Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Not the Conservators' Q&A | |
Posted by: | John Cameron | |
Date/Time: | 28/09/14 12:03:00 |
If the development was smaller the access would be from the road, direct to the site, a distance of a tens of metres. And the access from there on would liek within the site. As it stands the site is covered almost in its entirety with built development, and uses common not only for access to the school but also to reach the back of the site where the apartments are built. And a turnaround on virgin common and then all the stuff to stop the mummies from parking on the common or mowing down small children wandering around. In effect the development site is the land owned + the land not owned, but ever so conveniently bunged by the Conservators to their mates, for a paltry 350k Wandsworth have consistently portrayed the site as what they own and what they don't own, and lied about there giving land back to the common. Land they never owned. Cllr Kathy Tracey's lied by saying that if the school is not built Thamesfield children won't have a school to go to. She slandered Nick Evans as being anti family and anti school. The head planners lied in defending a planning application that was unlawful. The Chair of the Conservators lied about the sham agreements they entered into. Wake up Jonty, get a grip, it's not that difficult |