London SE1 community website

Lant Street

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Current: 8 of 15
Sunday 30 September 2012 12.54pm
@ Edward

Best source there is, my friend:
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/4103

There was a couple of discussion threads about it which I am trying to dig out.

Bottom Line, someone waved his/her magic wand and the need to hold a public enquiry on the closure of public space magically disappeared courtesy of an extremely helpful Mr Ian Clement who kindly consented to use powers usually reserved for planning application deemed of strategic importance for London.

No disrespect but I doubt that Charles Dicken school's playground fits the description of a strategically important site.

Who said magic did not exist.
Sunday 30 September 2012 1.07pm
Tabularasa wrote:
@ Edward
Best source there is, my friend:
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/4103

There was a couple of discussion threads about it which I am trying to dig out.

Bottom Line, someone waved his/her magic wand and the need to hold a public enquiry on the closure of public space magically disappeared courtesy of an extremely helpful Mr Ian Clement who kindly consented to use powers usually reserved for planning application deemed of strategic importance for London.

No disrespect but I doubt that Charles Dicken school's playground fits the description of a strategically important site.

Who said magic did not exist.

Thanks for that. Could you please point me in the direction of the bit that shows how Mrs Owens pulled "a few strings" and got 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"? Thanks.
Sunday 30 September 2012 2.09pm
Let me say it again for the benefit of those a little slow on the uptake: THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN 2004. I might be unhappy that Gordon Brown sold the UK's Gold Reserves at a quarter of the price they would fetch today. But I recognise that there's limited value in continuing, today, to lobby for him not to sell them.

Given that THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN 2004 there can be no purpose in Liberal Councillors calling every school planning application in to attempt to placate a highly vocal minority in their ward. All that does is waste everyone's time, Council funds and scarce School management time. It's wrong and Liberal ward councillors know it is. Why do they do it? You'll have to ask them!

And this isn't the first time. Every time an application is made by the School to do anything, those who haven't quite caught up with 2004's front pages, object. Grow up. Move on.
Sunday 30 September 2012 2.23pm
Zoe wrote:
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.

Yes! Me too.

And as it happens just this Friday I tried to cut through from BHS to SBR only to find my way blocked by the school, retraced my steps on tired feet, and thought "Doh! This must be at least the third time I've tried to cut through here without remembering that you can't get through..."
Sunday 30 September 2012 2.49pm
JessicaKennedy wrote:
retraced my steps on tired feet

Wow! How close did you have to get to that fence before you saw it?
Sunday 30 September 2012 2.55pm
godot wrote:
Let me say it again for the benefit of those a little slow on the uptake: THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN 2004. I might be unhappy that Gordon Brown sold the UK's Gold Reserves at a quarter of the price they would fetch today. But I recognise that there's limited value in continuing, today, to lobby for him not to sell them.

Planning is not DECIDED for ever, really. Things that get permission and get built often get knocked down soon after; look at the E&C Leisure Centre.

This means that you can't fight a battle once and win for ever - you actually have to work to get along with the people who are affected by the decision, perhaps offering an olive branch by making compromises. If you ignore these people, or call them "slow on the uptake", they will continue to feel rankled and fight for what they want. I suggest you, and the school, spend more of your scarce management time in working with local people, not antagonizing them. Even hard-nosed developers speak to neighbours before submitting planning applications, it's common sense.
Sunday 30 September 2012 2.59pm
Ah yes, others must compromise and change. They must issue an olive branch.

BTW I'm not of the school and I don't speak for the school. I am just someone who's staggered that so much time is being wasted on an issue that was, yep, decided in 2004.

Anyway. That's my last word on the subject.
Sunday 30 September 2012 3.06pm
beetroot wrote:
JessicaKennedy wrote:
retraced my steps on tired feet

Wow! How close did you have to get to that fence before you saw it?

Yes! Just how stupid am I!

I do keep forgetting that the whole thing is a cul de sac. The road appears to continue to the left (or perhaps it is just parking for the estate there), but there is no through route that way either.

I am hopeful that I have now grasped sufficiently firmly that it is not possible to cut through there, but thank you for your milk of human kindness, delicious.
Sunday 30 September 2012 3.09pm
Listen godot,

The theory according to which Cllr Noakes and Morris are on some kind of mission to prevent schoolchildren from getting an education doesn't hold water. They are not Talibans.

What is far more likely is that they are playing hardball with the Charles Dickens school staff as a payback for the way they conducted the whole planning process. They are just fighting for your and mine rights to be respected. I am all for that
Sunday 30 September 2012 3.19pm
JessicaKennedy wrote:
beetroot wrote:
JessicaKennedy wrote:
retraced my steps on tired feet

Wow! How close did you have to get to that fence before you saw it?

Yes! Just how stupid am I!

I do keep forgetting that the whole thing is a cul de sac. The road appears to continue to the left (or perhaps it is just parking for the estate there), but there is no through route that way either.

I am hopeful that I have now grasped sufficiently firmly that it is not possible to cut through there, but thank you for your milk of human kindness, delicious.

What's wrong with Sanctuary Street and Weller Street? Personally I do think there should be pedestrian access down Lant Street but the detour is really quite short.
Current: 8 of 15

To post a message, please log in or register..
We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions