please empty your brain below
Is there anything in the documents about 'exception housing'? This is the more valuable designation as it restricts sales to a particular demographic, and can cover shared ownership (and all its modern variant) schemes. Much more useful in providing local housing for local people on modest incomes.
Consultation. A tick-box exercise. Discuss.
In Harrow there is quite a swish multistorey Morrison's which maybe shows what you can do.
Thanks for DG for highlighting this - it is more than a local issue because of the planned obstruction to the A12.
However, unless the Blackwall tunnel itself were upgraded (or supplemented) (which in spite of plans I consider unlikely) then the new lights will not have much impact on southbound through traffic, which is nearly always queued solid.
But whatever happened to wide pedestrian overbridges?
As a local resident, I can assure you it isn't.
I'll put my crayons away now. There's no money for this type of thing!
East of central London, Blackwall stands alone in providing a free, dual-lane route between north and south. Want to take goods from, say, Beckenham to Chingford? Blackwall is really the only option.
Queues of traffic cause pollution and waste time. The approaches to Blackwall, because of its unique position, should be kept as free as possible.
The phrase 'housing crisis' in para 5 is misleading. 'population problem' would be more accurate.
Isn't "affordable housing" just something that's on paper anyway? There are frequent occasions where, at the last minute, developers tell the local council (who agreed the plans) that they can longer afford to create x% of affordable housing and it seems that there's nothing the council can do about it. The same goes for other 'bribes' to the council such as proving a health centre, new road, or whatever to get planning permission, knowing that they can easily get out of it afterwards.
Regarding the article, I assume that Tesco doesn't own the land that there store is on (they usually try to buy the land - often far more than they need). If they do, is it effectively a compulsory purchase?
dg writes: Tesco sold the supermarket site to British Land last year. Four other landowners own the remainder of the masterplan site.
New river crossings east of Tower Bridge are a long way away. While none of them are foregone conclusions (nor is Silvertown Tunnel), London's population will grow, needing housing and mobility. So traffic will increase on all routes unless it is managed better. This means better use of road space for buses among other things. That in turn means more bus garages which TfL is throwing away by being forced to sell off its 'non-operational' land.
This is an integrated problem, which a singular body like the legacy Corporation is incapable of handling.
"Beckenham to Chingford? Blackwall is really the only option."
The AA, Google, and via Michelin all show Blackwall as the recommended option, but by no means the only one.
Between them they show four other possibilities, none of them taking much longer (although all the times, particularly those via Blackwall, need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt). Two routes via Dartford (and either the A13 or the Lea Valley), and one each via Vauxhall Bridge and London Bridge.
This would make sense if there was a wider plan to calm traffic on the A12, but that's unlikely as the bit from Bow to Hackney was built as an urban motorway.
Some lights were installed further down the A12 a few years ago to allow the 309 bus to cross, but it does seem very odd that we're being lectured that we need new roads to allow traffic to move faster, yet there's a proposal to slow traffic down in one of the worst-polluted corners of London.
Other than the SIL or special industrial land aka concrete batching works tagged on to the plan which will otherwise ruin a reasonably workable residential scheme
Isn't "affordable housing" just something that's on paper anyway? There are frequent occasions where, at the last minute, developers tell the local council (who agreed the plans) that they can longer afford to create x% of affordable housing and it seems that there's nothing the council can do about it. The same goes for other 'bribes' to the council such as proving a health centre, new road, or whatever to get planning permission, knowing that they can easily get out of it afterwards."
Yes Rogmi. These 'gentlemen's alternations to planning T&Cs' are frequently done under S106 agreements. You have perfectly summed up what is (IMHO) the major problem with planning in this country.
What is built rarely accords with what is agreed. And it's not just large-scale developers that now use this trick - savvy householders use the same tactics and, basically, anyone can now build anything they want, wherever they want, provided that they are prepared to push the system (which includes doing things in stages, getting permission for one thing, then adding a bit more on, and then a bit more, and/or building something a bit differently to what is on plan knowing that the relevant local authority rarely challenge once a building is up these days).
I think you'll find many people do 'go to' florists. Every major life event tends to involve flowers; births, deaths, weddings, 'get wells', new house/car, anniversaries, mothers day, valentines day, Christmas etc.
"the relevant local authority rarely challenge once a building is up these days"
In today's papers
[new news - Telegraph]
And from a few years ago
[old news - Express
Although this one was reprieved
[more news - BBC]
Net result would be a massive increase in housing with a significant decrease in amenities.
In an earlier comment, I said: "the relevant local authority rarely challenge once a building is up these days"
timbo replied with 3 examples of cases where action is being taken...
timbo - but that's three cases out of probably thousands/tens of thousands of contraventions - eg in our small hamlet of 19 properties spread over about a linear mile and a half, 8 properties have done something that contravenes their planning permissions, within the past 5 or 6 years. 3 have had formal complaints raised by residents/the Parish Council. District Council not interested.
Local authorities cannot fine people for planning breaches, and, worst case is, they could require something to be taken down. But, they rarely do - in reality they usually either pass it on the nod, or ask for a new planning application for 'retrospective development' and it goes through without hitch.
It's only when you become aware of the vagaries of the planning legislation in this country (and how it has been loosened up by successive governments) that you come to realise that, as I said at the top of this thread, consultation is a tick-box exercise these days.
Or a good night of overtime for those doing the consultation.
With the crossing, it should really be a footbridge as officialy, the A12 is a motorway for the times there is not that much traffic.
Most of the superstores in East London (inc. Beckton) are very poor performers.
I speak on behalf of the residents at Bromley-by-Bow that we all stand united in proposing that Tesco should stay in BRomley-by-Bow. This has been a much better place to live because of Tesco. PWe cannot let greedy developers take what they want. What use is there for new flats and residents if there is no avenue for us to purchase our food conveniently. Tesco is where people meet our friends who live locally, it represents our community. Please can anyone help to connect us with the person who might be able to help listen to our voices? Please can you provide contacts of the person in charge of approving the planning permission for Tesco to disappear and for new residential flats to be built but with no replacement for a new Tesco. Residents do no want Tesco to leave. Local councils and local planning authority should hear our voices to keep Tesco.
TridentScan | Privacy Policy