Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Iain Meek on February 26, 2017 at 14:44

I attended on Saturday.

All comments should be sent to jessicas@commcommuk.com

All looks very interesting but much concern from the residents of Basterfield that the service road will be the main/ only vehicular access.

I notice there seems to be no turning head so everyone will have to reverse out.

Everyone is hoping for a lot more detail.

Iain Meek DipArch RIAS RIBA FBIS
iain@meek.demon.co.uk
07960 173903

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Iain Meek on February 26, 2017 at 19:28

What is BMH?  (Sorry to be thick.)  Bernard Morgan House?  

I assume that is/was owned by the police and it's up to them to 'maximise the sale value/ obtain best value' or whatever the latest euphemism is.  I also assume any developer would only apply for a minimum of social housing and hopefully the Planning Department would twist their arms for as much as possible.

Or am I being naive?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hussain on March 2, 2017 at 20:23

Good Evening,

I fully agree with you Political Mother/Christo, the Bernard Morgan House site could have been used for a school, as it has a large external area, and its is away from housing, lessening any noise impact.

However the Taylor Wimpey application for 100% private housing has more or less been approved, its a done deal, and the City is feeling proud of itself...the site should have been mixed housing, ensuring that key City workers, teachers, doctors, nurses, graduate medics at BARTs... could have been offered key social housing within this site, key workers cannot afford to rent within the City, many are facing extreme rents on top of high travel costs.

I have been told by "certain" City Councillors, that land is expensive within the City, we know that land is expensive! that

is why the private sector is buying up disued offices within the City and converting them to private housing, however a great deal of the Freeholds where residential developments are taking place, including that of the ex-YMCA building are owned by the City, these sites should have been used for mixed housing. It is not good enough to provide social housing outside of the City boundary, when mixed housing is required within the City to cater for all needs to ensure that an inclusive society is maintained.

The City Corporation seems determined to remove all social housing from within the City boundary, which way did our local Cripplegate Councillors vote on this? Hold them accountable...

Best

FH

• ▶ Reply