Fed - you are probably right to seek contributions from others as you and I could talk about it all day without getting anywhere near common ground on the issue.
However I think it is important to make a few points so I'm making one last post to this thread.
- you list all the benefits you believe the development will bring, but you haven't said which of these you fear would be missing from any revised application the Charity will bring if its appeal fails (and someone will develop this site regardless of the outcome of this appeal)
- I agree that in planning terms the shoddy treatment of the residents is neither here nor there, but the fact that it has lead many of them to oppose the development is not surprising, any issues they raise that are not relevant to the planning process will of course have been ignored by those deciding on the plans though. It is also true that other groups may be supporting the Charity's appeal for reasons that are unrelated to the planning process.
- you seem to me to be over-interpreting the results of voting at the FoAP AGM - how do you know why people voted in person or by proxy for particular candidates? You are also again misinterpreting (seemingly deliberately given the number of times this has been picked up on) the result of the motion I put to the AGM, there is no way that the result of that vote should be interpreted, as you are seeking to, as majority support amongst the Friends or local people for the appeal.
- you are completely right that views on the development are, by their nature, subjective (including your own of course) - however everyone with their own subjective views had the opportunity to argue for them in front of the independent and quasi-judicial planning committee, the planning committee seemed to me to devote a great deal of care and attention to this decision and judged, by a margin of 5-1, that it should be refused permission in part because of the harmful impact on the park. If you suspect or are trying to suggest that Sarah is trying to use the harmful effect on the Park to attack the development for other reasons then you couldn't be more wrong, you only have to read her posts on this site (and not selectively quote from them) to see that her main concern has always been the impact on the trees and the park generally (besides I interpreted Sarah's use of the word "greedy" to encompass the way the developers sought to maximise profit through placing the development as close to the park as possible, in the original plans closer even than minimum standards allow)
I have to say, Fred, that for someone who initially gives the impression of a neutral observer who felt that the developers were being unfairly attacked by one particular poster you have certainly changed now. In fact your original post looks very much like that of a troll. Anyway, at least you are out from the shadows.
Neither you, or your Masters have defined ‘key workers'. Are we talking doctors or cleaners, senior nurses or porters? An easy way to answer the question is to state what the rents will be.
The fact that you (and your Masters) do not think the needs of the people living there should have any baring on the matter is why you have failed so far.
There was a nursery at the bottom of Canterbury house which is now across the road. So, nothing new there.
Where are all these local businesses that you are talking about? In fact where are you writing this from, Berlin?
As for the charity stuff, so what. I'm sure there are all sorts of way the charity could have got what the want without trampling over everything and everyone.
At the end of the day, this is all about the developers and nothing about the people who live there or the charity.
I have followed all postings so far and have been glad to see sensible and measured postings from Fred and Neil presenting both sides of the argument in a witty but informative way. This has been a welcome contrast to an emotive start and other posts giving vent to personal prejudice.Thank you both for taking the time to
think carefully how you present your arguments
Founders place is obviously an emotive issue for some. This does not excuse name -calling ([quote=westbank][Trolls] or allegations that Fred is posting "from Berlin". The opinion of both Neil and Fred is obvious from their posts and I can't see why they should be attacked for this. The development is too important a subject for the debate to deteriorate to the lowest common denominator.
Fred and Neil appear to agree that any appeal must be based on specific criteria as laid down in the appeals process. It cannot be based on the bombardment of the appeals panel with personal opinions or abuse. In any case, we must all bear in mind that, whatever the appeal decides, this can be overturned by Ruth Kelly.
For myself, I have yet to decide which side of the debate has my support. A lack of Balance does not help to inform or convince. Fred is the first to put his head above the papapet for the "in favour" side, whereas todate I have been bombarded with only "anti" propaganda. I have therefore had little to challenge their apocolyptic version of events.
Lets here more from both Neil and Fred, so we can feel better informed.
I said this was my first post, but I hope it will not be my last on this interesting subject.
Oh please, let me help you. Don't get a sore bum sitting on the fence, join the dark side.
My point about the troll is that the poster is a troll. Claims to have no direct interest in the development and yet displays a wealth of knowledge from a developer's point of view.
I'm not interested in some intellectual debate about the aesthetics or otherwise. It's about how you treat people especially in this case the elderly and vulnerable.
Among the many mistakes made by the developers was their monumental arrogance in treating the present tenants as a irrelevance and the concerns of interested parties as some minor irritation.
As for the comment about ‘Berlin', I stick by it. Most of the post has the character of a press release.
The problem for the trust and developers is that when fair minded people visit and hear what has gone on, the majority tend to side against them.
I've no doubt that they will start (or even have) to invest in a PR company.
Oh dear, Westofbank this is just the level of debate I was trying to discourage.
Both Fred and Neil recognise that there are a number of view points and that there are a number of arguments on this issue. Both appear to concentrate on this development's impact on everyone.
You say you are not interested in the aesthetics but this development and its effect on the local environment will have an impact on people living in this area for generations.Aesthetics are therefore very important.
It seems extreme to only consider your perception of how the developer has treated the tennants for which you have yet to provide any evidence. Unfortunately, I do not know the number of tennants effected, so perhaps you could help by giving the number who have told you they have been badly treated versus the total number of tennants.
You also say "the majority tend to side against them" - who are this majority- i.e. what poll are you citing?
Your single issue attitude makes me wonder if you have declared your interests and affiliations. Fred has given us his affiliations but you have not. Are you a tennant?
Lets try to get back to wider issues on this rather than a "them and us"agenda. One of the things no one seems to have addressed is the noise and pollution caused by each lorry journey to the site during construction. This is an issue that will effect many locals - not just the tennants!
Of course I have an interest. I used to live there as man and boy. The poll you talk about is based on talking to the remaining tenants. The problem you have Pat is that you have no knowledge of the area you are talking about, so you have to rely on the PR troll from Berlin. Expressions like ‘local' give it away.
I'm not against new developments and fully recognise given the financial deficit the main political parties find themselves in and the amount of money that is being spent here that the developers will win the day.
The point you have missed and the Berlin troll has ignored is the way the original tenants have been and are being treated. I'm not even going to bother to get into one about how the tenants (key workers) that had accommodation that went with were the job were treated. Another point that needs reiterating, is that the derelict state of the present estate is because of the inept management of the Trust.
Eventually there will be a compromise and the developers will do the correct and just thing. Not from a just view, but because the bottom line is being affected the stench of the bad publicity.
Anyway, I've made my points and am not that interested in some silly ivory tower discussion with people who show no understanding of this particular area of London.
You must have been a particularly obnoxious child, dealing with relationships like that. I have expected you to end your post with "na na na na na".
Anyway, back to more serious matters, what is the "correct and just thing" you refer to?
Alsom, you "used to live there man and boy". Where do you live now? When did you move? How did you organise to talk to all of the remaining tenants? Did you miss anyone out? How many are there? Or are these your views put into the mouths of others?
(rising to the bait once again - I can't help myself)
I live in Vauxhall and pass the Archbishop's park every day. I think we need the proposed development as it will make the area better. More people moving in will help to keep the area for locals.
We need more homes for key workers near to where they work othwise we will have to recruit abroad which takes workers away from their own who need them more.
The park has had a lot of work done to it recently and I do not like the big frames, it is not restful.
Why do some people just want to keep the park for themselves and not allow others to move into the area. I wonder how many of those complaining can honestly say that they were born and brought up in the area.
I think that Founders place will be good, how many people complained about the Barbican and now it is a fixture and accepted. Too many poeple are rooted in the past and cannot move forward.
I live on Westminster Bridge Road am new to SE1 have never met any of you before (I don't think) and saw my local park (where I run everyday) on the forum site.
When are the whingers going to work out that the site is offensive, dangerous, and desperately needing redevelopment? Yes the trees are important, the park is an essential part of the area and MUST be preserved. But the sooner this is all over and done the better (I'll be shuffling around on a zimmer frame by the time this is finished) Positive change is created by positive debate not a lot of crabby old women (even I am ashamed of my sex sometimes (and I certainly can spot them)) point scoring and reeking their own agendas on those that want safety and something nice to look at.
GET A LIFE and let me have a better one.