squirrelmc

Dear Ben, No need to get grumpy. Will reply on the other thread when have time. Yes you have provided replies but you have misinterpreted the documents you cite. Just looking for clarity. best wishes

That thread hasn't had any proper answers yet. Much more to say but busy at the moment. Check back at the weekend.

Hi Ben, Thanks for your message. I had indeed thought that the planning documents submitted to the committee were meant to outline everything that had been agreed. I hadn't realised that agreements were made that were then not submitted to the committee and then published on the planning portal for the public to see. To save me considerable time, could you let me know which paragaph(s) in the 166 page Officers Report deal with the free school access? Then my mind will be at rest. And when you say "we are in breach of the lease if we do not" can you tell me which lease you are referring to? Your current lease on the astro turf or a future lease for this application? If a future lease - is this available on the planning portal and could you let me know which document it is? They have strange acronyms and names so it's hard to find sometimes. KR

Hi Ben, Sorry to bang on about it but i don't feel we've gotten to the bottom of this yet. You mention that the Officer's Report says that schools will not be charged to use the new stadium pitch. The documentation submitted by you/Meadow to the planning portal says the opposite (one doc says ?20 ph, another says ?36 ph etc). Do any of the documents submitted by you (ie not Officer's Report and not a tweet) have the detail in them about you arranging to not charge schools? Or has all of this been done behind the scenes in emails etc? Some clarification on this would be really good. Thanks, appreciate your time on this.

I thought I saw in one of the docs that you were charging schools as well? ?36 an hour I think it said. Also ?175 or thereabouts for commerical hire of the pitch per hour and ?94 for a child to hire the pitch for an hour, at the community rate. Sounds as though local groups have spent some time trawling through documents, only to receive your ire when they surface some of the detail. There are 400+ documents and some of these are 100s of pages long.. credit where credit's due IMHO. If planning committee members are suppposed to ignore some bits of the documentation but not others, with no instructions, it makes it v difficult surely for them to make a decision? And just as hard for local people to know what to trust or believe.

So Ben, you say: "Hi ?almost peckham?...The MOL you refer to has never been ?public land? it is the club?s land under a lease. " This is absolute rubbish! Green Dale Fields and Green Dale Astro turf are owned by the Council. Southwark are the freeholders, therefore it is 'public land' exactly as Almost peckham says. If you have any doubts I suggest you either check the land registry or you can check out this amazing map: https://maps.london.gov.uk/public-land/ A screenshot of which I attach. Why would you try to cover this up? Perhaps because you want public land to be given over to a privately owned, limited company whose shares are owned mainly by...you?

Hi EDguy89 tis a bit odd that you try to shut down any answers from Ben/Tom when they came on here to "dispel myths and untruths". Probably best to let them speak.

Curmudgeon you have misunderstood. I will try to explain it the best I can. Let's say that last year the pupil who lived furthest away from the school and was offered a place on first allocation was living 2.1km away (let's call him Derek). Last year then, people who are on the "edge" are those living 2km and 2.2km away from the school i.e. people living this distance from the school could easily have been offered a place or not offered a place... it just depended on the number of children who were slightly closer to the school than them that applied. People "living on the edge" will never know if they are bound to get a place or not, because it depends entirely on statistics for that years applications i.e. the number of year 6 pupils living between them and the school who applied for a place at the school. So if on the 30th October (the day before the secondary school application forms have to be in) a family of four year 6 children moved in next door to Derek and all applied for a place at the school, Derek would not have got his place because these children are nearer (and yes, it really is down to house-by-house on "the egde"). So just because children on your road go to Charter, does not mean that your child will get a place IF YOU ARE ON THE EDGE OF THE ALLOWABLE DISTANCE. To make things even more unstable and changeable from year to year, the "edge" shifts and no-one can predict where it will be. Again, it depends entirely on statistics... how many year 6 children nearer to the school than you applied. No-one can ever know this in advance, not even the school and only 180 will get a place. The adjudication has found that the school was not measuring the home to school distances correctly for an area of children. The school was adding uo to 700m onto their distances which meant they were "beyond the edge" even though they lived much closer to the school than people offered places (derek). You are confusing this 700m with the "edge". This 700m is not shaved off the edge and therefore shrinking it. It is shaved off an individual's distance measurement, and only those individuals who were in the affected area. So if Derek last year got in and he lived 2.1km away, then this year the edge may stay at 2.1 km even with the adjudication... it just depends on how many people nearer to the school applied. It's a statistical lottery that no-one living on the "edge" of past years' maximum distance can predict. If 170 year 6 children move in opposite the school and apply for a place then yes the edge will shrink dramatically. However, allowing children on the affected estates the right to be fairly measured will in reality have very little effect for most people. It may mean that a couple of children on the "edge" don't get offered a place, but then that was always the case. And, by the way, the amount of year 6 children living on these estates and surrounding roads is pretty small.