethings on the promise of free internet sung-- Oh Jeremy Corbyn---  What were his policies for Northern mining towns with no jobs or infrastructure? Free Internet and university places for youngsters. What were his other manifesto pledges? Why all the ambiguity over Brexit?  I didn't like Thatcher, Blair or May or Tony but I respected them as politicians because they stood by what they believed in. I respect all politicians across the board that stick to their principles. Corbyn didn't and its why he got  annihilated at the polls. A socialist, anti imperialist and anti capitalist that said he voted for an imperialist and pro capitalist cabal. He refused to say how he'd vote over and over again until the last knockings. He did so to appease the Islington elite and middle class students he was courting. The same people that were screaming that Brexit was racist. At the same time the EU were holding black and Asian immigrants in refugee camps overseas but not a word on that! Corbyn created and courted a student union protest movement that screamed at and shouted down anyone not on the left . They claimed Starmer and the centre right of labour were tories. He didn't get elected  because he, his movement and policies were unelectable, twice. He turned out not to have the convictions of his politics and died on his own sword.    Reform won't win an election. All the idiots that voted for them to keep out Labour actually enabled Labour. They'll be back voting tory next time.    Farage wouldn't be able to make his millions if he was in power. He's a very devious shyster but I very much doubt he'd actually want the responsibility that governance requires.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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