London SE1 community website

Heygate Community Betrayal

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 5 of 12
Thursday 17 January 2013 8.14am
YNB79 wrote:
eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
YNB79 wrote:
Aaron Bowden wrote:
Interesting comments, but it would also be great if people can start looking at all the positives that the redevelopment to E&C will finally bring to the area and stop being negative and hold up regeneration to the area. It will still take at least a decade for these changes to be implemented and I m tired of all the constant moaners, if you dont like it, move somewhere else, this is Central London and it needs to move with the rest of the world. Cheers

I agree with you, and so does the silent majority but unfortunately this forum is not a good representation… be prepared for a public lynching.
The "silent majority" is a myth. Otherwise you'd be posting on their forum rather than whingeing and being obnoxious on here. So do us all a favour and go.

We don’t need to, we have politicians that what to be elected so they follow what’s gets them elected (eg. what the majority wants). Do you think that the councilors were not thinking exactly what Aaron said when they gave this plan the go ahead “stop being negative and hold up regeneration to the area. It will still take at least a decade for these changes to be implemented and I’m tired of all the constant moaners”

Oh dear.....YNB79 you have completely missed the point!

Part of the democratic process is indeed elections but open planning meetings are also another layer of democracy and when the meeting is not open to a large number of people who wish to attend and for those that do manage to get in they are severley limited in their ability to particiapte then that smacks openly of a very undemocratic process. I obviously do not wish to incur the ire of James again for usuing provocative language but if we are moving to a state of local governance where the ability to participate freely and openly in major decisions affecting local people and areas then we really have to question what kind of democracy we have!!!
Thursday 17 January 2013 8.18am
Donnachadh McCarthy wrote:
it even was not true that all the seats were occupied. There were at least four seats immediately near where I was sitting and some others scattered around the room.
You do realise that the meeting began at 6.00 pm? There was a 'comfort break' at around 9.30 pm, and the chair of the meeting actually suggested that some people might want to leave to allow others waiting in the foyer in to the meeting. That may be why there were empty seats when you were there.
Thursday 17 January 2013 9.02am
Sell out?

Fair play here. At least he's honest enough to say that they hadn't expected to sell out....
Thursday 17 January 2013 9.40am
Sidney wrote:
Sell out?
Fair play here. At least he's honest enough to say that they hadn't expected to sell out....

Interesting. It would have been better to hold the meeting elsewhere. I supported the suggestion of having it it Crossways Church for example, or the foyer at Tooley Street at least. BTW, I was one of the 'common' people in the meeting, having arrived at 5.55 pm and getting ticket number 97.
Thursday 17 January 2013 10.17am
I also attended and did not get in, giving up after 3.5hrs.

City Hall over the road has hundreds of seats and would have been suitable.

I cannot emphasise enough that every planning application that goes to committee, goes to committee for democratic reasons, which includes the right for anyone who objected to the application in writing to be able to speak.

LBS are entitled to require that any speaker only raises planning issues and to set a time limit. Due to LBS being thoroughly disorganised and not having a big enough meeting room there was no way for the chair to verify these facts before allowing people to speak. So for Cllr Peter John to tweet that the meeting was being disrupted by people who don't live locally is both ironic, arrogant, unsubstantiated and at least partially incorrect.

It really does come down to LBS not running a proper meeting. Their Labour councillors asked supposedly probing questions but did not acknowledge any reasonable changes such as additional conditions and the final vote was along party lines which says it all really.

It is not unknown for local authority councillors to rehearse questions with planning officers beforehand so they are prepared. I guess the South Bank has always had a tradition of theatre!
Thursday 17 January 2013 10.26am
Peter Davis wrote:
Donnachadh McCarthy wrote:
it even was not true that all the seats were occupied. There were at least four seats immediately near where I was sitting and some others scattered around the room.
You do realise that the meeting began at 6.00 pm? There was a 'comfort break' at around 9.30 pm, and the chair of the meeting actually suggested that some people might want to leave to allow others waiting in the foyer in to the meeting. That may be why there were empty seats when you were there.
I sure do - having sat through all 6.5 hours of it!!
There were empty seats around where I was all through the meeting. No effort was made to get all seats filled by officers despite people not being allowed in.

I thought the tweet by Peter John attacking Simon Hughes for trying to get officers to allow those outside into the meeting a disgrace - he implied those protesting the planning application should not be allowed in shocks me about his understanding of democracy, freedom of speech and the right to protest against decisions of our council officers / councillors.
Whilst councilllors from both parties asked questions ad nauseum, and the 2 LDs voted against, I was shocked that not one of them proposed a single amendment to the officers report which in turn did not accept a single point from the hundreds of objections submitted by residents.
Thursday 17 January 2013 11.14am
Wish I was clever enough to go back to the original concept of council housing,parks open spaces etc., and see the legality of flogging off what the people of Southwark own.
Thursday 17 January 2013 1.40pm
Well the lied to former Heygate residents aren't likely to be from the E&C anymore.
Thursday 17 January 2013 2.33pm
Last month, the FT ran an article called Undemocratic Developments in which Elephant and Caste was mentionned...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/4d67d514-3499-11e2-8986-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2IAIC2NSe
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 5 of 12

To post a message, please log in or register..
Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

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