Well done Alan. Very well put, particularly the pertinent points about the disadvantages unfunded community groups face at enquiries, about Ian Ritchie and about the almost total lack of support locally. Don't do yourself down about any little omissions, you have put a lot of effort into this on behalf of others and I'd like to thank you, as no doubt would lots of others.
I'll be honest (and you may not want to hear this), it's a good statement let down by the "vast cost" and "Ken Livingstone - mad" elements.
With regards to the first, the cost is a factor of the due process of law, and I think by objecting to the form of the inquiry in such a way, you are insulting the inspector and denegrate your later evidence.
With regards the second, this is entirely inadmissable and therefore irrelevant to the inspector. However, it means that, when he is writing his report, the main thing he will remember is not that you used to work and live by and on the river, but that you thought the London mayor was mad.
Alan pionted out that the inspector is visiting Ian Riches other projects in Paris Leipzig and London
As Ian rich has never designed a large scale housing development before I don't think there relevant
If Ian riches other developments do have a relevance its that they are embaresingly(for Berkeley homes)the sort of custom designed (cultural use)buildings that southwark council would rather have on the site.
Having listened to the cases from both sides
I don't see how the inspector can possible recommend that this scheme gets the go ahead
Most of Berkeley's arguments were complete fabrications ,
like the nonexistent height transition ,
and the absurd premise that 19 story tower blocks were derived from what is historically in keeping with the conservation area .
or that a tall building right next to tower bridge is no more damaging than a tall building in the distance.
Im sorry not even the dodgeest second hand car salesmen from Romford would attempt to distort reality to that degree
and the worried look on Berkelys faces (fidgeting and looking to the floor )as southwarks witnesses present there case suggests they know it themselves .
Edited 1 times. Last edit at 14 June 2004 6.10pm by mickysalt.
I'd be interested to see the outcome but don't be so sure on it - few people eating humble pie on their view of the cases put forward and the alleged 'fabrications' and reactions to an extremely strong case for the opposition.
Let's wait for the fat lady to sing until any conclusions reached...
I noticed that when ever southwark counsel were doing well in the inquiry the inspector would look shifty and turn his head away from the public area,it was like he couldn't look at the general public when
The gapeing holes in Berkeley's case were being revealed.
Im sure the inspector is under pressure from central government to support the Berkeley side.
The problem is the actual evidence points the other way.
Edited 1 times. Last edit at 16 June 2004 11.26am by mickysalt.