first mate

Otta, great when it works, but at the end of a tiring day you don't want to be standing in the rain for the bus that is too full and does not stop or the train that is cancelled. If transport was great it'd all be fine but it isn't and there lies the rub. No good saying if more of us use it it'll get better. Until it improves people will always choose a car if they can. RRR Well I do agree with you there, 'tis an unforunate aspect of human nature in some and another reason why increased parking pressure may result in CPZ- those people will ask for it. My view has always been that as long as I could park somewhere along my street or another close by, all was dandy and I thinak there are many who feel the same. However,parking pressures really are changing and can only get worse; if the M&s parking survey was anything to go by they are a farce and cannot be relied on.

RRR, You've stated that a number of time on different threads. My expereince is that it is not code for parking outside ones house but refelcts the ability to park on one of the streets close to one's house. I couldn't care about parking outside my house and never have done but it is increasingly difficult to find a space on one of the roads close by and that is before Harris primary, the Cinema, M&S.

??? Don't Harris do Saturday school?

James, re CPZ- we'll see but the notion that the combination of three big new developments in the area will not impact heavily on residents' parking is disingenuous. Others are right, the notion that all will magically take to cycling or less than reliable public transport, is a rather large sticking plaster but one councillors seem prepared to accept without too much thought. Cycling is a great option for those who are physically fit and who like cycling. On cold dark mornings and evenings, perhaps with torrential rain, it just doesn't seem a realistic, or indeed safe option, for the majority, especially if you are coming in from Kent, laden with books for marking.There are of course hardcore cyclists who will take to their pedals come what may, but for most this is a summer option, not for winter.

Councillors know fine well where this is going and it is what they want. I should also have added that in the same small area we also have the weekly market and the car wash. CPZ on the way folks, job done.

The Parking issue is significant but some will be happy to allow pressure to build short term as it makes introduction of ED-wide CPZ much more likely- a cherished dream of certain councillors on this forum. Imagine, the combined effects of the new school, the new cinema, and the new M&S. That is going to be a heck of a lot more traffic on one small section of Lordship Lane and surrounding streets.

There are many that think design and aesthetics do have an impact on children, even very young children. Moreover, therte is a view that schools should not be plonked into communities, rather the school is an extension of the community http://www.archdaily.com/213438/community-oriented-architecture-in-schools-how-extroverted-design-can-impact-learning-and-change-the-world/

A number of weeks ago someone- sorry cannot remember who- posted a really insightful Guardian piece about developers and the very real threats they pose. I think it was penguin68 who commented that the latest Harris shenanigans on the Hospital site has the feel of a Tesco-style land grab. Harris' relentless march and expansion across London seems to be about getting as much available land as possible under the Harris brand, whether the community wants that or not, and then throwing up a recognisably Harris building for as little cost as possible. i don't really know how this is meant to increase choice or education options.

A well designed building should be able to provide a pleasing aesthetic as well as functionality- isn't that what an architect is for.

All the Harris academies look much the same...legoesque. Ghastly, unimaginative, cheap tat.

Please no too. Can any Councillors who sit on planning committees, and who therefore might to have some awareness of such an application, comment?

sorry guys, did not mean to sound all gloom and doom and Perhaps the scenarios are rather different. i wish you well and do stay positive.

And expect resubmission after resubmission. The whole M&S debacle teaches us that developers know that if they can reach a ceratin point where appeals are likely the council buckles for fear it will lose thus setting a precedent- plus costs, that is the curious logic. I have seen this happen a number of times with residential developments where something totally and utterly illegal and in clear breach of planning regs, is allowed to go ahead ahead and council planning are too frightened to ask for it to be torn down/stopped, in case they lose. The fact that they even felt they might lose gives one considerbale insight into the powers of developers now or ways that experts can work the planning game to their advantage.

James, can Southwark override the existing NHS remit for any surplus land to be sold for housing? If so, can they do this without permission of NHS England and or the Sec of State for Health?

LM, and I am sure an application could be 'unapproved' if it is shown it was not done according to strict process.

Thinking on, If there is a clear, govt directed remit for use of 'surplas' NHS land, I do not see how LA directives could necessarily override that. The LA housing zone element really does seem to be a red herring, unless some wise soul can shed further light on this, unlike the former police station this land is wholly owned by the NHS, we are not comparing like with like.

James, are you saying that Harris gets part of the site, if available, simply because they were first past the post on process, irregardless of real merit or popular support/ need? Indin't think NHS property are stealing land, if I have understood, everything they do is in the gift of the Sec of State for Health. The remit for NHS Property clearly states that any land not used/ required for health should be sold for housing, that is a govt decision is it not?

James, you seem to suggest that at the moment, because of the process of approval, a Harris primary would take precedence on the hospital site, should another site not be found, because it cannot be'unapproved'. As LM suggests, you are mixing separate issues. We can all agree that the hospital site should be secured for health and education purposes, but you seem to make that result dependent on Harris getting a slice of the action.

Thank you LM for your useful and informative outline of the key points. I would not be at all surprised if developers were circling and looking for opportunities, that is why it would be helpful, in my view, to get statements from other parties on how they intend to ensure this does not happen.

ITATM, Great points and as you so rightly indicate, it is amazing how a completely opposite position to one formerly taken can be used when it suits. Admin, no councillor bashing simply stating how sick many of us are of spin and obfuscation. I have asked for other councillors to come on simply as a way to get past all the political claptrap and get to the bottom of what is really going on. I am not partisan at all, simply interested in ensuring we have a good secondary school that people and voters want and most of all a decent health centre that delivers what is required. Anyhow politicians have to have thick skins and get on with it, no-one is forcing use of this forum for debate, though I for one am glad it is being used for this subject.

Perhaps one of the labour councillors can come on this site and tell us in greater detail about proposals for the hospital part of the site, how it will be resourced and what services will be offered, perhaps they can also answer James' assertions about Southwark's alleged refusal to rezone the land. Can someone state what sort of footprint will be available for the proposed secondary school and at what cost for that land? The public really tire of this being used to score political points so James please resist the urge to spin a reply and let's see if any of your colleagues in other parties can come back with a straight and honest response.. I think after Heygate etc.. If there was even a whiff that much valued community space would be sold off to developers, based on some convenient technical planning/council speak hitch there might well be trouble on streets.

James, on the contrary it seems that it is you that is blindly pushing for a second primary school on the site, or at least trying to ensure the land is secured for this in future, using whatever argument you can. Let go of your very obvious ties to Harris and then we can all focus on ensuring this land is secured for hospital services and a decent secondary school. People do not want another school on that site. You have not answered whether the new proposed health centre will supply all the services that the hospital used to, nor how many dedicated doctors on site. A really good service is vital for the area, it just all seems lost in the push for a primary school nobody seems to want.

James, as you know very well, the current hospital service has been decimated. It used to offer a range of specialist services including x-ray, remedial care for the elderly and many other things. Will the new centre really be offering all this and more? Additionally, your loyalty to a cause should be secondary to listening to what the public want. Did 250 people really sign up, in full knowledge, to two Harris primary schools in East Dulwich or were they hoodwinked into it, thinking they were only signing up in support of one? As another poster has stated this feels all a bit stinky.

One does get the sense that some are, for reasons that may not be totally transparent, totally hand in glove with Harris and will try to push this through by any rationale possible, spurious or otherwise, despite it being clear that it is not wanted by the local electorate. It is as though some know better what is best for us all. My concern is for the health centre which seems to have become a secondary concern in the fight for school space. Given the proximity of the centre to at least one very large school, what will be the demographic that centre serves, primarily? With local GP practices seemingly getting worse as well as struggling to meet demand, what services will this health centre be offering, how many doctors, how many nurses, what facilities and so on? None of this is clear- we are only told it will be 'fab' and 'super-duper'. All the energy seems to go into promoting Harris.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James, > > Again, "Can you disclose if Harris make any > financial contributions to you or your party?"