Very glad to hear about lib dem and labour opposing the built of a super sewer on these sites; we need a political voice.
What vigorous opposition are they doing/can they do? Is there someone representing us we can talk to? are they doing something behind close door to advance the argument for alternative sites that would not affect our community so much?
The real question is really would anyone want a super sewer next to their home?
There are already sewers near and, likely, under your home - I think they do more good than harm. This particular one will be less of an intrusion than a tube tunnel.
If I lived at King Stairs I'd be more concerned about the sewage floating down the river.
Do you want all the disturbance in your area?
No one ever does, and that's fine. You should critique the scheme and suggest alternatives. The disturbance, in this case, is spread out right along the Thames because that is necessary for the scheme to work.
Do you agree that a super sewer is built in the Alfred Salter Playground or in the King Stair's Garden?
If a study has been done, on the proper terms, and concludes that this is what is needed (every indication is that this has occurred) then I'm willing to listen to experts.
It is surely better there than evicting someone from their home. If there are better ideas, bring them forward.
Southwark park is just across the road, but if the children's playing area is not up to scratch then I'd suggest that a valuable thing to campaign for would be to have Thames replace both facilities that would be lost on nearby sites prior to work beginning.
Jamesup, why did they pick one of the few remaining green spaces in SE London on the river, though, to place this sewage centre? I understand the original plans were for it to go in Potter's Field next to the Mayor's office, which is an unused plot of land OR Chamber's Wharf, which is derelict. It looks like something underhand has taken place. Why pick a much used and loved park?
...I would suspect the world heritage status of the tower, tower bridge and surrounds, might have been an issue at Potters. They would also likely tried to avoid getting involved with the potters field mess (see its own thread) for fear that it would delay the whole project.
To answer your question, they picked it because that's what the terms of the methodology set out - the preference is for an undeveloped space, on the river, at about that point. As you rightly say, it is one of the only ones.
I'd suggest getting hold of the Site Suitability Report for KS Gardens - that'll probably help establish if other sites were eliminated from consideration on grounds that you'd like to challenge.
If there is a better option that's great - cost of acquisition is a factor on the assessment process - that's an area you can challenge if you can show the relative cost of the other site is overcome by the loss of amenity. There is still Southwark Park though, so it's going to be hard to argue that successfully.
Last from me would be to say do reply to the actually consultation - it'll have more direct influence than the petition. Make clear when you do how often you use the gardens, what you use them for, why losing them would be very disruptive, the effect on your Children etc.
jamesup - do you know how we can get hold of the Site Suitability Report? Many people have asked for the list of 7 alternative sites to King's Stairs Gardens from when they first started their Exhibitions but empty promises so far...
how a community is supposed to survive for 2 years with no play facilities?
why are childrens' playgrounds considered the only space available in the area? what about the coach park behind potters fields?
what play alternatives do they propose to provide?
it is not acceptible to lose our facilities for 2 years.
to receive a much smaller park and play zone after that time.
I went to the consultation yesterday. They told me the Potters Fields coach park was considered as site alternative to King Stairs Gardens and only recently taken off the list because of the Berkeley Homes development and the fact that 'there were lots of cranes and the development was actually going ahead'. In fact there is not yet any planning permission for the new building - apparently they didn not know this.
I personally oppose the Druid Street park as a site because it's the only park within walking distance of our home and I have two young children. I was horrified to be told that the site was voted the 'preferred site' for a variety of reasons including a 'public consultation' which did not involve talking to any community groups/people who use the park. In fact one alternative site (the car park behind the park) was disregarded because it was too close to the school yet they haven't consulted WITH the school to see their view and whether they in fact would rather lose the park. I've no idea what their view would be but to make these decisions without asking the schools/users/residents involved seems completely wrong. They were unaware the Training for Life/Downside Fisher centre is a youth club/community centre with hundreds of children passing through the doors (and hence the park) each week. Apparently the community consultation was carried out by 'experts in their field visiting the sites' - how could they have failed to notice this? (or indeed inform the centre of their plans).
The public consultation yesterday was poorly attended so please go if you do object or want more information. The Beomond Centre on the corner of Abbey and Druid Street.
I feel there should have been better advertisement of the consultation such as a poster in the park they plan to close for 2 years advising of the fact.