I haven't been paying attention to this one and I thought it had already been determined, but apparently not.
I have little love for the buildings they're proposing to replace, but I certainly don't think that this is a good application.
And while we're at it, this just in:
An absolutely astonishing application. The City's not exactly rich in sites where you could plonk a building like that, but as per two posts above, a different site should certainly be found.
To be clear, signing a change.org petition will make the sum total of sod all difference, but it's desperate times--the application has been approved and having Robert Jenrick, of all people, as the Secretary of State is about as hopeless as it gets.
It is one of the deepest absurdities of planning when the applicants and the determining authority are one and the same, and I think there should always automatically be a public inquiry or, preferably, some other mechanism for determination. In general, planning authorities approve their application in 99% of cases. I'm sure that's not the right figure, but it is a bit like that.
The building seems like simply the wrong use class for that part of Fleet Street, and too big--in our cities, we need to have smaller footprints, not larger ones. You only have to look at what's been happening to Soho as developers have unified footprints and put larger single buildings on them, whether disguised, as in Berwick Street, or not.
The Whitechapel Bell Foundry application that I've posted about before has been approved by the Secretary of State:
I don't think it's a very good application; the problem with sites like this is always that if the owners give up pursuing their trade there, the writing is on the wall, because another use will have to be found. Because this one is so unique and historic, you would really hope that someone would want to carry on the tradition there, but traditions aren't forever.
Because the front buildings, including the frontage to Whitechapel Road, are meant to be maintained, I don't think it's a terrible application, either, but I'm certainly not impressed with the use as a hotel. It's just boring business as usual.
I feel for the campaigners, who must be terribly disappointed, but I don't think they will have had a very strong case to start with.
A very large application in Wimbledon that has been expected for some time:
It's gonna annoy the locals, talk of closing the road between sites during the tournament is likely.
This is still going on, seemingly enabled by corruption in the planning system, which as far as the Olympic/LLDC is concerned is nothing new.
We can only hope that Khan refuses this, if he's still in office by the time the decision comes to him.
A reprieve for the Latin Village in Tottenham. I doubt the site is now no longer under threat of development, but we'll see. It's positive for the time being.
Another one of those wheezes that come up from time to time. I'm no fan of golf, but there are millions of better sites to build on before you start building there. The main reason why this sort of thing comes up is because developers prefer to work on very large sites as opposed to the refurbishment of existing buildings or the relatively small-scale infill development on brownfield sites, informed by sound planning guidance, which are actually what London needs (and which are, naturally, much less profitable).
Couldn't agree more, "green" space and sporting amenity are surely things worth preserving.
Sure we need more homes , but endlessly cramming in more houses into London just speaks to some desire to hurry to a Judge Dredd megacity.
The main driver behind most things you hear on housing is speculation. Developers mainly want land values to increase, hence the seemingly never-ending paradox of 'we need more homes' repeated ad nauseam by all and sundry while actual house-building languishes. I've been following this for more than 20 years and it shows no signs of changing--a small enough number of houses are built that they don't threaten to reduce prices because of a sudden increase in supply, while planning permissions are secured as investment with the aim of selling and re-selling sites at higher prices. Rinse, repeat. Needless to say, for the most part the actual housing that gets built (often shoddily) is expensive/at market rates, and very little is social housing, with 'affordable' housing a joke (and it tends to occur only where a reasonably good council builds itself, with 'luxury' flats as 'enabling development').
Don't worry about formatting, just type in the text and we'll take care of making sense of it. We will auto-convert links, and if you put asterisks around words we will make them bold.
For a full reference visit the Markdown syntax.
© LFGSS, powered by microcosm.
Report a problem
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.