Campaigners’ bid to stop student development at Charlotte Place in Southampton

Daily Echo: Plans for Orion's Point in Southampton Plans for Orion's Point in Southampton

FURIOUS residents are launching a campaign tonight against two 16- storey tower blocks planned for the heart of the city.

They are angry that two high-rise tower blocks housing 1,500 students could be built in their community.

Now the Charlotte Place Campaign Group hopes councillors will support them and block the development.

Community leaders, who are concerned about students and their partying on their doorstep, are holding a public meeting at the Newtown Youth Centre at 7pm.

Nazrul Chaudhery, chairman of the campaign group, said: “The level of consultation has been really poor and this is something the council have not thought through, as a community we are opposed to plans as they stand.

“If the developers and council do not listen to our views then these two developments will cause real community tension.”

Mohammed Khan, of the Muslim Council of Southampton , added: “Can you imagine another 1,500 students? Where are you going to put them?

“From my point of view, it’s going to be a nightmare.”

Judge Khurshid Drabu, chairman of the board of the Medina Mosque in St Mary’s Road, said: “The impact that these developments are going to have in the community has not been taken into account.”

Liberty Living has submitted plans to Southampton City Council to double the number of student flats available to Orion’s Point to 854 rooms.

It wants to turn the convert the high-rise offices into a complete tower block for students 16 storeys high.

It is not yet known when councillors will have a chance to vote on the proposals.

Bouygues UK has expressed an interest to develop Charlotte Place, 60 to 64 St Mary’s Road with the remainder of the rooms. It has not submitted a planning application yet.

A representative from Liberty Living and Bevois ward councillor Stephen Barnes- Andrews are both expected to be at the meeting in Graham Road.

The Charlotte Place site was previously earmarked for an ice rink by a local developer, Colin Warburg, but he was out-bid by another developer.

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:38am Tue 18 Sep 12

arthur dalyrimple says...

nothing wrong with the new buildings,just knock the hideous old gas building down.
nothing wrong with the new buildings,just knock the hideous old gas building down. arthur dalyrimple
  • Score: 0

11:00am Tue 18 Sep 12

cliffwalker says...

Will this be a good reason to burn the Stars and Stripes in front of the Guildhall?
Will this be a good reason to burn the Stars and Stripes in front of the Guildhall? cliffwalker
  • Score: 0

11:12am Tue 18 Sep 12

userds5050 says...

I don't see what the problem is. There is similar sized student accommodation in Terminus terrace. I don't remember the local residents kicking up when they were built. OK students can be a bit noisy at times but they gotta live somewhere.
I don't see what the problem is. There is similar sized student accommodation in Terminus terrace. I don't remember the local residents kicking up when they were built. OK students can be a bit noisy at times but they gotta live somewhere. userds5050
  • Score: 0

11:20am Tue 18 Sep 12

mtdiablo says...

"Mohammed Khan, of the Muslim Council of Southampton , added: “Can you imagine another 1,500 students? Where are you going to put them?""

Is Mr Khan aware that these buildings are supposed to be for 1,500 students?
"Mohammed Khan, of the Muslim Council of Southampton , added: “Can you imagine another 1,500 students? Where are you going to put them?"" Is Mr Khan aware that these buildings are supposed to be for 1,500 students? mtdiablo
  • Score: 0

11:25am Tue 18 Sep 12

Family Man says...

It would almost be a price worth paying if this was to put paid once and for all to the constant whinging from the very vocal minority who always put forward the need for an ice rink...

I wonder if there is a correlation between the size of the student population and the fact that Southampton has just been named as the third worst place in the country for piracy? If there is, perhaps it could be called "Jolly Roger Junction".... Yaaarr!
It would almost be a price worth paying if this was to put paid once and for all to the constant whinging from the very vocal minority who always put forward the need for an ice rink... I wonder if there is a correlation between the size of the student population and the fact that Southampton has just been named as the third worst place in the country for piracy? If there is, perhaps it could be called "Jolly Roger Junction".... Yaaarr! Family Man
  • Score: 0

12:30pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Dasal says...

mtdiablo wrote:
"Mohammed Khan, of the Muslim Council of Southampton , added: “Can you imagine another 1,500 students? Where are you going to put them?"" Is Mr Khan aware that these buildings are supposed to be for 1,500 students?
Is this the "Mr Khan" of TV fame ?
Certainly sounds like it..................
.....
[quote][p][bold]mtdiablo[/bold] wrote: "Mohammed Khan, of the Muslim Council of Southampton , added: “Can you imagine another 1,500 students? Where are you going to put them?"" Is Mr Khan aware that these buildings are supposed to be for 1,500 students?[/p][/quote]Is this the "Mr Khan" of TV fame ? Certainly sounds like it.................. ..... Dasal
  • Score: 0

12:31pm Tue 18 Sep 12

pantsanon says...

Good idea i think keep them all in one place . police rounds should be happening anyway. we cater for all cultures in southampton why not for our future working tax paying children.
Good idea i think keep them all in one place . police rounds should be happening anyway. we cater for all cultures in southampton why not for our future working tax paying children. pantsanon
  • Score: 0

12:36pm Tue 18 Sep 12

SotonGreen says...

a toxic mix of islamophobia and nimby-ism what could possibly go wrong
a toxic mix of islamophobia and nimby-ism what could possibly go wrong SotonGreen
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Tue 18 Sep 12

loosehead says...

Did the Muslim council listen to non muslims who didn't want that mosque built?
Why wasn't housing built there by the then Labour council?
Does this now mean nothing in that area can be built unless this unelected ( by us the voters) Muslim Council say so?
I really can't see what they're complaining about it's not as if it's for the Prostitutes to start a Brothel in or would they prefer that?
Did the Muslim council listen to non muslims who didn't want that mosque built? Why wasn't housing built there by the then Labour council? Does this now mean nothing in that area can be built unless this unelected ( by us the voters) Muslim Council say so? I really can't see what they're complaining about it's not as if it's for the Prostitutes to start a Brothel in or would they prefer that? loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:25pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Niel says...

They don't want their ghetto disturbed, having forced out a number of other ethnic groups... Cynic or realist?
They don't want their ghetto disturbed, having forced out a number of other ethnic groups... Cynic or realist? Niel
  • Score: 0

1:25pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Niel says...

They don't want their ghetto disturbed, having forced out a number of other ethnic groups... Cynic or realist?
They don't want their ghetto disturbed, having forced out a number of other ethnic groups... Cynic or realist? Niel
  • Score: 0

1:41pm Tue 18 Sep 12

gazdance says...

So local residents complain about residential areas becoming student ghettos when family homes are used as student accommodation. Speak to anyone in the Polygon.

New developments like this one should mean that student accommodation can be provided that will suffice for the duration of most student's courses, reducing te need for student houses. The long term effect of this should be that these student ghettos cease to exist.

Typically though, the NIMBYs can't see beyond the end of their own noses.
So local residents complain about residential areas becoming student ghettos when family homes are used as student accommodation. Speak to anyone in the Polygon. New developments like this one should mean that student accommodation can be provided that will suffice for the duration of most student's courses, reducing te need for student houses. The long term effect of this should be that these student ghettos cease to exist. Typically though, the NIMBYs can't see beyond the end of their own noses. gazdance
  • Score: 0

2:39pm Tue 18 Sep 12

southy says...

To me it seems a reasonable place to have a student tower block its close to the Splent Uni, it would be better to have them all in one place that is close to where they would be taking there courses.
Might be better to make it a 20 story block to make sure.
To me it seems a reasonable place to have a student tower block its close to the Splent Uni, it would be better to have them all in one place that is close to where they would be taking there courses. Might be better to make it a 20 story block to make sure. southy
  • Score: 0

2:57pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

Wonder how many members of organisation/s objecting to this plan also own houses let to students???

Could it be that the name of a religion is yet again being hijacked for protecting the business interests of some influential individuals???

Considering some of the shark landlords while letting virtual dumps to students are minting fortunes, and some of them are also so called community and religious leaders, I won't be surprised if they are worried about losing some of their captive market.

Ideally student halls should be built and run by universities themselves, but in the absence of that any purpose built accommodations, which should be better maintained than properties of some sharks has got to be a better alternative.

It should also make some more housing units available for local youngsters or others looking for accommodation.

Personally speaking I find much comfortable with most of the students who tend to be very intelligent, tolerant and open minded than most if not all some so called community leaders.

By the way, I do know how we elect MPs and Councillors etc, but what about so called community leaders?

If local ward councillors were doing their job properly they should be informing the people about real issues, helping them in understanding the realties and leading them into making decisions which could be good for whole of the area rather than the vested interests and agendas of certain people professing to be religious groups or leaders.

Finally I hope new building will be of high standrad with solar and wind energy genration catered for rahter than thinking about it few years later.
Wonder how many members of organisation/s objecting to this plan also own houses let to students??? Could it be that the name of a religion is yet again being hijacked for protecting the business interests of some influential individuals??? Considering some of the shark landlords while letting virtual dumps to students are minting fortunes, and some of them are also so called community and religious leaders, I won't be surprised if they are worried about losing some of their captive market. Ideally student halls should be built and run by universities themselves, but in the absence of that any purpose built accommodations, which should be better maintained than properties of some sharks has got to be a better alternative. It should also make some more housing units available for local youngsters or others looking for accommodation. Personally speaking I find much comfortable with most of the students who tend to be very intelligent, tolerant and open minded than most if not all some so called community leaders. By the way, I do know how we elect MPs and Councillors etc, but what about so called community leaders? If local ward councillors were doing their job properly they should be informing the people about real issues, helping them in understanding the realties and leading them into making decisions which could be good for whole of the area rather than the vested interests and agendas of certain people professing to be religious groups or leaders. Finally I hope new building will be of high standrad with solar and wind energy genration catered for rahter than thinking about it few years later. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

3:12pm Tue 18 Sep 12

sotonboy84 says...

Niel wrote:
They don't want their ghetto disturbed, having forced out a number of other ethnic groups... Cynic or realist?
Completely agree.
[quote][p][bold]Niel[/bold] wrote: They don't want their ghetto disturbed, having forced out a number of other ethnic groups... Cynic or realist?[/p][/quote]Completely agree. sotonboy84
  • Score: 0

7:10pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Over the Edge says...

I wonder what the reaction was to the influx of foreign nationals was in the 1950/60s when people moved into the Newtown/Nicholstown area's, I wonder if anyone objected then?
I wonder what the reaction was to the influx of foreign nationals was in the 1950/60s when people moved into the Newtown/Nicholstown area's, I wonder if anyone objected then? Over the Edge
  • Score: 0

8:09pm Tue 18 Sep 12

100%HANTSBOY says...

southy wrote:
To me it seems a reasonable place to have a student tower block its close to the Splent Uni, it would be better to have them all in one place that is close to where they would be taking there courses.
Might be better to make it a 20 story block to make sure.
Not too sure the students are too bothered about being near their studies....being near all the pubs and clubs,now that's a different matter!
And Paramjit is completely right about objectors ulterior motives,if you house 1500 students in tower blocks,that's 1500 rooms going spare in what should be family houses anyway.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: To me it seems a reasonable place to have a student tower block its close to the Splent Uni, it would be better to have them all in one place that is close to where they would be taking there courses. Might be better to make it a 20 story block to make sure.[/p][/quote]Not too sure the students are too bothered about being near their studies....being near all the pubs and clubs,now that's a different matter! And Paramjit is completely right about objectors ulterior motives,if you house 1500 students in tower blocks,that's 1500 rooms going spare in what should be family houses anyway. 100%HANTSBOY
  • Score: 0

11:07pm Tue 18 Sep 12

G0Rf says...

Isnt it better to have them all in one place?
Why would they cause a nuisance in st Mary's when clubs/ bars etc are in opposite direction ?
Isnt it better to have them all in one place? Why would they cause a nuisance in st Mary's when clubs/ bars etc are in opposite direction ? G0Rf
  • Score: 0

9:11am Wed 19 Sep 12

Georgem says...

100%HANTSBOY wrote:
southy wrote:
To me it seems a reasonable place to have a student tower block its close to the Splent Uni, it would be better to have them all in one place that is close to where they would be taking there courses.
Might be better to make it a 20 story block to make sure.
Not too sure the students are too bothered about being near their studies....being near all the pubs and clubs,now that's a different matter!
And Paramjit is completely right about objectors ulterior motives,if you house 1500 students in tower blocks,that's 1500 rooms going spare in what should be family houses anyway.
Why 'should' it be 1500 family houses? Have you ever been in student accommodation? It's not going to house many families.
[quote][p][bold]100%HANTSBOY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: To me it seems a reasonable place to have a student tower block its close to the Splent Uni, it would be better to have them all in one place that is close to where they would be taking there courses. Might be better to make it a 20 story block to make sure.[/p][/quote]Not too sure the students are too bothered about being near their studies....being near all the pubs and clubs,now that's a different matter! And Paramjit is completely right about objectors ulterior motives,if you house 1500 students in tower blocks,that's 1500 rooms going spare in what should be family houses anyway.[/p][/quote]Why 'should' it be 1500 family houses? Have you ever been in student accommodation? It's not going to house many families. Georgem
  • Score: 0

11:50am Wed 19 Sep 12

george h says...

I'm glad to see another thoughtful contribution from Parmi. Against all the odds really, - but it sometimes does happen. Like Parmi, I've for my sins been an elected member of a Race Relations Council and like Parmi bring some knowledge of the locality to the discussion.

I've lived on the doorstep of this rubble-strewn site for over 35 years. Over those years numerous proposals have been made for its development, but always, without exception, they've fallen by the wayside because there was never the assured funding to make them viable in the long-term. This student residence proposal has the great merit that it brings adequate assured funding to the table, and some of that funding will spill over into neighbouring areas.


I was at that meeting, overwhelmingly dominated by local landlords doing what landlords and other businessmen do, - protect their market share, - seeking to keep out newcomers who will increase the supply of rented accommodation and help drive down rents. We shouldn’t be over-influenced by the hot air generated by them and their followers; pandered to by four politicians, - all doing what they do best, - unashamedly touting for votes. And of course the developers have no votes. Quelle surprise!


There was another disturbing aspect that the unelected campaign group leaders did little to counter. The untruthful assertions that students were the main cause of violent and antisocial behaviour in the area and nearby parks. There are no recorded instances of antisocial behaviour by students living in the Liberty (Gas Board) blocks. Source: local councillor. It is a fact that most recent victims of violent attacks in the parks nearby have been students attacked by local thugs. Most problems in that locality come from the fast-food takeaways, and the undesirable people attracted there late in the evening, with no evidence that these are students. And the rough-sleepers, sold cheap alcohol by unscrupulous traders early in the morning to sit by the roadside at 8am consuming it while begging from early morning passers-by. The alcohol-free zone regulations are a joke, - and never enforced, - and in an area that is represented by a councillor who for many years has been Chair of Hants Police Authority and now seeks election as Police Commissioner. An utter joke at the electorate’s expense. A joke who (judging from the councillor’s demeanour) holds the electors in contempt.


At times the vilification of students took on an ugly flavour, comparing them to a sub-species of drug-taking, alcohol-swigging, fast food vomiting undesirables, not wanted here. And once, by a taxi-driver from Winchester no less! Perhaps he’d merely lost his way and ended up in that meeting by some quirky sat-nav accident. If such words were used to describe their own group they would be outraged – in all their faux victimhood. There was an ugly flavour of 1930s Germany in the air that made me uncomfortable. If the campaign group want to be regarded as respectable, they need to get a grip on those in their ranks who mouth such distasteful words.


Students don’t arrive with empty pockets; they bring money and employment to the city. The “protesters” also have sons and daughters seeking an education, many of them university students like those who will live in this development. Mostly good and hardworking, not the monsters referred to by some at the meeting, and mostly less bigoted than these elders. Elected by no one. Representing no one but themselves.


The suits from the developers where little better with their formal attire and jargon-loaded presentations from another planet. Presentations on artistic and architectural merit are irrelevant and patronising to local lay people who will have to live with their development, - and with their mistakes. The Gas Board building springs to mind. Likened by some to the KGB HQ, or an illegal rendition-holding centre. If the developer’s intention was to communicate effectively, I’d award two points from ten.


Increasing the supply of rented accommodation is a desirable objective. There are many ways of doing that on the Charlotte Place site. However, there’s no source of reliable funding for anything but dedicated student accommodation, and that’s desirable because it releases other housing back to non-student tenants. That’s government policy. To the best of my knowledge it’s still the policy of the Council and the local Labour Party. And it’s the right way to go.


And no one asked these questions or appeared to have thought what the answer might be. If this development was withdrawn, what are the alternatives for this rubble-strewn site lying derelict for nearly forty years? Where will the long-term assured funding come from for pie-in-the-sky plans and dreams of plans? Not from the protesters. Not from a nearly bankrupt local authority. Do they really want the site to be left as it is for another forty years?


Or see it used for everyone’s benefit.


My choice is for the latter.
I'm glad to see another thoughtful contribution from Parmi. Against all the odds really, - but it sometimes does happen. Like Parmi, I've for my sins been an elected member of a Race Relations Council and like Parmi bring some knowledge of the locality to the discussion. I've lived on the doorstep of this rubble-strewn site for over 35 years. Over those years numerous proposals have been made for its development, but always, without exception, they've fallen by the wayside because there was never the assured funding to make them viable in the long-term. This student residence proposal has the great merit that it brings adequate assured funding to the table, and some of that funding will spill over into neighbouring areas. I was at that meeting, overwhelmingly dominated by local landlords doing what landlords and other businessmen do, - protect their market share, - seeking to keep out newcomers who will increase the supply of rented accommodation and help drive down rents. We shouldn’t be over-influenced by the hot air generated by them and their followers; pandered to by four politicians, - all doing what they do best, - unashamedly touting for votes. And of course the developers have no votes. Quelle surprise! There was another disturbing aspect that the unelected campaign group leaders did little to counter. The untruthful assertions that students were the main cause of violent and antisocial behaviour in the area and nearby parks. There are no recorded instances of antisocial behaviour by students living in the Liberty (Gas Board) blocks. Source: local councillor. It is a fact that most recent victims of violent attacks in the parks nearby have been students attacked by local thugs. Most problems in that locality come from the fast-food takeaways, and the undesirable people attracted there late in the evening, with no evidence that these are students. And the rough-sleepers, sold cheap alcohol by unscrupulous traders early in the morning to sit by the roadside at 8am consuming it while begging from early morning passers-by. The alcohol-free zone regulations are a joke, - and never enforced, - and in an area that is represented by a councillor who for many years has been Chair of Hants Police Authority and now seeks election as Police Commissioner. An utter joke at the electorate’s expense. A joke who (judging from the councillor’s demeanour) holds the electors in contempt. At times the vilification of students took on an ugly flavour, comparing them to a sub-species of drug-taking, alcohol-swigging, fast food vomiting undesirables, not wanted here. And once, by a taxi-driver from Winchester no less! Perhaps he’d merely lost his way and ended up in that meeting by some quirky sat-nav accident. If such words were used to describe their own group they would be outraged – in all their faux victimhood. There was an ugly flavour of 1930s Germany in the air that made me uncomfortable. If the campaign group want to be regarded as respectable, they need to get a grip on those in their ranks who mouth such distasteful words. Students don’t arrive with empty pockets; they bring money and employment to the city. The “protesters” also have sons and daughters seeking an education, many of them university students like those who will live in this development. Mostly good and hardworking, not the monsters referred to by some at the meeting, and mostly less bigoted than these elders. Elected by no one. Representing no one but themselves. The suits from the developers where little better with their formal attire and jargon-loaded presentations from another planet. Presentations on artistic and architectural merit are irrelevant and patronising to local lay people who will have to live with their development, - and with their mistakes. The Gas Board building springs to mind. Likened by some to the KGB HQ, or an illegal rendition-holding centre. If the developer’s intention was to communicate effectively, I’d award two points from ten. Increasing the supply of rented accommodation is a desirable objective. There are many ways of doing that on the Charlotte Place site. However, there’s no source of reliable funding for anything but dedicated student accommodation, and that’s desirable because it releases other housing back to non-student tenants. That’s government policy. To the best of my knowledge it’s still the policy of the Council and the local Labour Party. And it’s the right way to go. And no one asked these questions or appeared to have thought what the answer might be. If this development was withdrawn, what are the alternatives for this rubble-strewn site lying derelict for nearly forty years? Where will the long-term assured funding come from for pie-in-the-sky plans and dreams of plans? Not from the protesters. Not from a nearly bankrupt local authority. Do they really want the site to be left as it is for another forty years? Or see it used for everyone’s benefit. My choice is for the latter. george h
  • Score: 0

1:06pm Wed 19 Sep 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

george h wrote:
I'm glad to see another thoughtful contribution from Parmi. Against all the odds really, - but it sometimes does happen. Like Parmi, I've for my sins been an elected member of a Race Relations Council and like Parmi bring some knowledge of the locality to the discussion.

I've lived on the doorstep of this rubble-strewn site for over 35 years. Over those years numerous proposals have been made for its development, but always, without exception, they've fallen by the wayside because there was never the assured funding to make them viable in the long-term. This student residence proposal has the great merit that it brings adequate assured funding to the table, and some of that funding will spill over into neighbouring areas.


I was at that meeting, overwhelmingly dominated by local landlords doing what landlords and other businessmen do, - protect their market share, - seeking to keep out newcomers who will increase the supply of rented accommodation and help drive down rents. We shouldn’t be over-influenced by the hot air generated by them and their followers; pandered to by four politicians, - all doing what they do best, - unashamedly touting for votes. And of course the developers have no votes. Quelle surprise!


There was another disturbing aspect that the unelected campaign group leaders did little to counter. The untruthful assertions that students were the main cause of violent and antisocial behaviour in the area and nearby parks. There are no recorded instances of antisocial behaviour by students living in the Liberty (Gas Board) blocks. Source: local councillor. It is a fact that most recent victims of violent attacks in the parks nearby have been students attacked by local thugs. Most problems in that locality come from the fast-food takeaways, and the undesirable people attracted there late in the evening, with no evidence that these are students. And the rough-sleepers, sold cheap alcohol by unscrupulous traders early in the morning to sit by the roadside at 8am consuming it while begging from early morning passers-by. The alcohol-free zone regulations are a joke, - and never enforced, - and in an area that is represented by a councillor who for many years has been Chair of Hants Police Authority and now seeks election as Police Commissioner. An utter joke at the electorate’s expense. A joke who (judging from the councillor’s demeanour) holds the electors in contempt.


At times the vilification of students took on an ugly flavour, comparing them to a sub-species of drug-taking, alcohol-swigging, fast food vomiting undesirables, not wanted here. And once, by a taxi-driver from Winchester no less! Perhaps he’d merely lost his way and ended up in that meeting by some quirky sat-nav accident. If such words were used to describe their own group they would be outraged – in all their faux victimhood. There was an ugly flavour of 1930s Germany in the air that made me uncomfortable. If the campaign group want to be regarded as respectable, they need to get a grip on those in their ranks who mouth such distasteful words.


Students don’t arrive with empty pockets; they bring money and employment to the city. The “protesters” also have sons and daughters seeking an education, many of them university students like those who will live in this development. Mostly good and hardworking, not the monsters referred to by some at the meeting, and mostly less bigoted than these elders. Elected by no one. Representing no one but themselves.


The suits from the developers where little better with their formal attire and jargon-loaded presentations from another planet. Presentations on artistic and architectural merit are irrelevant and patronising to local lay people who will have to live with their development, - and with their mistakes. The Gas Board building springs to mind. Likened by some to the KGB HQ, or an illegal rendition-holding centre. If the developer’s intention was to communicate effectively, I’d award two points from ten.


Increasing the supply of rented accommodation is a desirable objective. There are many ways of doing that on the Charlotte Place site. However, there’s no source of reliable funding for anything but dedicated student accommodation, and that’s desirable because it releases other housing back to non-student tenants. That’s government policy. To the best of my knowledge it’s still the policy of the Council and the local Labour Party. And it’s the right way to go.


And no one asked these questions or appeared to have thought what the answer might be. If this development was withdrawn, what are the alternatives for this rubble-strewn site lying derelict for nearly forty years? Where will the long-term assured funding come from for pie-in-the-sky plans and dreams of plans? Not from the protesters. Not from a nearly bankrupt local authority. Do they really want the site to be left as it is for another forty years?


Or see it used for everyone’s benefit.


My choice is for the latter.
Thanks for objective assessment of the meeting.

I am shocked but not at all surprised about, according to you, how NuLabour Councillors for the area and some of the so called community leaders behaved, especially pandering to prejudices.

Are these not the same lot who will be screening like hell if some bigot says something about their own race or religions?

Shame on NuLabourites if they did not condemn such prejudices.

Considering when we were involved in race relations similar self appointed community leaders of ethnic minorities were cultivated by John Denham and John Arnold to undermine me when I spoke against both white and black racism, I am not at all surprised if their followers in the shape of local councillors are still playing the same old tricks.

It may interest you that Muslim Council of Britain was created by NuLabour under Blair. Few years back woman who used to be their ethnic minority advisor had let this cat out of the bag in a TV documentary on Islam. I think her name is Hakim or something.

If local Muslim Council has anything to do with that then I won't be surprised if our opportunist immoral and unprincipled NuLabourites are exploiting their contacts for exploiting people by dividing and ruling and helping shark landlords, some of whom also dominate various religions based organisations in the area. And according to Echo were organisers of the meeting.
[quote][p][bold]george h[/bold] wrote: I'm glad to see another thoughtful contribution from Parmi. Against all the odds really, - but it sometimes does happen. Like Parmi, I've for my sins been an elected member of a Race Relations Council and like Parmi bring some knowledge of the locality to the discussion. I've lived on the doorstep of this rubble-strewn site for over 35 years. Over those years numerous proposals have been made for its development, but always, without exception, they've fallen by the wayside because there was never the assured funding to make them viable in the long-term. This student residence proposal has the great merit that it brings adequate assured funding to the table, and some of that funding will spill over into neighbouring areas. I was at that meeting, overwhelmingly dominated by local landlords doing what landlords and other businessmen do, - protect their market share, - seeking to keep out newcomers who will increase the supply of rented accommodation and help drive down rents. We shouldn’t be over-influenced by the hot air generated by them and their followers; pandered to by four politicians, - all doing what they do best, - unashamedly touting for votes. And of course the developers have no votes. Quelle surprise! There was another disturbing aspect that the unelected campaign group leaders did little to counter. The untruthful assertions that students were the main cause of violent and antisocial behaviour in the area and nearby parks. There are no recorded instances of antisocial behaviour by students living in the Liberty (Gas Board) blocks. Source: local councillor. It is a fact that most recent victims of violent attacks in the parks nearby have been students attacked by local thugs. Most problems in that locality come from the fast-food takeaways, and the undesirable people attracted there late in the evening, with no evidence that these are students. And the rough-sleepers, sold cheap alcohol by unscrupulous traders early in the morning to sit by the roadside at 8am consuming it while begging from early morning passers-by. The alcohol-free zone regulations are a joke, - and never enforced, - and in an area that is represented by a councillor who for many years has been Chair of Hants Police Authority and now seeks election as Police Commissioner. An utter joke at the electorate’s expense. A joke who (judging from the councillor’s demeanour) holds the electors in contempt. At times the vilification of students took on an ugly flavour, comparing them to a sub-species of drug-taking, alcohol-swigging, fast food vomiting undesirables, not wanted here. And once, by a taxi-driver from Winchester no less! Perhaps he’d merely lost his way and ended up in that meeting by some quirky sat-nav accident. If such words were used to describe their own group they would be outraged – in all their faux victimhood. There was an ugly flavour of 1930s Germany in the air that made me uncomfortable. If the campaign group want to be regarded as respectable, they need to get a grip on those in their ranks who mouth such distasteful words. Students don’t arrive with empty pockets; they bring money and employment to the city. The “protesters” also have sons and daughters seeking an education, many of them university students like those who will live in this development. Mostly good and hardworking, not the monsters referred to by some at the meeting, and mostly less bigoted than these elders. Elected by no one. Representing no one but themselves. The suits from the developers where little better with their formal attire and jargon-loaded presentations from another planet. Presentations on artistic and architectural merit are irrelevant and patronising to local lay people who will have to live with their development, - and with their mistakes. The Gas Board building springs to mind. Likened by some to the KGB HQ, or an illegal rendition-holding centre. If the developer’s intention was to communicate effectively, I’d award two points from ten. Increasing the supply of rented accommodation is a desirable objective. There are many ways of doing that on the Charlotte Place site. However, there’s no source of reliable funding for anything but dedicated student accommodation, and that’s desirable because it releases other housing back to non-student tenants. That’s government policy. To the best of my knowledge it’s still the policy of the Council and the local Labour Party. And it’s the right way to go. And no one asked these questions or appeared to have thought what the answer might be. If this development was withdrawn, what are the alternatives for this rubble-strewn site lying derelict for nearly forty years? Where will the long-term assured funding come from for pie-in-the-sky plans and dreams of plans? Not from the protesters. Not from a nearly bankrupt local authority. Do they really want the site to be left as it is for another forty years? Or see it used for everyone’s benefit. My choice is for the latter.[/p][/quote]Thanks for objective assessment of the meeting. I am shocked but not at all surprised about, according to you, how NuLabour Councillors for the area and some of the so called community leaders behaved, especially pandering to prejudices. Are these not the same lot who will be screening like hell if some bigot says something about their own race or religions? Shame on NuLabourites if they did not condemn such prejudices. Considering when we were involved in race relations similar self appointed community leaders of ethnic minorities were cultivated by John Denham and John Arnold to undermine me when I spoke against both white and black racism, I am not at all surprised if their followers in the shape of local councillors are still playing the same old tricks. It may interest you that Muslim Council of Britain was created by NuLabour under Blair. Few years back woman who used to be their ethnic minority advisor had let this cat out of the bag in a TV documentary on Islam. I think her name is Hakim or something. If local Muslim Council has anything to do with that then I won't be surprised if our opportunist immoral and unprincipled NuLabourites are exploiting their contacts for exploiting people by dividing and ruling and helping shark landlords, some of whom also dominate various religions based organisations in the area. And according to Echo were organisers of the meeting. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

3:52pm Wed 19 Sep 12

loosehead says...

I don't agree with Muslim councils or any other religious or self appointed body we have elections local & National we vote these people in to run our city & our country.
these self appointed bodies speak for a minority yet think they should be obeyed well surely many muslims came here for a better life so why go back to the same life they've left?
I don't agree with Muslim councils or any other religious or self appointed body we have elections local & National we vote these people in to run our city & our country. these self appointed bodies speak for a minority yet think they should be obeyed well surely many muslims came here for a better life so why go back to the same life they've left? loosehead
  • Score: 0

6:10pm Wed 19 Sep 12

100%HANTSBOY says...

Georgem wrote:
100%HANTSBOY wrote:
southy wrote:
To me it seems a reasonable place to have a student tower block its close to the Splent Uni, it would be better to have them all in one place that is close to where they would be taking there courses.
Might be better to make it a 20 story block to make sure.
Not too sure the students are too bothered about being near their studies....being near all the pubs and clubs,now that's a different matter!
And Paramjit is completely right about objectors ulterior motives,if you house 1500 students in tower blocks,that's 1500 rooms going spare in what should be family houses anyway.
Why 'should' it be 1500 family houses? Have you ever been in student accommodation? It's not going to house many families.
Read again,I said 1500 rooms not houses.and yes I've been in student houses that used to be family homes and could be again, one day.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]100%HANTSBOY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: To me it seems a reasonable place to have a student tower block its close to the Splent Uni, it would be better to have them all in one place that is close to where they would be taking there courses. Might be better to make it a 20 story block to make sure.[/p][/quote]Not too sure the students are too bothered about being near their studies....being near all the pubs and clubs,now that's a different matter! And Paramjit is completely right about objectors ulterior motives,if you house 1500 students in tower blocks,that's 1500 rooms going spare in what should be family houses anyway.[/p][/quote]Why 'should' it be 1500 family houses? Have you ever been in student accommodation? It's not going to house many families.[/p][/quote]Read again,I said 1500 rooms not houses.and yes I've been in student houses that used to be family homes and could be again, one day. 100%HANTSBOY
  • Score: 0

9:25am Thu 20 Sep 12

george h says...

Carefully reading through the objection made by the campaign group to the developers the group claims to represent the residents of Nicholstown and Newtown.

Since when? Has there ever been a publicised meeting of this undemocratic self-elected group of landlords, prior to the public meeting last Tuesday? When was it made possible for everyone to seek election to "represent" the people Newtown & Nicholstown?


They represent no one but themselves, while seeking special privileges. Colonialism is dead but amongst the political class, habits of treating ethnic groups differently linger on though, as Parmi has so cogently said. Racism by any other name is still racism.


I understand that the political class have their own special interests in protecting their voter base, but it's a thin line to walk.

Where for example were the white residents at the public meeting other than two Labour Party members, one of whom lives some distance away in the Inner Avenue. Perhaps not invited by selective leafleting?


Where were examples of the large Polish community? AH, - I get it now, - they are mainly the tenants of the landlords at that meeting, not willing or too afraid to upset the Rachmans they pay rent to.

I'm disgustingly white, retired, and a resident of Nicholstown for over 35 years, yet I felt unwelcome at the public meeting. Three times my right to attend was challenged, and an address demanded from me, once by a SCC employee, once by a leader of the campaign group, and once by an elderly and pleasant gentleman I encounter in the street frequently.


Yet I note that only white people were challenged. Why was that? I suspect most readers will draw an appropriate conclusion.


It should be made clear to that campaign group that unless they broaden their membership base they are really no different than a more colourful, hopefully more intelligent version of the BNP.
Carefully reading through the objection made by the campaign group to the developers the group claims to represent the residents of Nicholstown and Newtown. Since when? Has there ever been a publicised meeting of this undemocratic self-elected group of landlords, prior to the public meeting last Tuesday? When was it made possible for everyone to seek election to "represent" the people Newtown & Nicholstown? They represent no one but themselves, while seeking special privileges. Colonialism is dead but amongst the political class, habits of treating ethnic groups differently linger on though, as Parmi has so cogently said. Racism by any other name is still racism. I understand that the political class have their own special interests in protecting their voter base, but it's a thin line to walk. Where for example were the white residents at the public meeting other than two Labour Party members, one of whom lives some distance away in the Inner Avenue. Perhaps not invited by selective leafleting? Where were examples of the large Polish community? AH, - I get it now, - they are mainly the tenants of the landlords at that meeting, not willing or too afraid to upset the Rachmans they pay rent to. I'm disgustingly white, retired, and a resident of Nicholstown for over 35 years, yet I felt unwelcome at the public meeting. Three times my right to attend was challenged, and an address demanded from me, once by a SCC employee, once by a leader of the campaign group, and once by an elderly and pleasant gentleman I encounter in the street frequently. Yet I note that only white people were challenged. Why was that? I suspect most readers will draw an appropriate conclusion. It should be made clear to that campaign group that unless they broaden their membership base they are really no different than a more colourful, hopefully more intelligent version of the BNP. george h
  • Score: 0

9:39am Thu 20 Sep 12

loosehead says...

george h wrote:
Carefully reading through the objection made by the campaign group to the developers the group claims to represent the residents of Nicholstown and Newtown.

Since when? Has there ever been a publicised meeting of this undemocratic self-elected group of landlords, prior to the public meeting last Tuesday? When was it made possible for everyone to seek election to "represent" the people Newtown & Nicholstown?


They represent no one but themselves, while seeking special privileges. Colonialism is dead but amongst the political class, habits of treating ethnic groups differently linger on though, as Parmi has so cogently said. Racism by any other name is still racism.


I understand that the political class have their own special interests in protecting their voter base, but it's a thin line to walk.

Where for example were the white residents at the public meeting other than two Labour Party members, one of whom lives some distance away in the Inner Avenue. Perhaps not invited by selective leafleting?


Where were examples of the large Polish community? AH, - I get it now, - they are mainly the tenants of the landlords at that meeting, not willing or too afraid to upset the Rachmans they pay rent to.

I'm disgustingly white, retired, and a resident of Nicholstown for over 35 years, yet I felt unwelcome at the public meeting. Three times my right to attend was challenged, and an address demanded from me, once by a SCC employee, once by a leader of the campaign group, and once by an elderly and pleasant gentleman I encounter in the street frequently.


Yet I note that only white people were challenged. Why was that? I suspect most readers will draw an appropriate conclusion.


It should be made clear to that campaign group that unless they broaden their membership base they are really no different than a more colourful, hopefully more intelligent version of the BNP.
What a Muslim/Asian BNP never?
where have you lived for 35 years?
I have been saying for years there are racists in all colours.
I had an asian friend lodging with me he hated blacks he also didn't like Pakistani's.
But this seems to be Asian landlords & maybe a few others objecting to open competition rather than what's good for the area
[quote][p][bold]george h[/bold] wrote: Carefully reading through the objection made by the campaign group to the developers the group claims to represent the residents of Nicholstown and Newtown. Since when? Has there ever been a publicised meeting of this undemocratic self-elected group of landlords, prior to the public meeting last Tuesday? When was it made possible for everyone to seek election to "represent" the people Newtown & Nicholstown? They represent no one but themselves, while seeking special privileges. Colonialism is dead but amongst the political class, habits of treating ethnic groups differently linger on though, as Parmi has so cogently said. Racism by any other name is still racism. I understand that the political class have their own special interests in protecting their voter base, but it's a thin line to walk. Where for example were the white residents at the public meeting other than two Labour Party members, one of whom lives some distance away in the Inner Avenue. Perhaps not invited by selective leafleting? Where were examples of the large Polish community? AH, - I get it now, - they are mainly the tenants of the landlords at that meeting, not willing or too afraid to upset the Rachmans they pay rent to. I'm disgustingly white, retired, and a resident of Nicholstown for over 35 years, yet I felt unwelcome at the public meeting. Three times my right to attend was challenged, and an address demanded from me, once by a SCC employee, once by a leader of the campaign group, and once by an elderly and pleasant gentleman I encounter in the street frequently. Yet I note that only white people were challenged. Why was that? I suspect most readers will draw an appropriate conclusion. It should be made clear to that campaign group that unless they broaden their membership base they are really no different than a more colourful, hopefully more intelligent version of the BNP.[/p][/quote]What a Muslim/Asian BNP never? where have you lived for 35 years? I have been saying for years there are racists in all colours. I had an asian friend lodging with me he hated blacks he also didn't like Pakistani's. But this seems to be Asian landlords & maybe a few others objecting to open competition rather than what's good for the area loosehead
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree