London SE1 community website

All Hallows Church, Copperfield Street

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 4 of 14
nik
Sunday 22 May 2005 2.31pm
Colin Slee writes, “By charitable law the Dean and Chapter must ‘maximise' the Cathedral's resources”.

I cannot believe this is correct if, by maximizing the Cathedral's resources, the Cathedral is in breach of its charitable objectives. There can be no doubt that this proposal damages the mission of the Church in our community.
I would like Colin Slee to post the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Cathedral so that we can see what the objectives of the Cathedral are. We can then judge that his defense that he has no alternative is valid.

In addition, I am also asking that the latest set of Financial Accounts for the Cathedral be posted, including an asset register so we can see the their profitability and what other land and buildings the Cathedral owns.

I have emailed the Rt Rev Dr Thomas Butler, Bishop of Southwark, as I believe that Colin Slee does not have the trust of many people in our area . In fact there has been nothing to base trust on as most people around here have not even been consulted either on the development plans or how we can develop the present site so that it can also provide an income stream for the Cathedral.

I hope the Bishop of Southwark will act on this before it reaches the national and local press and residents and tenants take action. The damage to the Cathedral may be irreversible and all the good work they may have done in this community will be lost.

In the long run the Cathedral's proposed course of action will minimize, not maximize, the Cathedral's resources.
Sunday 22 May 2005 2.34pm
Colin Slee claims local residents were invited to view the plans but it's clear they deliberately didn't try very hard to inform people. I live very close to the garden and the first I heard of these plans was on this site. And no, we don't have 'security' doors preventing access to our building.

Surely the building work alone is going to have a detrimental effect on the garden? How's it going to survive being a building site for months on end with cranes, lorries etc coming and going?
Monday 23 May 2005 2.38pm
Oh my gosh! I used to live in Copperfield Street, how terrible that the building and gardens will go. You must be so upset.
Tuesday 24 May 2005 1.02pm
While I consider the threat to the garden to be very serious, I'd like to talk about the impact this proposed development would have on natural light and sky views.

I live in one of the Church Commissioners' blocks facing directly into the site. If this building goes up, it will completely block the view of the sky and greatly darken the area to the rear of our apartments. This view of the sky is precious, especially since the sky views and light to the front of a number of our blocks on Union Street are already under threat from an approved high-rise commercial development.

I would imagine the church's development would also lead to additional unnatural light and noise pollution at night-time. There is already an echo in the blocks, this building would make it worse.

In short, if this building goes up, it would be like living in a coffin without a lid.

I am not calling Colin Slee a liar, but he comes up with some poor excuses. I know that developers are not obliged to consult, but claiming that he attempted to contact the block's residents but couldn't because of the security doors is a joke. It's extremely easy to contact us through our mailing boxes, with hand-delivered letters. Local pizza and taxi companies manage to do this all the time.

The way this whole issue has been handled has left a bad taste in people's mouths. It's one thing for a commercial developer to come in and impose their will. It's entirely another for an organisation - whose spiritual mission purports to build and create communities - to do the same. In fact, it's worse, because Colin Slee pretends that he cares about the well-being of people, when, in fact, he has demonstrated, through his words and actions, that money is more important than spirit.



nik
Monday 30 May 2005 2.59pm
Colin Slee wrote earlier in the forum that “By charitable law the Dean and Chapter must ‘maximise' the Cathedral's resources”.

The Charity Commission says “However, trustees need to ensure that whichever method chosen (of fundraising) it is in the best interests of the charity, and not only in a financial sense. They need to be alert and sensitive to public opinion and criticism”.

It would be interesting to test this with the Charity Commission to see if by maximizing income against the wishes of the community, it was a breach of the Charity's Objects. These Objects are safeguarded by the Trustees but at present we do not know what Charity made the decision let alone who the Trustees are. One reason for not knowing this is that the majority of people who will be effected by this development have not been consulted.

I have formally requested the following information from the Bishop of Southwark and Colin Slee.

1. Who owns the All Hallows Church land?
The Memorandum and Articles of Association of that Charity
Its Charitable Objects
The latest Annual Report and Financial Statements
Current Trustees

2. Who is responsible for the development of All Hallows Church?
The Memorandum and Articles of Association of that Charity
Its Charitable Objects
The latest Annual Report and Financial Statements
Current Trustees

I hope that for the sake of transparency and to find a way of utilising the existing All Hallows buildings, that will encompass both the Church's spiritual and financial mission together with the needs of our community, that the Cathedral responds to this.
Monday 30 May 2005 3.48pm
When the Charity Commission says that "An effective charity manages and uses its resources so as to optimise its potential."
it appears to define this as 'diligent housekeeping' rather than the financially speculative slant the Cathedral has given it.

In Colin Slee's letter to Neighbours (31 March) he tells us "I have a legal oblifgation to make the best use of the Cathedral's resources", but, if we look at the Charity Commissions principles, by allowing the original building to deteriorate in the way it has, Colin Slee may already have failed in his 'legal obligation' to optimise the potential of the Cathedral's holdings.
nik
Monday 30 May 2005 9.39pm
I would like to add that at the moment I can see blue sky from my window on the Winchester Estate. The Cathedral's application seeks to box me, and many other tenants, in on all four sides and deprive us of natural light.

I do not believe that creating such a dehumanising and anti-social environment can be claimed to be in the interest of the community as the Cathedral claims.
Monday 30 May 2005 10.51pm
nik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would like to add that at the moment I can see
> blue sky from my window on the Winchester Estate.
> The Cathedral's application seeks to box me, and
> many other tenants, in on all four sides and
> deprive us of natural light.
>
> I do not believe that creating such a dehumanising
> and anti-social environment can be claimed to be
> in the interest of the community as the Cathedral
> claims.
>
If the new building will deprive you of too much light, you can object to the plans on those grounds. There is a measurement of the amount of light that enters windows called the Vertical Sky Component (VSE). The guidelines contained in BRE (Building Research Establishment) Report 209, 1991, 'Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight - a guide to good practice' indicate that new buildings should not reduce the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) of existing windows to less than 27% or by more than 20% of their current value. Southwark's UDP contains policies about loss of amenity, etc., and they have recently rejected some proposed developments because they are "unneighbourly... leading to overlooking, loss of privacy and loss of amenity for the residents of nearby residential properties."

I have more information about this, including advice given to me by my solicitor on rights to light; PM me if you'd like more info.







Edited 1 times. Last edit at 30 May 2005 11.17pm by The Lady Miss Jo Jo.
Tuesday 31 May 2005 8.37am
Leave the poor old Bishop alone! It's nothing to do with him. Fr Slee - the Dean - is in charge of running the Cathedral. He does not answer to the Bishop
Tuesday 31 May 2005 10.58pm
Fine -- I'm sure everyone answers to the Archbishop. I'll have a word with him.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 4 of 14

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