HOW THE ELEPHANT WAS SOLD! Putting Tuesday 15th January 6pm In Your Diary!

‘I think there’s gonna be a leisure centre or something, behind the tower, somewhere…something like that, a little one and some new shops’*
Rob Deck, Lend Lease’s Elephant and Castle Project Director sells The Elephant at this week’s perfunctory and bizarre ‘community preview‘ of One The Elephant development – 37 storeys of luxury flats mainly to be sold off-plan to foreign investors**

Next Tuesday 15th January 2013 will see Southwark Council’s Planning Committee gather at their Tooley St offices to rubber-stamp Lend Lease’s Masterplan for the Elephant and Castle area. They have already issued a press release about why the Masterplan needs to be approved and all the total unaccountable crud and spin that goes with it – making mixed communities, more money for affordable housing, new parks, new this and new that. There will be some kind of debate amongst the councillors on the committee and 5 minutes in total have been allotted for public objections on the biggest planning application ever received by Southwark.

It’s taken a long long time to get this far. A really long time. We and countless others have been arguing against this form of regeneration of the local area for a long time too. We urge everyone who feels uncertain or pissed off about this monster rip-off to read the collective response to the Council below from the three brave local folks who will be standing up in the five minutes to give their best shot in making someone in the council see sense and vote NO to this scheme.

We also urge that anyone who feels uncertain or pissed off about this scheme, makes sure they come to Planning Meeting this Tuesday 15th January at 6pm at the Council Offices at 160 Tooley St, SE1 (London Bridge tube)

———-

Heygate Outline Masterplan application 12-AP-1092
and demolition application 12-AP-3203.

We are representatives of local groups who have objected to the above applications. We propose to speak on behalf of these groups at the planning committee meeting next Tuesday evening, 15th January 2013.

We have the following concerns and objections which cannot be fully aired in 5 minutes.  We have therefore listed them and trust that you, and  your colleagues, will help us ensure that they are fully addressed, by asking questions of us based on these points.

References to the ‘report’ are to the officer’s report for the planning applications that recommends approving the scheme.

Jerry Flynn (Elephant Amenity Network)

Philip Ashford (Garland Ct TRA)

Adrian Glasspool (Heygate Leaseholders Group)

Our concerns and objections are as follows;-

 

Application 12-AP-3203 (Demolition)

 

The Heygate Leaseholders Group are losing their homes to facilitate this application. We are objecting to the Compulsory Purchase Order placed on their homes on the grounds that the public benefits of the scheme have been lost. Heygate Leaseholders were promised a retained equity option in assisting them to purchase homes in the new development, there is no such option in the accompanying scheme application. The Leaseholders Group requests that the provision of such an option is a condition of granting both the demolition application and the development application.

 

Interim Use

• lack of proposals for interim uses of existing resources of the Heygate estate during the 15 year development period. 
• lack of public access arrangements to the site, so that the rich potential for interim use can be realised

A possible interim use on the site is Crossway Garden - This walled green space is located towards the north eastern edge of the masterplan, south of Crossway Church. Over the last 2-3 years the garden has cultivated as a nursery bed for fruit trees and bushes. Children from the local Victory Park School have been involved with planting days. Gardening is connected with the nearby Victory Park as part of a neighbourhood gardening initiative and Southwark Green Links.

Application 12-AP-1092Financial Viability

• doubts about the financial viability of the scheme
• how will the ‘viability gap’ in the scheme be bridged?
• how will we avoid the Heygate becoming yet another stalled development site?

The viability of the scheme is described as ‘problematic’ (para. 151) and refers to a ‘viability gap’ representing ‘very big risk’ on the part of the applicant (para. 153). The Phase one Heygate application states: “The level of affordable housing proposed represents a level that is currently above what is indicated as being viable.”  Non-viability of the scheme is also listed in the council’s risk register as one of the major impediments to the scheme going ahead.

 

How is the viability gap between the viable level of affordable housing at 9.4% and the 25% (para. 150 & 153) offered being bridged while maintaining the financial stability of the scheme?The 360 London (London Park Hotel) and Oakmayne Plaza (Tribeca Square) sites were granted planning permission six years ago; these sites remain undeveloped. There is no reference to the time schedule for the delivery of the detailed planning applications in the report.We propose that a condition be attached to any approval of the application requiring a fixed schedule of applications.

Housing

• lack of social rented housing
• phasing of the affordable housing delivery

The scheme will provide only 71 social rented units out of a total 2,300 new homes (para. 159). This is in breach of Southwark Council’s planning policy, which would require approx. 400 social rented units. 198 affordable rent properties are also being provided, but they are not affordable for many residents of the borough. 

 

Affordable rent is also not a type of social rented housing. Both the National Planning Policy Framework and draft revisions to the London Plan have social rent and affordable rent as separate categories of affordable housing (with intermediate housing as a third category). A consortium of 9 boroughs including Southwark supported this position at the London Plan examination in public in November 2012. Therefore affordable rent units cannot be used to meet the social rented proportion of the affordable housing required by policy. The application should therefore be rejected on these grounds.

 

The first two tranches of the six tranches of the scheme only deliver 20% affordable housing (para. 156). This means that the first 1,200 units of the scheme will only provide 20% affordable housing. This should be changed so that 25% minimum is delivered from the beginning of the scheme. 

 

An initial review of the affordable housing delivery is proposed only after two years beyond the first approved application (para. 154). We are also concerned that the conditions for changes in phasing will not be strong enough to ensure that the development is delivered in a timely fashion (para. 35).

 

Garland Court/Wansey Street residents

•  detrimental impact of Walworth Sq. on Garland Ct and Wansey Street
•  the impact of density of the development on local residents
•  the impact proximity of the development on local residents
•  loss of amenity, particularly privacy, quietness, daylight, residential character
•  disruption during demolition and construction

 The residents and shopkeepers of Wansey St, Balfour St, Rodney Rd, Henshaw St, Salisbury estate and Peabody trust will all suffer significant degrees of disruption and inconvenience over many years.  There are particular concerns about the impact of the new  public square off the Walworth Rd on the amenity of Garland Court and Wansey Street residents.

Public Realm

• the reduction in amount of green and open space
• the private management of the park
• maintaining real public accessibility of the park
  
• Highway Authority concerns about Estate Management Company control

The park will be managed by a private Estate Management Company (EMC). The park should be designated public open space and if not Council managed, a trust should be considered as an alternative, instead of a Parks Advisory Group (paras 326 & 380)

We note the comments made by the Highway Authority that the Estate Management Strategy assumes management of the existing areas adopted by the EMC (Appendix 2 – para. 11). We share the Highway Authority’s concerns and object to the public realm appearing to move into private hands. 

We note the Highway Authority’s comments quoted here and support its proposals for alternative management and enforcement regimes:

“General concern is raised about the proposed number of new private streets (unadopted highways) within the application given the likely impact on the council’s ability to control the network and manage the boroughs streets and spaces for the benefit of residents, businesses and the travelling public.  If this course is pursued then it is strongly recommended that robust alternative management and enforcement regimes are included in any consent.” (Appendix 2 – Para. 11)

Car Parking 

• contrary to Southwarks car-free policy
• reduce the number of car-parking spaces

The development is not free of car parking as originally envisioned and set out as policy by Southwark in the E&C SPD. If the scheme is not to be free of car parking, a condition should be created which sets it at a lower rate than the up to 27% of units having car parking (plus motorcycle parking plus car club places) that is currently being demanded.

 

616 car-parking spaces are proposed for the scheme (para 225) despite Council policy requiring it to be car free.  The Elephant has the highest possible public transport accessibility rating (PTAL 6b) so why are so many car-parking spaces needed?

Strata Tower which has been completed has car parking set at 14%, the consented Oakmayne development 11%. Most recently St Mary’s Residential was granted at 16% (8% disabled and 8% private). If parking is to be allowed it should be at a far lower rate.

Ecology

• inaccuracies in ecology section of the report
• inaccurate data, un-evidenced claims and lack of consultation
• no collection of baseline data
• potential impact of scheme on local biodiversity and lack of mitigation measures                                                             

Victory Community Park and the Elba Place nature garden are close by the Heygate estate. Both are Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and the Elba Place nature garden is used by the Victory School – both are rich in biodiversity. There are serious factual inaccuracies in the Ecology Implications section of the report. (paras. 312 – 319). We do not believe any assessments have been made of the sites relating to the impact of the proposed development. The data reported in the environmental statement is out of date, incomplete and inaccurate, and does not allow baseline assessment of the potential adverse effects of the development. Southwark’s own plan 12.31 policy 3.28 does not permit damage to SINC’s in order to facilitate development, and requires mitigation and compensation for any damage to biodiversity. This application does not meet those requirements. 

 

Trees

• concern about caveat on retention of existing trees
• unnecessary removal of trees
• Highway Authority recommendation for tree planting

The applicant proposes to remove 283 and retain 123 of the 406 existing trees (para. 336). The retention of the 123 trees is compromised by a caveat deferring to detailed surveys (Root Protection Area – RPA surveys) due to be carried out during later design stages.(Tree Strategy 1 of 8, Page 22, Paragraph 6.4)

 

These RPA surveys should be carried out now and a firm commitment given to retention of trees. A greater number of trees should be considered for retention, especially those on the north side of Heygate St. for which there appears to be no clear grounds for their removal.

 

We note the objection made by the Highways Authority that the proposed streets will be too narrow to give sufficient space between buildings for newly-planted trees to grow adequately. We support the Highway Authority’s recommendation: “It is recommended that the minimum critical distance for streets be increased to 12m in all instances. In the absence of this it is unlikely that street trees and other planting will be accommodated adequately;” (Para. 11 – Appendix 2)

Sustainability

• lack of sustainable alternatives
• unrealistic energy centre connection proposals
• unfeasable biomethane fuel proposals

This scheme was chosen by Bill Clinton as a global example of zero carbon development. The scheme aimed to produce enough on-site renewable energy to supply the entire Elephant & Castle area. This aim has since been abandoned and the application fails to propose any on-site renewable energy whatsoever, contrary to Southwark’s policy which requires 20% minimum.

 

We note that the application considers biomethane gas for its on-site renewable energy requirements. We don’t believe that this an acceptable proposal for reasons that the report itself notes, including:

1. Biomethane is not classified as an on-site renewable energy source therefore it cannot meet Southwark’s policy requirements (para. 411)
2. There is currently no supply of biomethane available in the UK (para. 410)
3. The applicant is not proposing to generate any biomethane gas, and makes no firm commitment to purchase any should it become available in the future

We propose that the 20% on-site renewable energy requirement is met using a combination of the alternatives listed in paragraph 406.

We note the report’s comment that through planning permission additional plant can be installed to accommodate additional capacity (para. 404). We request that a planning condition is applied upon granting the application accordingly: The new Energy Centre should be constructed such that it has sufficient capacity to supply all of the surrounding developments as identified in the Energy Strategy.

 

CYCLING 

• inadequacies of proposed new routes
• no proper transport assessment
• no proper connection to strategic routes

The cycling proposals fail to take sufficient account of the deaths and injuries cyclists have suffered around the Elephant and Castle. It is proposed to widen the northern roundabout, which will increase traffic flow. The new cycle connection suggested between Brandon St and Meadow Row is not more ‘direct’ as the officer’s report claims, and ignores the key connection with the crossing at Falmouth Rd.

A CS6 cycle route through the Heygate site and the needs of commuter cyclists are not being considered in this application.S106

• potential net loss of 1,500 sq metres of community facilities
• transport infrastructure spend        

The Heyate comprised a total of 2,500 sq metres of community facilities; the scheme proposes a minimum of just 1,000 sq metres. The minimum should be increased to 2,500 sq metres so that there is not net loss in community facilities.  

 

The transport infrastructure spend is still insufficient to fund improvements to the tube station and northern roundabout.     

 

 

Employment/Retail

• will the London Living wage be paid for employment on scheme?
• no long term commitment to affordable retail units for existing small and independent traders who are likely to be displaced
• no targets for jobs for local residents post construction

There is no information on how many of the affordable retail units will be available for displaced local retail businesses.

Those employed in construction jobs on the scheme should receive at least the London Living wage.

We note the minimum construction jobs target for local residents (para. 376) We would like to see a similar minimum target for local residents post construction (para. 135). A definition of the area of local benefit is also needed.

We note that the legal agreement will secure 10% of affordable retail space which will be prioritised for existing SMEs in the E&C OA. However, it is understood that this may be limited to a term of just 5 years, thereby failing to provide long-term security for small retailers. 

 

Place Making

• The size of the large retail units at ground floor are too large
• The scale, height and form of the buildings need to create a positive sense of place
• Cafes and other amenities need to be affordable

The footprints of the ground floor retail spaces are considerably larger than that of many of the surrounding local businesses. The building form should create a larger number of smaller units. This would increase permeability, enrich the public domain and encourage local businesses to connect with the development.

The area around the base of the Strata tower is an example of how the public realm can become marginalized through the impact of tall buildings. The scale, height and massing of the proposed development should be reconsidered.

The proposed cafes around the green space may not be affordable to all local people, and will therefore fail to create a truly human sense of place and inclusiveness for the neighbourhood. Smaller scale community focused businesses should be integrated within the proposals.

—

* Not an actual quote from Rob but more of that Southwark Notes sarcasm

** Since this post, we are proud to announce that, after the UK, the country with the second most hits on this site is Singapore! Welcome to all our viewers in The Far East: One The Elephant 價過高 / harga yang terlalu tinggi

WHAT REGENERATION ‘BENEFITS FOR LOCAL PEOPLE’ REALLY MEANS

The point we will labour below is that community benefits that come from agreements between developers and the Council have to make sense and be a tangible, enduring and worthwhile local resource. Siting a new playground in an estate undergoing decant is frankly nonsensical but it does kind of seem to us like just more craziness in a long and infamously crazy regeneration saga.

Cast your regeneration minds back to as far as late December 2007 when all was optimistic down at the numerous empty development sites dotted around The Elephant.  You may recall that the Oakmayne Plaza site was asking the Council for a new planning permission based on dumping the fancy hotel tower component of their mega-scheme in favour of a tower of student flats instead. Alongside this change was also the dumping of any affordable social housing from the scheme:

Not that the affordable component amounted to much any how but the 5 units pre-2007 were snipped now back to zero units. In lieu of cheaper housing for local people ironically a cash payment to the Council was promised to help along the promised Early Housing Sites for decanted Heygate tenants. So that was a lot of good as the houses simply weren’t built in time for the decant anyhow and very few people subsequently returned to the new Housing Association homes!

Anyhow we digress. To make up for the loss of the children’s playground on Elephant Rd park which was taken away one sunny weekday morning (see above) and as part of the incentive to get the Council to agree the changes, Oakmayne arranged for the new playground to be built on Heygate Estate to make up for the loss of the old one. (The whole park being robbed from local people a few years later – see here!).

Of course, plonking down a new playground there is also of dubious merit. It seemed that no questions had been asked about why a playground in Elephant Park is more accessible and useful to a wider community than one just put where any other patch of trees and grass happened to be. That the playground was not solely for the use of Heygate tenants but the wider Elephant area was fudged completely by the siting of the replacement playground. By choosing to ignore the organic fabric that the community weaves by everyday use of open spaces, parks and playgrounds and instead operating from a mentality of false ‘like for like’, it seemed more of a case of ‘well, that’ll do!’ for the  locals!

You can see the new 2007 playground here:

And you can see how great it remains in 2012 now that the estate is virtually empty and after some subcontractors had chopped it up for scrap (as witnessed by some then extant Heygate residents):

All that remains is this somewhat poignant and lonely roundabout:

Worth bearing in mind that the decant and slow boarded up and walling off of the Heygate estate has meant the loss of three local playgrounds – the one above in the middle of the estate and these two:

Playground in the estate near Balfour St now secured shut

Playground in the old Heygate site North of above Rodney Rd grilled up pre-demolition 2011. The developer got the local school kids to paint some pics to put up on the hoarding that encloses their old playground!

WHY HISTORY?!
We write up this ancient history just to make the point that as local people we not only know what is going on in our area and what amenities and resources we rely on but we also know that developers have no real knowledge or understanding of what makes up our local area and the communities that need things such as playgrounds or open spaces for football or just plain relaxing.

At Southwark Notes, like The Elephant itself, we never forget and we are happy to pull out an old document or two full of promises from the Council and different developers and say ‘Hey, wait a minute – what happened to this promise and what happened to that one?!‘. We said it before and in Southwark it’s vital that we keep on saying it – Regeneration has to be truly accountable to local people.

Promises are often made on the backs of a sense of trust and good will from local people to lose something like a playground or park and to wait for the intended redevelopment to put back what was lost. Accountability means that decisions and promises are kept to the word and not just lost along the way as the developers claw more and more profits from high density developments built on former public parks and playgrounds. It’s up to us to keep them to their word.

WALWORTH: SPECULATING ON LOCAL LAND No.2

Up for grabs! The old Met Police forensics and evidence recovery labs and that on Amelia St by Walworth Rd have been magically turned into a ‘development opportunity‘. Hopefully The Tankard pub on the corner of the site will remain.

We Southwark Notes minions know nothing about this site at all. Do you know anything?

WALWORTH: SPECULATING ON LOCAL LAND – How it works

November 2012: Originally given planning permission back in October 2007, this 0.302 hectare site behind the East side of Walworth Rd has just been sold for ‘well in excess of the £4m guide price‘. Planning permission for ‘erection of a part 2, part 4 and part 5 storey building to accommodate 54 residential flats and 871.1sq.m of Class B1 (office/commercial) floorspace‘ was renewed from March 2011 on the site where nothing had happened in the five years in between. The site is off Walworth Rd down an alley between Mama Thai and Carphone Warehouse.

Kingsbury, the consultants who secured the sale wrote: ‘Kingsbury were appointed by the owners of a key regeneration site within the London Borough of Southwark to carry out a disposal. The site, located on the Walworth Road, benefits from planning consent for high density residential development but also offers potential for a range of alternative uses. Following a short open marketing process, a number of offers were received from a cross section of operators, with private sector developer Goldcrest proving the successful party and quickly exchanging unconditional contracts well in excess of the £4m guide price‘.

Goldcrest has already been the owners and then sellers of 120 – 138 Walworth Rd, where the new Dashwood Studios student flats are. In September 2010 they flogged that land to Watkin Jones Group, specialist in student housing.

You don’t really know the site is there unless you’re going to one of the small businesses there. It marks a significant point in Walworth’s development history, we think, that this kind of residential development seeks to fill hidden away land. It reminds us of Long Lane in The Borough which seemed to accommodate loads of new developments in all sorts of old warehouse yards, car-parks and empty sites. Yes, Walworth is now desirable! Question is, will this project actually get off the ground and be built or will it sit vacant for another few years before Goldcrest turn it around for more profit (as is their business)?

Interesting anyhow of one of the few examples of discovering land sale values locally. £4m+ gets you 0.302 hectares of prime Walworth Rd land with Planning Permission for a high density residential and commercial development.

THE SIEGE OF THE ELEPHANT CONVERGENCE Sat 17th November 2012

The Siege of The Elephant:
A One-day Convergence
Saturday 17th November 2012

Saturday 17th November 11am – 5pm
Pembroke House
80 Tatum Street
London SE17 1QR

——————————————————————————————

Southwark Notes Archive Group* are currently inviting folks to contribute to The Siege of the Elephant, a one-day convergence against the gentrification of Elephant and Castle (and the surrounding area). The event aims to bring together local communities, activists, campaign and amenity group members and traders, as well as academics, students, researchers and members of campaign groups involved in similar regeneration/gentrification struggles in other areas of London.

There are two ways to contribute:

1) by participating to the event itself, which will take place on  Saturday 17th November  in Walworth, South London

2) and/or by submitting material to be displayed on the day and to be added to our Gentrification Archive. Submissions to the archive will also be accepted on a rolling basis from the Siege onwards.

The Siege of the Elephant
The aim of the day is to share evidence and discuss alternatives in
relation to the gentrification of North Southwark and Elephant and
Castle. The day will be divided in two parts and each will consist of
three parallel workshops followed by plenary discussions. We ask invited
contributors like you to introduce themselves and make a 5 minute
presentation on relevant evidence, work and/or experiences, which can
then be opened up for response to those at the table.

LIKELY TIMETABLE:
• PART I (Morning) SESSIONS
How does gentrification work and what are its causes and effects in
Elephant and Castle?
The focus in these sessions will be on sharing evidence of:
1 – DISPLACEMENT: the displacement of existing communities (residential and commercial) and loss of public resources and amenities
2 – THE ROLE OF CONSULTATION: flaws with regeneration plans and the consultation processes (broken promises of re-housing, problems with top-down planning)
3 – THE SPIN OF REGENERATION: the role of PR and mass media narratives that support the Council’s and the developers own narratives around regeneration.

• PART II (Afternoon) SESSIONS
How can we resist or alter dynamics of gentrification?
Discussing and exploring knowledge and practical ways and means that propose alternatives to regeneration as gentrification and the accompanying Local Authorities / developers’ consultations:
1 – COUNTERING DISPLACEMENT: countering the displacement of existing communities and the loss of public resources (the discontents of ‘affordable’ housing)
2 – POLITICISING CONSULTATION: resistance to empty consultation and enacting forms of local decision-making
3 – PROPOSING ALTERNATIVES: countering existing narratives of ‘failure and progress’ and promoting
alternative visions

Lunch and tea will be provided, and there may well also be time for walking
around the Heygate Estate and the Better Elephant permanent exhibition.
A finalised programme will be distributed closer to the date.

Facilitation on the day
Time is precious, so we are asking people to be selective with their contributions. Each workshop will be facilitated towards keeping the debate accessible to all and to allow time for all to contribute. Those interested in presenting evidence are asked to liaise with the organizers beforehand.

Participation In The Event:
There is no formal registration process for this event. All you need to do is write to us at:
elephantnotes@yahoo.co.uk

and we will contact you to confirm your participation and what you may be able to bring to this event – evidence, materials, facilitation skills etc.

Travel costs
We are unable to cover travel costs for all participants, but if you are
interested in coming from far and wide, do get in touch and we will
strive to contribute something from our small budget.

Contributions to Southwark Notes Gentrification Archive
We also want to use the event to expand Southwark Notes Gentrification Archive. This open-access archive attempts to hold a record of anti-gentrification struggle for the past 15 years in the North Southwark area. We are archiving books, newspaper cuttings, council brochures and academic publications on the local area as well as the local and global gentrification struggles. Let us know if you can provide us with copies of relevant work or material or if you have suggestions for work we should obtain for the archive. Material can be submitted in any format. If in digital format, we will try to print a hard copy on the day.

After the event
The evidence and discussions of the day will be compiled and a concise summary will be published and distributed for free as a small Southwark Notes pamphlet as well as online, and will include a thematic bibliography of recent research and publications.

————————————————————————————————

*Southwark Notes Archive Group run this popular anti-gentrification blog Southwark Notes that offers news, analysis and little stabs at the
gentrification of the area: http://southwarknotes.wordpress.com We have also been organising regular anti-gentrification walks, printing postcards, posters, maps and comics, and keeping active on within various groups and campaigns in the ongoing struggle whilst keeping an eye on the history (the mistakes and successes) and the big picture (globalisation, financialisation and all that!). We also maintain all this stuff and news and history in an archive within 56a Infoshop, the local Walworth self-managed community space.

(Not) Coming Soon! Walworth Rd ‘vibrant arts quarter’!

Southwark Notes Cultural Front is acting as curator for this. Late submissions, pop-up projects and performances still sought for this exciting new arts festival! Theme is: Who is the public? How is a culture made and who is it for?

Mail us for details! Please forward to creative types. Website goes live November 5th.

elephantnotes@yahoo.co.uk

—

Culture is never neutral!

Council Is Boring on Heygate Again: Pointless Sealing Up of Walkways

Last week the Council contractors finished a week of totally pointless and presumably expensive activity on the Heygate Estate following their already vindictive and pointless attempts to remove the Heygate Community Gardens mural. A team of welders and sealer-uppers closed off the numerous walkways that people use to walk around, enjoy, have fun on, take pics from and leap off of in this as yet still piece of publicly-owned land. We have taken the pictures above from Alice C Macchi’s blog with thanks to her. As someone who enjoys running and leaping from walls on the estate, she points out in her piece that anyone who seeks to gain entry to estate for the wrong reasons will do so:

If you have a reason to be at the Heygate, putting up a barrier won’t deter you. If you have no reason to be there, it is likely that you will not be there anyway. These barriers are totally pointless. If anything they are more dangerous than safe. Usually a way in is also a way out. These barriers now block most exits and in case of danger or need there is no quick escape route. Why has council put these up before the entire estate is closed off is completely beyond me.

So these new barriers to the land are only really about slowly increasing the keeping out all the people who currently want to walk in sun and snow around the place, see the 450 trees and the mostly empty buildings, visit friends and picnic there, tend their vegetables and so on. All of those people who are never ever asked whether they actually want large welded barriers put in their way, the decision being made in some office entirely unaccountably (again).

We wonder at what level in the Council offices this waste of money and time was sanctioned?  For all the agreement and head nodding it has done over the last two years with local people who have sought to get them to realise how great the open space and old buildings are for temporary community uses, the Council seems intent on actually thwarting all the amazing things people are doing in the estate for themselves as part of the desire to provide amazing things for all.

What is particularly pathetic is that the welding shut of the walkways comes only a fortnight after the highly successful and fun for local kids Release The Wolves event where they went tearing around the Heygate walkways in mad self-souped up customised Go Karts! And this was sanctioned by the Council in the first place! Not only was the event fun fun fun, the old grey pre-cast concrete slabs of Heygate were given a right going over with colourful paintings! Simple question: Would you prefer the Heygate to walled off for years and to stand as a big grey lump or would you prefer to keep it lively and colourful?

Here‘s a link to the new somewhat bonkers paintwork up in Heygate!

UPDATE: 19th Sept
The Council released a statement today on their website stating that the blocking of the walkways is preparation for the demolition and also because of ‘a range of health and safety issues‘ (of course!). Needless to say no demolition can begin until the final leaseholders have moved off, this whole process subject to the recent CPO served and its legal challenges.

Lend Lease Monster Outline Planning Application – Responses and Objections

We try not to duplicate stories and responses to regeneration plans in The Elephant area that are put up on other local websites but it’s very useful to point in their direction.  So, here, we will share some links with you to the fantastic and detailed personal and community objections to the Lend Lease Outline Planning Application which is due to be heard before the Council later in the year. That’s the planning app for the knocking down of the Heygate Site and for the ‘regeneration’ of a massive chunk of the northern end of Walworth Rd across to New Kent Rd. With no real commitment to replacing the now empty 1100 Heygate Estate homes with genuine affordable housing, this Masterplan is seriously rubbish as it seeks to pile on loads of private homes on that essential close-to-the-Tube Zone 1 property developers dream site. Not to mention the unaccounted effects that increasing the local population by thousands will have on on local schools, transport, doctors and so on.

Wally Rd – From independent shops to chains?

It’s also true that once those who can pay £500,000 for a two bed apartment come in droves to the area, then the Starbucks, Pizza Express and Wagamama chains will arrive close behind and push out the local independent cafes and stores as the landlords see they can make a killing on rent increases. Then Walworth Rd will look and feel like any other boring chain-filled high street and not the diverse and fantastic place it has been for donkey’s years.

• Lend Lease Outline Planning Application objections and responses:

Elephant Amenity Network response
Peoples Republic of Southwark response
Richard Lee personal response (PDF)
Adrian Glasspool personal response (PDF)
Southwark Group of Tenants Organisations and Local TRA’s (PDF)
Southwark Living Streets (PDF)

The Outline Planning Application can be seen here. Warning! It’s made up of 191 documents and so is this almost impossible to comment on unless you have loads of time on your hands and an encyclopaedic brain and a big pencil. But I guess that’s the point really.

You can object to it in a much simpler form by visiting the Elephant 35% Campaign site here and using their online objection form. Their summarised objections are as follows:  “…that the development proposes no affordable housing and no renewable energy generation. The council’s planning policy states clearly that the development should contain a minimum of 35% affordable housing and at least 20% on-site renewable energy provision. I also object to the loss of the large number of mature trees on the site, the high number of parking spaces and the failure to provide essential cycle-route and public transport infrastructure. Finally, I object to the privatisation of the public realm on the site and loss of community facilities.”

Demolition-A-Go-Go: Take Your Pick!

We noticed two notices side by side in the window of the Lend Lease / Soundings The Hub on Walworth Rd today. That’s the place where some kind of supposed ‘consultation’ on what local people want happens but in the main it’s a place where the developers tell you what they are going to do. The two notices are as follows:

1) Save Manor Place terrace,  a campaigning leaflet from the Walworth Society seeking to save the 1875 Victorian buildings on Manor Place, Walworth from demolition – ‘some of the last remaining Victorian buildings constructed on the site of the Royal Surrey Gardens‘. Details here and here:

2) Southwark Council notice of Outline Application for the ‘demolition of all existing structures and bridges and redevelopment to provide a mixed-use development comprising of a number of buildings…between 2300 (min) and 2462 (max) residential units... at ‘the Heygate Estate and the surrounding land bound by New Kent Rd, Rodney Place and Rodney Rd,  Wansey St, Walworth  Rd and Elephant Rd“. Details here:

Nice to see Lend Lease and Soundings supporting moves to stop the trashing of the Walworth by developers.

You get me? *-)

Update: July 12th - both Manor Place leaflets now not in the window.

Elephant Leisure Centre Consultation Made Even Simpler