Those buildings already have gone up!
Hang on - the proposed development is described as "retention and completion of". What does that mean? Are they asking to keep the thing they've already built?
I remember some rumours that the buildings that went up were different to the original planning application that was approved. Is this an attempt at retrospective planing permission?
The original developer decided to stick two fingers up at the planners and build an extra storey.
He went bust or decided to offload the unfinished building.
The new developer took over a half completed building that didnt follow the planning agreement. He took down the offending extra storey.
All in all its a complete fuck up of CHL.
Who to blame. In this case greedy capitalist developers who want to build cheaply.Then sell at a high price and fuck off somewhere else to make a profit. Leaving those who live in the area with poorly designed and constructed buildings.
At one point a Housing Association looked at the unfinished building after the first developer went. I was told the building quality is poor.
Wealthy developers dont care and its hard for planners to keep up with there little games.
I havent looked at this yet. As the Ed says Lambeths website leaves something to be desired. It could be part retrospective as the new owner would have needed to clarify planning status with Lambeth.
The other alternative would have been to knock it down and start again. Which as it is poor build quality and in design terms shite imo would have been a serious option. Which I think is worth putting into objections to it.
Seriously I know its drastic. But if this kind of building is allowed to stay its a precedent for further developers.
