Lant Street

Andy Ross wrote:

The local TRA employed BOST to draw up plans to allow a pathway around the perimeter, but these were dismissed by the school!!

Just out of interest - would it be possible to view these plans? I understand a pathway as an option, I just don't see how it would work. Thanks.

Like Andy Ross, I'm perplexed by the personal attacks on Councillors Morris and Noakes.

While I've got some pretty choice things to say about the Yellow Tories operating nationally in their party, these councillors are dedicated and hard working servants of this community.

The situation here is that a 24 hour, public resource which was usable by all, has been enclosed for the use of a minority of the population to use for a small portion of the day and year.

It might be the best use of this resource, but the school should acknowledge that closing a street does inconvenience a lot of people.

Like Edward Woodward, I'd like to see the proposals for the footpath.

Harrow School has public footpaths running through its grounds, so it's not necessarily the case that this is impossible to achieve. What's good enough for the pampered offspring of the wealthy must surely be good enough for the children of Southwark.

The BOST plans had an initial idea of a curving pathway through the grounds, but the more recent acceptable plan, was to have a boundary and a pathway around the boarder, similar too St Joseph's.

I'll scan the original BOST plans and an amended plan which is more suitable for all concerned

I'm a little surprised by the attacks on Cllr Noakes and Cllr Morris as I don't think it is a fair reflection of them. I'm not a Liberal but the good they do locally is clear to see.

Where people disagree and clearly feel passionately about an issue it can lead to unfair comments from both sides and clearly Godot does feel strongly on this one, which I can respect, but people are allowed to disagree and not suffer unpleasant personal attacks. It's really not nice.

I also can't see how they are acting unlawfully and what they would be surcharged for, they are councillors, it's really their job to be involved in local issue. I didn't like it when one of them gave planning permission for a building that as it's being built is so clearly wrong for the site, but I don't take it personally, I just make pointed comments about it occasionally.

Andy Ross wrote:

The BOST plans had an initial idea of a curving pathway through the grounds, but the more recent acceptable plan, was to have a boundary and a pathway around the boarder, similar too St Joseph's.
I'll scan the original BOST plans and an amended plan which is more suitable for all concerned

Thank you, that would be great.

That pedestrian access issue was concluded in 2004 http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/DocsOnline/Documents/54163_1.pdf - see the report of the planning history therein. And I understand that access via a perimeter fence was something that police objected to - not the school.

@ Godot

You mean that you don't understand why Cllr Noakes and Morris could be slightly pissed off at the Charles Dicken school and Mrs Owens pulling a few strings and getting the Then deputy-mayor Ian Clement (who by the way had to resign on fraud charges) to completely disregard the planing process and the objections of people who live and actually own businesses in the area?

It is not as if the current planing process gives much voice to local residents to start with. Completely ignoring it might be pushing things too far.

And for the record, the closure of Lant street has translated in a 30% drop in revenues for the local businesses. Some had had to move to survive

What say you to the owners, their families and children? Sorry? Tough luck? My children first and the rest be damned?

Please, stay quiet.

I've uploaded an updated amendment to the original BOST/School proposals.


http://picturepush.com/public/10424602


As you can see, residents and parents (who live on the estate and visit the local area) agreed that a pathway around the school ground offered the best solution.

The "communal gardens" was of less importance to the local community as a walkway to be utilised by all.

At TRA meetings and informal discussions, many residents were of the view that the communal gardens is best gated off for exclusive use by the children of Charles Dickens school, a 'special place to learn about nature'.

Local residents have a number of Parks and Open spaces to visit within the local area.

godot wrote:

That pedestrian access issue was concluded in 2004 http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/DocsOnline/Documents/54163_1.pdf - see the report of the planning history therein. And I understand that access via a perimeter fence was something that police objected to - not the school.

This is a common misconception, that the Police objected.

I went to the Police Ward Panel meetings, where this issue was discussed, and the Police had no objections to a walkway around the perimeter, as long as the children were kept safe and separated from pedestrians, the pathway was able to accommodate 'personal space' to allow for example, a parent with a double buggy to have access around the pathway.
There is no quantitive or 'minimum' amount of space, its using common sense.

As it has been previously mentioned, the current design of the gates, allows good visibility without "Blind spots", which was the general word of caution from any perimeter walkway ... to eliminate Blind Spots.

Tabularasa wrote:

@ Godot
Mrs Owens pulling a few strings and getting the Then deputy-mayor Ian Clement ...to completely disregard the planing process and the objections of people who live and actually own businesses in the area?

Do you have any proof for that?