London SE1 community website

Archbishop's Park

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5
Current: 5 of 5
Monday 27 November 2006 9.33am
Rabbie,
I am glad you confirmed that the gravel pit was contructed using "education" money.

I heard that it was Neighbourhood Renewal money earmarked by the Local Strategic Partnership for education purposes. I understood that the budgeted sum was 170,000, though happy to be corrected. If so I assume that there cost over runs as a result of the protests by old ladies once they discovered their memorial roses were being dug up. I would love confirmation.

Partents in the area are allowed to shake their heads in wonder at the prioriites of our local stakeholders who make up the LSP.

I dont know if we disagree ont he Old Trinity School. My focus is has been rather simplistic. I dont see why local people should lose trees in their park simply because a developer wants their private flats to have a view. Hence my realitve silence on the school issue. Though note that the latest draft of the UDP has strengthened the language on retaining the school.

From planning documents it looks as if part of the car park was owned by Lambeth till possibly about 4-6 years ago. It now seems to be owned by the developers. I am also told, though I need to check, that the developement plans also seem to incorporate the Carlisle lane corner of the park, where theb original park keepers house was.
Monday 27 November 2006 10.01am
Lang Rabbie wrote:
In particular, I hope that everyone with a contribution to make, either on this forum or in real life, is completely open about their affiliations to local employers, landowners, and voluntary groups participating in the regeneration of Waterloo and Kennington.
I quite agree.

And there is a fine but important line between posting anonymously/under an assumed name so as not to be personally identifiable (as many do, for a variety of reasons) and using that anonymity to mislead or at best be disingenuous.

Editor of the London SE1 website.
Subscribe to our SE1 Direct weekly newsletter.
Monday 27 November 2006 12.33pm
Sarah,

Before tonight descends into chaos, I think we need to sort out a few issues. None of the following is meant as criticism, it is merely me trying to understand what your actual position is, as it is unclear from your posts.

My position should be clear from the questions/points, but if anyone has queries, please ask.

Firstly, the trees. As I posted above/the other thread, the Lambeth tree officer (not the developer) and another person with knowledge have dug trial pits and inspected the roots and confirmed that there is no way that they can stand up and say there will be damage. Before deciding to spend money on another expert, is there any realistic belief that they will be able to credibly refute this? Surely it is not a question of shopping around until you find the answer you want?

Secondly, the users of the park. The park is for public use and everyone is welcome, no matter whether they are a tourist from Poland, a worker from Shell, a Portuguese footballer using the pitch on a Saturday or a local resident like myself. The Friends represent all of these people, don't they?

Thirdly, the s.106. Just because the s.106 totals 1m, does not mean that the park will get all of it. We need to be realistic here - Lambeth will have other worthy local funding requirements and the needs of the park need to be balanced with other projects. The role of the Friends is to maximise the benefit to the Park if the development happens.

Fourthly, personal attacks. I feel that where you or someone else feels bullied, you should make a formal complaint. I don't know the circumstances, and in a brief comment on this site, neither can anyone else other than the victim. I don't think dealing with it in this way is productive.

Finally, Founders Place. Do you want any substantial development of the site, or do you want to retain the existing buildings? You have said both on this site, and just as I would like to know what the Friends think (as you do), I would also like to know your position.


Regards,

Loafer
Monday 27 November 2006 1.37pm
Sarah wrote to me privately in response (as you can see below), and I am posting on her behalf as well as my own.

The Sarah Wrote:

Loafer, Am not at home, so dont want to post formally. You are welcome to cut and paste.

However. The 1 million is for the park alone. It says in the UDP that the park will be expanded of compensation given. Rabbie also aludes to the GLC to expand the park as far as Royal Street. There will be further S106 for environmental improvements, eg the railways arches on the way to Lower Marsh. WCDG, who currently want to provide capacity support for the Friends adn are organising the AGM, seem to want to deliver both.

The trees. The Lambeth Tree officer feels he has gone as far as he can. Dont forget that a serious formal complaint was made against him by the developers. (Kate Hoey confirmed this in a public meeting.) He told me there was a real chance he might lose his job. We discussed different ways the presence of the trees could be incorporated in residents leases to prevent the future lobby, but the developers have not picked this up, and it was lost in the many other points at the planning meeting.

I do not want to say much more, other than I have advice from a number of places that I am am barking up the right tree. The Lambeth Tree
Officer confirms he thinks that the trees will
survive the construction phase.

The park is for everyone. This is why we put so
much effor into the management plan and this plan was written by experienced and respected Landscape architects. As Helen says the document is thick, but quite authorative. Happy to show it to you.

Loafer replied...

I know that it says that the park will receive compensation, but it isn't defined and isn't the only claim under s.106. Just because the total s.106 has been indicated at 1m, does not mean that the park will get all of it - that is what I was trying to say.

On the tree officer - I am encouraged by the fact the developers don't like him, if anything. The observations of the two experts may well be worth sending to an arboriculturist (sp?!) or two for an indicative view to see if there is any arguement as these are factual, but I don't think there is any point in commissioning experts unless there is a chance of getting something out of it.
Monday 27 November 2006 7.16pm
Ahead of the AGM I am closing this thread.

Please continue discussion here:
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/61930

Editor of the London SE1 website.
Subscribe to our SE1 Direct weekly newsletter.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5
Current: 5 of 5

This thread has been closed
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