Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Has anyone checked whether Piermont Green is "safe" under the Harris Academy proposals?


With c1100 pupils and staff to filter into the school from the narrow Peckham Rye (road) during the morning rush-hour, Piermont Green looks to be ideal to tarmac over to provide a drop-off area for 4x4s and people-carriers.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/926-piermont-green/
Share on other sites

Piermont green may not become a car park, but it will a choice drop-off and collection point. Not to mention a fantastic spot for 1000 boys (with no 'bikesheds' at the school, so to speak) to utilize.


And for those of you thinking you're a few streets away so you'll be ok: When the traffic calming measures at the bottom of Upland Road are removed and North Cross Road and its offshoots also become prime pickings on the school run, you may think differently.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/926-piermont-green/#findComment-23214
Share on other sites

Thank you, Eileen.


Do you know this from documentation?


It may be unfortunate if Piermont Green is legally part of Peckham Rye Common.


As far as I know, Article 17 of the Schedule to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Greater London Parks and Open Spaces) Act 1967 as most recently amended by Para 2(5) of Schedule 4 of the Commons Act 2006 still permits common land registered under the Metropolitan Commons Act 1866 to be taken for "street improvement".


So much easier to argue that a small triangle of land of a much greater whole should be sacrificed for "street" improvement".


Perhaps there's a lawyer here who could do a little pro bono work this lunch-time and confirm the legal position?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/926-piermont-green/#findComment-23452
Share on other sites

That may be so but I'm sure the people who live on and around Piermont Green would have something to say about it. When the school was up and running before as Keef has rightly pointed out there was absolutely no reason to tarmac over that part of the Green or Common just so a bunch of spoiled kids can be driven to and from school by their over protective mums in their 4 x 4s.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/926-piermont-green/#findComment-23463
Share on other sites

The majority of 4x4 school runs are done for infant schools and for schools with difficult access, I cannot see why Harris with older pupils and good transport links should require drop-offs. Add to this a very sizable local school age population who can walk in under 10mins.

Macroban - I think you are being a tad reactionary and dare i say a bit hysterical. There will of course be an increase in traffic, but I don't think any council will run the risk of a local residents fight by doing something like tarmacing a common as a drop off point, or removing traffic restrictions. If anything, they will make dropping off almost impossible to deter the school runners.

A good academy in East Dulwich will be a fantastic assest to the area and will help generate a balance, by this I mean investment on in the Peckham borders and probably an improvement in the parade of local shops at Barry Rd and Forest hill. As a very local resident - without children, I think the academy will be a real positive. I do feel sad that the old building will be demolished, but I also think a site in london such as harris must maximise its potential. Better a new built for purpose building then an old building that can't cope with demands.

This is 'progress' and we need a secondary school.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/926-piermont-green/#findComment-23686
Share on other sites

There's not a lot of choice - there's Charter which is tricky to get into - then there's some up by Forest Hill I think. The Peckham Academy fingerprints its kids and has a very bad reputation. Its all a bit of a nightmare really. The area is desperate for a new school and there's been much argy bargy between the council and Ms Jowell about who'd to blame for it being delayed and delayed.


Its a shame the academies just get swooped into place, I think in Lambeth parents grouped together and managed to get a new school built.


Is 950 really that many? I think this is great news.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/926-piermont-green/#findComment-23907
Share on other sites

I've not been able to work out which public authority has the power to decide the fate of Piermont Green. Since the abolishment of the Greater London Council and then the London Residuary Body there have been layer upon layer of Acts of Parliament and Statutory Instruments transfering land and powers. It seems, though, it is unlikely to be Southwark Council. Perhaps if anyone knows the answer they can let me know?


Those of you who think that Piermont Green has some sort of magical protection because it is common land should take note of the London Development Agency's intention to take six acres of Crystal Palace Park (also Metropolitan Open Land) for housing development.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/926-piermont-green/#findComment-23915
Share on other sites

Yes. Seriously.


But only 177 luxury housing units.


See here amongst many other URLs.


The strip of Peckham Rye Park along Colyton Road would never be taken for housing development. Right?


And now to more important East Dulwich Forum things. Where should I buy my next cup of coffee?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/926-piermont-green/#findComment-24121
Share on other sites

I live very close to Piermont Green and would not like them to tarmac it over for any one to park their 4x4 and people carriers to drop off kids that can walk. I've heard from some one that works in the council that the site may be converted in to flats - now that would be a much more appealing option!
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/926-piermont-green/#findComment-24125
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

>>Much nicer than the new-build monstrosity on (I think) Underhill Road.<<


That one (at the junction of Overhill & Underhill) is truly horrid isn't it? It has already had three windows broken by local...umm...architectural critics. They have crammed far too much into a narrow site - and given the costs of demolishing the previous wreck of a house there before even starting the build I don't see where any serious profit will come from.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/926-piermont-green/#findComment-40199
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Pretty much, Sue, yeah. It's the perennial, knotty problem of imposing a tax and balancing that with the cost of collecting it.  The famous one was the dog licence - I think it was 37 1/2 pence when it was abolished, but the revenue didn't' come close to covering the administration costs. As much I'd love to have a Stasi patrolling the South Bank, looking for mullet haircuts, unshaven armpits, overly expressive hand movements and red Kicker shoes, I'm afraid your modern Continental is almost indistinguishable from your modern Londoner. That's Schengen for you. So you couldn't justify it from an ROI point of view, really. This scheme seems a pretty good idea, overall. It's not perfect, but it's cheap to implement and takes some tax burden off Southwark residents.   'The Man' has got wise to this. It's got bad juju now. If you're looking to rinse medium to large amounts of small denomination notes, there are far better ways. Please drop me a direct message if you'd like to discuss this matter further.   Kind Regards  Dave
    • "What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???" Why is it perceived, Reeves is responsible for doubling the "black hole" to £20b through the public sector pay increases. You can't live beyond your means and when you try you go bankrupt pdq. In 4 yrs time if this Govt survives that long and the country doesn't go bust before then, in 2029 I dread to think the state the country will be in.  At least Sunak and co had inflation back to 2% with unemployment being stable and not rising.   
    • He seemed to me to be fully immersed in the Jeremy Corbyn ethos of the Labour Party. I dint think that (and self describing as a Marxist) would have helped much when Labour was changed under Starmer. There was a purge of people as far left as him that he was lucky to survive once in my opinion.   Stuff like this heavy endorsement of Momentum and Corbyn. It doesn't wash with a party that is in actual government.   https://labourlist.org/2020/04/forward-momentum-weve-launched-to-change-it-from-the-bottom-up/
    • I perceive the problem.simply as spending too much without first shoring up the economy.  If the government had reduced borrowing,  and as much as most hate the idea, reduced government deiartment spending (so called austerity) and not bowed to union pressures for pay rises, then encouraged businesses to grow, extra cash would have entered the coffers and at a later stage when the economy was in a stronger position rises in NI or taxes would have a lesser impact, but instead Reeves turned that on its head by increasing ni which has killed growth, increased prices and shimmied the economy.  What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???     
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...