pork chop

"Did individual campaigners intentionally mislead some parents?" This is becoming divisive and the 'only answer' is to put the nodal point in the geographic center of the school. I hope the steering group take note. There are two reasons for this: 1). Building a strong sense of community is vital for the school to work. The whole project has been built on the idea of a community school, and the nodal point position (on its own) has created lots of division. Everything else that needs to be discussed seems to have everyone 100% on board. Who doesn't support additional outside space for children to run around. 2). The panel were excellent at the Heber meeting, and have been at previous meetings. But, the handling of the nodal point seems clumsy to say the least. In earlier meetings the south-eastern section of the site was discussed as a location for the nodal point. This would mean roughly where East Dulwich Grove meets Melbourne Grove. The rationale for positioning the nodal point was given (to be on the eastern side of the site away from the current Charter school) and presumably this south-eastern tip recognized that the main entrance will be on East Dulwich Grove. Now the position has moved 200-300m to the north, which is enough to effect a number of families to the south of ED and take them out of the catchment. It may be that the hospital occupying the south east corner of the site has caused a change in where the nodal point should lie, but this has also skewed the perception of the process to seem unfairly favouring one community over others. To retain this community identity the nodal point has to be in the middle of the school. We can then get on with talking about all the positive things needed ? a great design for buildings or outside space or great teachers. Put it plumb in the middle and be done with it.?!!

Oh dear, what have I started? Quite enjoying the debate though. "Isn't the extension privately funded?" There seem to be varying opinions and we will not know for certain for another couple of months. I?ve been following the London transport blog below, and there is a fair amount of speculation that up to 30% - ?200m will be contributed by the developer (based on the contract drawn up with the previous developer), meaning a substantial ?public? investment (and further speculation are that this may be offset against future tax, which in real terms may leave much smaller contribution). http://www.londonreconnections.com/2012/northern-line-extension-public-consultation-details/ I have nothing against Battersea and can see the benefit of investment in public transport in any part of South London without a tube. It would clearly be good if the Northern Line extension carried on to Clapham Junction, but who knows if this will happen in the next 100 years. Lack of a connection at Vauxhall is just mystifying. Too much of a burden on the Victoria Line is the reason given, which ignores future improvements at this station. It is also strange that a tube station is planned 400 yards short of Battersea Park NR. It just looks like bad planning, even for those living in Battersea.

For anyone interested in expressing an opinion on the Battersea Northern Line extension, the TfL consultation deadline is 30 Dec. Please go to the link below to contribute. https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/nle/consultation/subpage.2012-11-05.0570274761/view I have just posted on concerns around what may be ?550-750m of public expendature on an extension that, as it stands, benefits very few existing South London residents. Meanwhile lack of a viable cost/benefit plan has been given as the reason for other long-overdue and more necessary upgrades that will help areas with no tube network - extending the Victoria line to Herne Hill or extending the Backerloo to Camberwell/Peckham, to name just two.