Earlier in the thread I posted both the "open letter" to the three Thamesfield Councillors and their reply.
In the view of those who wrote the open letter their is completely inadequate, although it does identify what their views actually are. They are unquestioningly for the WBC development, whatever the consequences.
The main points I take from their letter can be summed up as follows:
>>They have completely ignored the request for an Open Meeting where residents can put their views to Wandsworth Council.
>> They have failed to answer the residents concerns in any detail.
>> They use the need for more primary school places to justify a 2FE school on the site, without exploring alternatives, or considering the damage this will cause;
>> They wrongly draw parallels with the PCT Polyclinic which was granted approval earlier despite obvious differences between the two (the school is three times the size, the access road encroaches further onto the Common, the Polyclinic had parking space for 80+ cars);
>> They ignore the serious nature of the reasons the application was declared invalidwhich have been set out here so unambiguously.
For those of you who have the patience I am pasting below a response to their reply (the third letter in the chain) which was emailed to them today. I have included the text of the Councillors letter to make it easier to read but also rather longer than usual.
Nick
[Text of letter from Rosemary Torrington, Michael Ryder and Jim Madden, with responses from a group of Putney residents.]
Thank you for your email concerning the future of the Putney Hospital site.
We would like to set out our views as local councillors about the potential use of the site for a new community school.
Our local area has a large population of young families resulting in an increasing demand for school places which the council has a statutory duty to provide. We receive many letters from distraught families who cannot currently secure a local school place for their child.
>> We agree that there is an increasing demand for primary places. However in Thamesfield the peak is nearer 1.5FE than 2FE (ref Paul Robinson). The need to meet the demand for primary places in Putney generally and in Thamesfield specifically does not in any way justify the overdevelopment of the Putney Hospital site and the multiple damage this would cause.>>
There are very few sites that become available over the years that would make a suitable location for a new local school. This is a brownfield site that already has planning approval for buildings of a similar scale for community use and is near to where many local young families live, including those on the Ranelagh Estate, one of the less advantaged parts of our community. When the National Health Service declared it redundant for its purposes, it opened up the opportunity to consider its use as a local school.
>> We disagree that the Putney Hospital site is suitable for such a large school. The actual land owned by Wandsworth is insufficient for both a 2FE school and flats and the development proposed will therefore have severe repercussions. The earlier planning approval was not for buildings of “a similar scale” to those proposed. In terms of site occupation the Health Clinic was one-third of the area of the school. There have been no figures given for the number of children requiring primary school places who live on the Ranlagh Estate. Indeed requests to Paul Robinson for details of where the demand he expects will actually originate have not been answered.>>
It is important to state that had the Council not stepped in, the site would have been available for private development and not automatically been returned to Common land.
>> The proposed school is only feasible because of encroachment onto Lower Common of the access road and turnaround. The agreement with WPCC clearly contravenes the 1871 Act, specifically Clauses 34 and 35. The right to license services across common land does not allow the Conservators to grant the right to allow others to build and maintain permanent roads. There are other alternatives to “private development”. These include a 1FE school, sheltered housing, high end residential or mix of affordable and private residential No one has ever suggested that the land would be returned to Common Land, but equally no one has ever been given the opportunity to fully investigate whether this is a realistic option. It is patently obvious that the Council stepped in to support WPCT, and to ensure that the receipts did not go to the Treasury. WPCT have spent millions protecting the site for the past 15 years, rather than part with it. There is no opposition to private development of the land, and in the event of private development, the outcome is likely to be vastly superior to a poorly thought out scheme that is inappropriate. The only difference would be where the receipts end up, and it also likely that the receipt to both the Treasury and to WPCC would also be very substantially more.>>
Projected demand for pupil places from local families indicates that a new school will need to be large enough to admit up to 60 children a year. Building a school that could only take 30 children would mean that we would soon be looking for an additional local site and it makes sense to provide as much choice as possible to plan for future need in local area.
>> The projections are not as clear cut as you say (see above). In any event the fact that the Council perceives it needs new places for 60 children a year does not justify overdeveloping the PH site. Should the new school produce an oversupply it is clear that an existing 1FE primary school will be under threat of closure.>>
Some local families also contact us seeking a school place for children with special educational needs. It is hoped that the new school will provide some specialist support on site, as well as allowing children to join in with mainstream classes.
>> We do not dispute the need for an excellent education system to meet all needs at primary level. However, building an outsize school on the PH site to meet all such needs in the future cannot be justified on the grounds set out in detail in the 200+ objections registered on the WBC Planning Website.>>
You have raised concerns about the traffic that could be generated by locating a school on the site. One of the advantages of having an additional local school in the area is that many parents and children will be able to easily walk to school, particularly as the catchment will be determined by distance from the school gate. We have also suggested the school runs its own bus service, as Roche School does, to collect children from agreed locations at fixed times to help support working parents. In addition, the site is served by the 22 and 485 buses. However, we would be interested in other suggestions about how to mitigate the impact of the school run.>>
>> The Putney Hospital site is on the very edge of Thamesfield. It has Common on one side and the river on the other. There are no less than five existing primary schools in the ward of Thamesfield, more than any other ward in the borough. Most of the demand will not come from Thamesfield and it is utter nonsense to suggest that parents and primary school children will walk to the school if they are coming from further afield. The Councillors appear to be in complete denial that the Lower Richmond Road is one of the most congested and dangerous roads in the borough. The demand for a school will necessarily generate demand for car journeys. Public transport is insufficient to meet the need generated by 420 pupils, siblings, parents/helpers and staff. Illegal set-downs on local roads will inevitably result. Parking restrictions will not alleviate that situation when it occurs.>>
>> The location of the primary school on a congested and busy road will expose young children to a 30% increase in asthma and chronic chest disease. Locating a new build primary school on a congested road was described by a health expert in asthma as “totally irresponsible”.>>
For those few parents who will drive, we have suggested that longer-stay bays be located on site to accommodate parents who wish to speak to teachers but the school green travel plan which will also cover teachers and administrative staff, will make it clear that the preference must always be to use public transport. The introduction of all day parking controls in surrounding streets will be a matter for consultation with local residents to see what the local community would like in their streets.
>> The number of parents expected to drive was seriously underestimated in the desk based Vectos traffic report. There is nowhere on the site for longer-stay bays to be positioned. There are 5 parking spaces in total. The school travel plan is a generic document that was unfit for purpose. The local streets are already subject to parking controls and have no spare capacity.>>
We will be asking that a pedestrian crossing be considered nearby to help children cross Lower Richmond Road safely. The service road for the school means that “school traffic” will not be dropping off or waiting on the public highway. The service road proposal is very similar to that approved for the former hospital scheme.
>> The service road proposal is not at all similar to the Health Centre scheme which had parking facilities for over 80 cars and plenty of space to manoeuvre. It also had no “turnaround” as the buildings were not overlarge. The pedestrian crossing shown on the plans for the proposal across one of the busiest roads in the Borough will not have the capacity to handle the volume of pedestrians using it (over 500 in one hour). Once they have reached the Lower Common they will still have to cross the busy school access road to reach the school entrance. These are very serious hazards with severe risk of fatal accidents. Comparing the service road to the former “hospital scheme” is ludicrous. The hospital has been closed for 15 years. A closed hospital is not a large primary school and 24 flats. All the previous access roads reverted to the ownership of WPCC when the site was sold. All encroachments made under licence on to the Common were thereby cancelled. The only access road/s to the land on which the Hospital was built (shown on Plan B of the 1871 Act) are located at the front of the site. Those at the sides are later additions which do not provide justification for new-build roads and roundabouts which should be placed within the area actually owned by the WBC.>>
The proposed flats are necessary to fund the construction of the school. A very similar model had already been approved for the National Health Service application. In the current economic times, unless a benefactor was to come forward, these are commercial realities that have to be addressed.
>> We do not approve of the suggested design for the flats or their height. But approval of a particular design style is a subjective judgement. More importantly we are very concerned about their likely impact on the Common and local environment. But we agree that the financial model to provide funds can be helpful. However this again does not justify the sheer size of the building proposed. Comparing the funding model to the PCT polyclinic is meaningless. The polyclinic scheme had sufficient land for the flats, the school does not. Wandsworth could make the necessary investment to build the school without the flats, but chooses not to do so, despite having more than sufficient cash reserves. The profit from the flats in terms of the contribution to the overall budget is not critical.>>
The playground for older children is located on the roof because of the constraints of the site boundaries.
>> Not so. The constraints of the boundaries are caused by building to the very edge of the land owned by WBC and by the inclusion of the flats on land which could be a playground. With a smaller building greater space for a playground would become available. The access road should remain on Council land with the turnaround for coaches at the front of the site adjacent to the LRR, where the original access roads were located pre-1871 and more recently when the hospital was in operation. The noise generated by a play area on the roof will be unacceptable (as noted by the Borough Environmental Department).>>
The WPCC boundaries understandably prevent the school from encroaching on Common land for further play facilities.
>> All encroachment on Common land is illegal and morally indefensible in any circumstances. The development should stay within its own boundaries and not impinge on the Common.>>
We will be making representations to ensure that there are opportunities for the new school to take full advantage of the sports facilities at Barn Elms. There is, however, a need for breaks between lessons and at lunch for which the roof play space will be used by older children and the play area at ground level by the younger children.
>> See above. Design a smaller school with a play area outside. Consider alternatives. We agree Barn Elms is a good sports area.>>
We share your concerns about the poor handling of the administration of the planning application. We have voiced concerns about this, understanding the application was made by Children’s Services, another Council department. Quite correctly, the application has been withdrawn and we understand it is to be resubmitted in the correct format. We were concerned that Children’s Services sought to rely on a desk top survey and have made strong representations following which a field survey has been undertaken with regard to traffic movements. This will be submitted with the application.
>> It was not just “poor handling”. It was dishonesty and maladministration of a serious nature. An inquiry is necessary. The planning department of WBC knowing that the application was invalid denied it repeatedly. It is self evident that they cannot be trusted to administer any new application in a transparent and unbiased manner. The applicant, Wandsworth CSD, may have knowingly made statements which were untrue, in support of the planning application, and may have acted unlawfully. This is also not a case of “technical difficulties” as the WBC said in a recent press statement.>>
We would reserve any formal views until we have seen the new application, but subject to satisfactory traffic and travel arrangements, and bearing in mind the existing permission for the site and the urgent need for school places, we think the scheme in general offers benefits for local residents. We would like to see some softening of the architecture so that it is welcoming to small children. We will be making representations to this effect so that it will be clear that the developers need to address this point as part of the scheme design.
>> The application submitted in February is invalid. The proposal offered no benefits for local residents, as amply evidenced by the strong opposition to the now invalid application. The “developer” is the Council. You are Councillors to whom the developer is responsible. You should be questioning the very decision to build an overlarge school on a sensitive site, supporting the majority views of the residents you represent, not supporting a scheme that it unfit for the site, in so many many ways. You should support the need for radical change to be incorporated into any new application made by the “developer” which is Wandsworth Council itself.>>
One of us will, of course, be very happy to represent residents’ views at the Planning Applications Committee.
<< We will consider your offer. We are not convinced from the answers in this letter that you will be able to put forward our objections in a forceful or convincing manner.>>
A group of concerned Putney Residents.
|
| Topic | Date Posted | Posted By |
| Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 28/04/12 14:38:00 | Vic Condon |
| Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 30/04/12 14:17:00 | Jim Maddan |
| Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 30/04/12 14:43:00 | Rufus Hill |
| Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 30/04/12 15:47:00 | Lucille Grant |
| Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 07/05/12 00:27:00 | Peter Carpenter |
| Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 30/04/12 15:13:00 | Jim Maddan |
| Hooray.......the parking solution for the teachers and mummies | 30/04/12 15:34:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Hooray.......the parking solution for the teachers and mummies | 30/04/12 16:05:00 | Rufus Hill |
| consultation ends today.........link to WBC's website | 30/04/12 16:10:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:consultation ends today.........link to WBC's website | 30/04/12 16:38:00 | Mairi Anne Bowen |
| Re:Re:consultation ends today.........link to WBC's website | 30/04/12 18:27:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Scores on doors / place your bets..... | 01/05/12 20:49:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Scores on doors / place your bets..... | 01/05/12 21:26:00 | Alex Harvey |
| Re:Re:Scores on doors / place your bets..... | 02/05/12 07:24:00 | Mairi Anne Bowen |
| WBC's Environmental Services comments on application | 02/05/12 18:28:00 | John Cameron |
| busy day for uploading objections | 02/05/12 23:07:00 | John Cameron |
| another busy day for uploading objections...and today's quiz | 04/05/12 16:11:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 04/05/12 22:18:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 04/05/12 22:50:00 | Martine Guy |
| Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 05/05/12 11:13:00 | Vic Condon |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 05/05/12 15:16:00 | Martine Guy |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 05/05/12 19:37:00 | Vic Condon |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 05/05/12 22:30:00 | Martine Guy |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 06/05/12 21:39:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 06/05/12 23:00:00 | Guy Cameron |
| Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 07/05/12 10:22:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 07/05/12 17:46:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 07/05/12 19:07:00 | Rufus Hill |
| Putney Hospital - why the excuse of "for commercial reasons"? | 08/05/12 15:09:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Re:Putney Hospital - why the excuse of "for commercial reasons"? | 08/05/12 15:39:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Re:Putney Hospital - why the excuse of "for commercial reasons"? | 08/05/12 16:10:00 | Vic Condon |
| Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 08/05/12 15:48:00 | Matt Palmer |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 08/05/12 16:21:00 | Rufus Hill |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 08/05/12 16:50:00 | Martine Guy |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 08/05/12 17:07:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 09/05/12 13:17:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 09/05/12 19:46:00 | Bunny Payne |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 09/05/12 22:29:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 10/05/12 09:41:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 10/05/12 10:32:00 | Rufus Hill |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 10/05/12 14:38:00 | Stephen Walker |
| Rt Hon J Greening's letter to WBC dated 25 April | 10/05/12 18:56:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Rt Hon J Greening's letter to WBC dated 25 April | 10/05/12 21:02:00 | Bunny Payne |
| Re:Re:Rt Hon J Greening's letter to WBC dated 25 April | 11/05/12 12:51:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 10/05/12 22:19:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 10/05/12 22:32:00 | Stephen Walker |
| Rocks Lane Traffic Signals | 10/05/12 22:51:00 | Vic Condon |
| Re:Rocks Lane Traffic Signals | 10/05/12 23:02:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Rocks Lane Traffic Signals | 11/05/12 08:50:00 | Sue Hammond |
| WBC's website improvement and further objections | 11/05/12 20:33:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:WBC's website improvement and further objections | 12/05/12 16:32:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| The WPCC easement /GLA response / further objections | 14/05/12 16:49:00 | John Cameron |
| just how long does it take to upload objections...? | 14/05/12 16:59:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:just how long does it take to upload objections...? | 14/05/12 19:09:00 | Sue Hammond |
| Councillor Govindia's response to the Putney Society..... | 14/05/12 19:22:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Councillor Govindia's response to the Putney Society..... | 14/05/12 19:53:00 | Guy Cameron |
| Re:Re:just how long does it take to upload objections...? | 14/05/12 19:47:00 | Stephen Walker |
| Re:Re:Re:just how long does it take to upload objections...? | 14/05/12 21:11:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:just how long does it take to upload objections...? | 14/05/12 21:29:00 | Stephen Walker |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:just how long does it take to upload objections...? | 14/05/12 21:54:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:just how long does it take to upload objections...? | 15/05/12 01:17:00 | Nick Baker |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:just how long does it take to upload objections...? | 15/05/12 08:04:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re: Exaggerated projections of need for primary school places | 15/05/12 12:02:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Cllr Govindia's response to Putney Society | 15/05/12 12:40:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Cllr Govindia's response to Putney Society | 15/05/12 12:49:00 | Matt Palmer |
| Re:Re:Cllr Govindia's response to Putney Society | 15/05/12 13:45:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| are the demand numbers accurate, or rubbish......? | 15/05/12 14:02:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:are the demand numbers accurate, or rubbish......? | 15/05/12 15:17:00 | Caroline Whitehead |
| Re:Re:The WBC/WPCC Agreement | 15/05/12 15:41:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 16/05/12 13:10:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Traffic congestion | 16/05/12 14:42:00 | Stephen Walker |
| Re:Traffic congestion | 16/05/12 14:47:00 | Mairi Anne Bowen |
| Re:Re:Traffic congestion | 16/05/12 15:10:00 | Lucille Grant |
| Re:Traffic congestion | 16/05/12 17:38:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Traffic congestion | 16/05/12 18:14:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Re:Re:Re:Traffic congestion | 16/05/12 20:04:00 | Stephen Walker |
| Traffic congestion and other stuff | 16/05/12 21:39:00 | John Cameron |
| WBC's purchase of the Hospital Site | 17/05/12 09:47:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Traffic congestion | 17/05/12 10:21:00 | Mairi Anne Bowen |
| Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 17/05/12 14:34:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 17/05/12 17:00:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 17/05/12 17:24:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 17/05/12 17:40:00 | Sue Hammond |
| Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 17/05/12 17:52:00 | Guy Cameron |
| Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 17/05/12 17:53:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Wandsworth's application is not valid | 18/05/12 14:37:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Wandsworth's application is not valid | 18/05/12 14:49:00 | Mairi Anne Bowen |
| Re:Re:Wandsworth's application is not valid | 19/05/12 10:06:00 | Roland Gilmore |
| Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 19/05/12 18:12:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Certificate B and planning regulations | 19/05/12 18:51:00 | John Cameron |
| Email to Seema Manchanda, and the invalid application | 21/05/12 10:22:00 | John Cameron |
| Email to Seema Manchanda, and the invalid application, part 2 | 22/05/12 11:44:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Email to Seema Manchanda, and the invalid application, part 2 | 22/05/12 11:50:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| WBC confirm the application is invalid.... | 22/05/12 11:52:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:WBC confirm the application is invalid.... | 22/05/12 12:27:00 | Sue Hammond |
| Re:Re:WBC confirm the application is invalid.... | 22/05/12 16:18:00 | Sarah Roberts |
| Shoddy, shoddy, shoddy... | 22/05/12 18:23:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Shoddy, shoddy, shoddy... | 23/05/12 07:21:00 | John Cameron |
| WBC update website to confirm invalid application | 23/05/12 10:18:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:WBC update website to confirm invalid application, part 2 | 23/05/12 13:14:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Re:WBC update website to confirm invalid application, part 2 | 23/05/12 13:40:00 | Rufus Hill |
| Re:Re:Re:WBC update website to confirm invalid application, part 2 | 23/05/12 14:04:00 | Vic Condon |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:WBC update website confirms invalid - but Planning Services carry on regardless | 23/05/12 15:06:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| WBC update website confirms invalid - but Planning Services carry on regardless | 23/05/12 16:43:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Re:Re:WBC update website to confirm invalid application, part 2 | 23/05/12 19:40:00 | D Plant |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:WBC update website to confirm invalid application, part 2 | 23/05/12 20:11:00 | Rufus Hill |
| Incompetence and dishonesty | 24/05/12 07:17:00 | Sarah Roberts |
| Re:Incompetence and dishonesty | 24/05/12 08:32:00 | Michael John |
| Re:Re:Incompetence and dishonesty | 24/05/12 09:43:00 | Sarah Roberts |
| Re:Re:Re:Incompetence and dishonesty | 24/05/12 13:28:00 | Stephen Walker |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Incompetence and dishonesty - hiding the facts | 24/05/12 16:26:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Incompetence and dishonesty | 24/05/12 21:26:00 | Lucille Grant |
| :Incompetence and dishonesty | 24/05/12 22:18:00 | John Cameron |
| Re::Incompetence and dishonesty | 24/05/12 22:52:00 | Sue Hammond |
| CIL | 25/05/12 06:56:00 | John Cameron |
| Read this excellent article about Elliot, Greening and WBC | 25/05/12 09:40:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Read this excellent article about Elliot, Greening and WBC | 25/05/12 12:14:00 | Lucille Grant |
| Re:Read this excellent article about Elliot, Greening and WBC | 25/05/12 15:58:00 | Bernard Lopper |
| Re:Re:Read this excellent article about Elliot, Greening and WBC | 25/05/12 18:43:00 | Caroline Whitehead |
| Re:Re::Incompetence and dishonesty | 25/05/12 13:20:00 | Mark Smith |
| Re:Re:Re::Incompetence and dishonesty | 25/05/12 14:10:00 | Matt Palmer |
| Re:Re:Re:Re::Incompetence and dishonesty | 25/05/12 18:23:00 | Lucille Grant |
| just a bit of fun........how to tell a resident to shove it, big time | 25/05/12 22:05:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re::Incompetence and dishonesty | 26/05/12 12:03:00 | Matt Palmer |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 26/05/12 13:31:00 | Guy Cameron |
| Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 26/05/12 16:54:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 27/05/12 12:20:00 | Jean Gilmore |
| Your Local Guardian.......and the facts | 27/05/12 16:57:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Your Local Guardian.......and the facts | 27/05/12 17:05:00 | Sue Hammond |
| Re:Re:Your Local Guardian.......and the facts | 27/05/12 17:39:00 | Roland Gilmore |
| Re:Re:Re:Your Local Guardian.......and the facts | 27/05/12 17:45:00 | Sue Hammond |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Your Local Guardian.......and the facts | 27/05/12 17:53:00 | Lucille Grant |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Your Local Guardian.......and the facts | 27/05/12 21:27:00 | Guy Sunda |
| Your Local Guardian.......and the facts | 28/05/12 06:01:00 | John Cameron |
| when is an objection not an objection......? | 28/05/12 09:19:00 | John Cameron |
| Screw planning regulations... | 28/05/12 12:16:00 | Sarah Roberts |
| Re:Screw planning regulations... | 28/05/12 13:57:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Screw planning regulations... | 28/05/12 19:50:00 | Roland Gilmore |
| Re:Re:Re:Screw planning regulations... | 28/05/12 22:00:00 | Sarah Roberts |
| "To be used in perpetuity as a general hospital" Sir William Lancaster | 29/05/12 09:38:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Re:"To be used in perpetuity as a general hospital" Sir William Lancaster | 29/05/12 11:01:00 | Lucille Grant |
| Re:Re:"To be used in perpetuity as a general hospital" Sir William Lancaster | 29/05/12 11:52:00 | Bernard Lopper |
| Re:Re:"To be used in perpetuity as a general hospital" Sir William Lancaster | 29/05/12 11:59:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Re:Re:Re:"To be used in perpetuity as a general hospital" Sir William Lancaster | 29/05/12 13:03:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:"To be used in perpetuity as a general hospital" Sir William Lancaster | 29/05/12 16:02:00 | Caroline Whitehead |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Screw planning regulations... | 02/06/12 13:09:00 | Guy Sunda |
| WPCC objection | 30/05/12 08:49:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:WPCC objection | 31/05/12 11:45:00 | Vic Condon |
| Just silence from our Councillors . . . | 31/05/12 10:07:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Re:Just silence from our Councillors . . . | 31/05/12 11:39:00 | Caroline Whitehead |
| Sir William Lancaster's Trust Deeds | 31/05/12 15:44:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Re:Just silence from our Councillors . . . | 31/05/12 19:20:00 | John Cameron |
| Not all the Councillors are silent.....just the ones with nothing to say . | 31/05/12 23:01:00 | John Cameron |
| Putney Green website...... | 01/06/12 07:37:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Putney Green website...... | 01/06/12 09:44:00 | Sarah Roberts |
| Re:Re:Putney Green website...... | 01/06/12 19:24:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| WPCC and WBC | 02/06/12 07:00:00 | John Cameron |
| Justine Greening, understands frustration | 03/06/12 10:17:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Justine Greening, understands frustration | 03/06/12 11:28:00 | Sue Hammond |
| Re:Re:Justine Greening, understands frustration | 03/06/12 17:24:00 | Vic Condon |
| Re:Re:Re:Justine Greening, understands frustration | 03/06/12 18:06:00 | Sue Hammond |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Justine Greening, understands frustration | 03/06/12 18:17:00 | Sue Hammond |
| Re:Justine Greening, understands frustration | 03/06/12 20:00:00 | Sarah Roberts |
| WPCC & WBC | 06/06/12 16:39:00 | Rufus Hill |
| Re:WPCC & WBC | 06/06/12 17:04:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Re:Re:WPCC & WBC | 06/06/12 17:48:00 | Rufus Hill |
| WPCC & WBC | 06/06/12 19:02:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:WPCC & WBC | 06/06/12 19:54:00 | Stephen Walker |
| Definition of minor errors... | 06/06/12 22:31:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Definition of minor errors... | 06/06/12 23:14:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Definition of minor errors... | 07/06/12 20:01:00 | Stephen Walker |
| Re:Re:Re:Definition of minor errors... | 07/06/12 20:18:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of minor errors... | 07/06/12 22:17:00 | Sarah Roberts |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of minor errors... | 07/06/12 22:17:00 | Sarah Roberts |
| Definition of a lie | 08/06/12 10:01:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Definition of a lie | 08/06/12 12:14:00 | Vic Condon |
| Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 08/06/12 20:04:00 | Stephen Walker |
| Re:Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 08/06/12 20:41:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 09/06/12 11:26:00 | David Devons |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 09/06/12 14:18:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 09/06/12 16:53:00 | Vic Condon |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 09/06/12 20:29:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 09/06/12 23:46:00 | James Stuart |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 10/06/12 08:19:00 | Sue Hammond |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 10/06/12 07:23:00 | Sarah Roberts |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 10/06/12 08:22:00 | Roland Gilmore |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 10/06/12 09:58:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 10/06/12 11:22:00 | Lucille Grant |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 10/06/12 11:27:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 10/06/12 11:30:00 | Sue Hammond |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 10/06/12 11:30:00 | Guy Cameron |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 10/06/12 11:47:00 | David Austin |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 10/06/12 14:39:00 | Lucille Grant |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 10/06/12 11:55:00 | Peter Carpenter |
| Wet, wet, wet | 10/06/12 12:23:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Wet, wet, wet | 10/06/12 14:29:00 | David Austin |
| WPCC meetings | 10/06/12 14:43:00 | Jonathan Callaway |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 10/06/12 14:42:00 | Lucille Grant |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 10/06/12 14:55:00 | David Austin |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 10/06/12 15:23:00 | Roland Gilmore |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 10/06/12 15:27:00 | Peter Carpenter |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 10/06/12 19:10:00 | James Stuart |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 10/06/12 19:18:00 | Peter Carpenter |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 10/06/12 20:25:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Definition of a lie | 10/06/12 21:14:00 | James Stuart |
| Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 10/06/12 21:57:00 | Vic Condon |
| Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 11/06/12 13:43:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 11/06/12 19:41:00 | James Stuart |
| WPCC | 11/06/12 20:06:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:WPCC | 11/06/12 21:39:00 | James Stuart |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 12/06/12 13:57:00 | Jenny Featherstone |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 12/06/12 14:16:00 | Peter Carpenter |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 12/06/12 14:18:00 | Bernard Lopper |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 12/06/12 17:13:00 | Roland Gilmore |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 12/06/12 17:22:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 12/06/12 17:38:00 | Caroline Whitehead |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 12/06/12 18:15:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 12/06/12 18:57:00 | James Stuart |
| Save Elliott School, submission to WBC | 12/06/12 20:02:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Save Elliott School, submission to WBC | 12/06/12 20:40:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Free Schools - A cause for concern | 12/06/12 20:41:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Free Schools - A cause for concern | 12/06/12 21:52:00 | Roland Gilmore |
| Re:Re:Free Schools - A cause for concern | 12/06/12 23:10:00 | Bernard Lopper |
| Re:Re:Re:Free Schools - A cause for concern | 13/06/12 07:57:00 | John Cameron |
| The impact of free schools and some new projections from WBC | 13/06/12 11:46:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Re:Re:Free Schools - A cause for concern | 13/06/12 00:41:00 | Sarah Roberts |
| Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 15/06/12 00:13:00 | Vic Condon |
| Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 15/06/12 11:39:00 | Victoria Richardson |
| Re:Re:Re:Continuation thread for Putney Hospital | 15/06/12 12:18:00 | Lucille Grant |
| WPCC Annual Meeting | 15/06/12 12:34:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Re:WPCC Annual Meeting | 15/06/12 12:46:00 | Jane Holland |
| Re:Re:WPCC Annual Meeting | 15/06/12 13:27:00 | Lucille Grant |
| Re:Re:Re:WPCC Annual Meeting | 15/06/12 16:56:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:WPCC Annual Meeting | 15/06/12 17:43:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:WPCC Annual Meeting | 15/06/12 18:16:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:WPCC Annual Meeting | 15/06/12 19:25:00 | Rufus Hill |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:WPCC Annual Meeting | 15/06/12 19:45:00 | Mairi Anne Bowen |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:WPCC Annual Meeting | 15/06/12 20:13:00 | James Stuart |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:WPCC Annual Meeting | 15/06/12 20:56:00 | Rufus Hill |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:WPCC Annual Meeting | 15/06/12 21:29:00 | James Stuart |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:WPCC Annual Meeting | 15/06/12 22:07:00 | Stephen Walker |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:WPCC Annual Meeting | 15/06/12 22:22:00 | Marjorie Ponsonby |
| Maddan's views about the Conservators in 2006 | 15/06/12 22:10:00 | James Stuart |
| Re:Maddan's views about the Conservators in 2006 | 16/06/12 08:44:00 | John Cameron |
| Maddan shooting himself in the foot | 16/06/12 14:26:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Maddan shooting himself in the foot | 16/06/12 14:46:00 | Lucille Grant |
| WPCC and Putney Lower Common - an attempt at clarification | 18/06/12 11:44:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Re:WPCC and Putney Lower Common - an attempt at clarification | 18/06/12 12:47:00 | Caroline Whitehead |
| Re:Re:WPCC and Putney Lower Common - an attempt at clarification | 18/06/12 12:55:00 | Guy Cameron |
| Re:Re:Re:WPCC and Putney Lower Common - an attempt at clarification | 18/06/12 19:36:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:WPCC and Putney Lower Common - an attempt at clarification | 18/06/12 21:10:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Putney Hospital application to be considered by PAC on 16th of July | 19/06/12 15:35:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Re:Putney Hospital application to be considered by PAC on 16th of July | 19/06/12 22:26:00 | John Cameron |
| Trebles all round | 20/06/12 13:01:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Trebles all round | 20/06/12 14:07:00 | Stephen Walker |
| Re:Re:Trebles all round | 20/06/12 15:39:00 | Roland Gilmore |
| Re:Re:Re:Trebles all round | 20/06/12 15:45:00 | Matt Palmer |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Trebles all round | 20/06/12 15:56:00 | Stephen Walker |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Trebles all round | 20/06/12 16:29:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Trebles all round | 20/06/12 17:01:00 | Thomas Newton |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Trebles all round | 20/06/12 18:21:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Trebles all round | 20/06/12 18:33:00 | Matt Palmer |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Trebles all round | 20/06/12 18:38:00 | Caroline Whitehead |
| Trebles all round | 20/06/12 19:03:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Trebles all round | 20/06/12 19:30:00 | Stephen Walker |
| Re:Trebles all round | 20/06/12 19:39:00 | Caroline Whitehead |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Trebles all round | 20/06/12 19:39:00 | Stephen Walker |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Trebles all round | 22/06/12 09:49:00 | Sarah Roberts |
| Brandlehow Primary School | 21/06/12 11:02:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Local councillors' backing up residents.....not | 22/06/12 11:29:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Local councillors' backing up residents.....not | 22/06/12 12:39:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Re:Re:Local councillors' backing up residents.....not | 22/06/12 12:51:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:Local councillors' backing up residents.....not | 22/06/12 13:34:00 | Stephen Walker |
| Re:Re:Local councillors' backing up residents.....not | 22/06/12 14:35:00 | Sarah Roberts |
| Re:Re:Re:Local councillors' backing up residents.....not | 22/06/12 15:29:00 | Stephen Walker |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Local councillors' backing up residents.....not | 22/06/12 16:09:00 | Matt Palmer |
| An "Open Letter" to Thamesfield Councillors calls for n open meeting and declaration of their positions | 25/06/12 14:00:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| The Councillors reply (28/06/2012) | 29/06/12 12:39:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Re:The Councillors reply (28/06/2012) | 29/06/12 18:16:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:The Councillors reply (28/06/2012) | 29/06/12 20:58:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| :The Councillors reply (28/06/2012) | 29/06/12 22:33:00 | John Cameron |
| Re:An "Open Letter" to Thamesfield Councillors calls for n open meeting and declaration of their positions | 28/06/12 17:04:00 | Jeremy Matthews |
| Re:Re:An "Open Letter" to Thamesfield Councillors calls for n open meeting and declaration of their positions | 28/06/12 17:44:00 | Nicholas Evans |
| Re:Re:Re:An "Open Letter" to Thamesfield Councillors calls for n open meeting and declaration of their positions | 28/06/12 18:03:00 | Sam Curtis |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:An "Open Letter" to Thamesfield Councillors calls for n open meeting and declaration of their positions | 28/06/12 18:52:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:An "Open Letter" to Thamesfield Councillors calls for n open meeting and declaration of their positions | 28/06/12 22:20:00 | Caroline Whitehead |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:An "Open Letter" to Thamesfield Councillors calls for n open meeting and declaration of their positions | 28/06/12 22:44:00 | Vic Condon |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:An "Open Letter" to Thamesfield Councillors calls for n open meeting and declaration of their positions | 28/06/12 23:03:00 | Andrew Wilson |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:An "Open Letter" to Thamesfield Councillors calls for n open meeting and declaration of their positions | 28/06/12 23:26:00 | Sarah Roberts |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:An "Open Letter" to Thamesfield Councillors calls for n open meeting and declaration of their positions | 28/06/12 23:31:00 | Sarah Roberts |
| :An "Open Letter" to Thamesfield Councillors calls for n open meeting and declaration of their positions | 29/06/12 08:11:00 | John Cameron |
| Re::An "Open Letter" to Thamesfield Councillors calls for n open meeting and declaration of their positions | 29/06/12 12:45:00 | John Horrocks |
| Why the Councillors got it all wrong | 30/06/12 15:08:00 | Nicholas Evans |