I will not reply further to you. Your posts are not relating to the actual issue and are personally directed and I find this very hurtful and unnecessary.
I donāt know you.
Iām commenting objectively on whatās in front of me.
I was brought up in Agnew Road, which is opposite the Green.
Me, my brother and my sister and all of our friends used the Green as our little place to āhangā for many years - so I have some real love for it.
It is now under threat from some greedy tosser.
HELLO! A PLANNING BARRISTER HAS OFFERED TO TRY TO PREVENT THIS PLACE FROM BEING SHAT ON!
You, presumably a good person, are also trying your best to protect the Green for the community - but, unfortunately, and with the greatest respect, you are barking up the wrong tree with CONTRACT LAW at a PLANNING COMMITTEE.
Unfortunately, itās your problem if you find that hurtful - it certainly wasnāt my intention.
4 Likes
Maybe not, but please also have a look at the Save Duncombe Hill Green Facebook group. There is a post there directly addressing you by name, written by a lawyer, and giving further reason and pleas to redirect your energy.
I think you mentioned you are blocked from that group, so use private browsing or your partner/friends/dogs computer or device if needed.
Perhaps that message from another lawyer resonates with you?
3 Likes
OMG - itās a contract relating to LAND LAW.
I will not be engaging further with your posts.
I respect the fact that you place your trust in an expert.
Exactly, and this is precisely where youāre missing the point.
Iām sure you will appreciate that there are barristers who specialise in land and others whose expertise in in planning .
At a Planning Committee meeting Iād like my case to be put by the one who does planning.
4 Likes
I would strongly suggest that others cease to engage on this matter with this guy. It really is a zero sum game. While I donāt know him personally, Iāve observed his behaviour on other community issues and noted strategies that attack those who do not support his position.
For instance negative online reviews for sponsors of the Blythe Hill Festival which at least admittedly notes the review has nothing to do with the companyās services. Local businesses like Pitta Patta Day Nursery and Babur will have suffered from this action.
So rather persuade those not wishing to be persuaded Iād suggest writing to the committee to support Matt as a your nominated speaker, particularly if you had objected to the application.
Ultimately it will be up to the planning committee to make decisions in these matters but support for Matt may help sway decisions should they not be inclined to support two speakers.
5 Likes
I voted like this becauseā¦
I see there is a lot of passion to protect this area which is great.
I like most of us would like to see a respectful approach to addressing this without anyone falling out or attacking each other.
Being hot headed to prove what could be a valid point may backfire and maybe those points should be addressed another time if kindly allowed. Some dodgy squatters just donāt deserve such rights and neither does being a smart arse. No digs aimed sorry for using a naughty word. Anyhowā¦I to do hope on the day this fight to save the green shines through. 
Can I suggest a 5 minutes tea break.
3 Likes
I practised law until 2007 and my wife is a practising lawyer. We are both of the opinion I have expressed throughout.
Weāve just read the FB post in which the poster clearly ignores the fact that the meeting agenda clearly specifies that notice was unilaterally served on Lewisham Council to terminate the tenancy under para 7. The poster argues that the termination occurred through mutual consent [not the case], which would mean that Lewisham Council agreed to lose our green space rather than defend it!
We now have opposing legal opinions on this matter, which is absolutely fine.
Iām content to accept that Matt has a perfect right to object to the proposal but I do not accept why I should be told to stand aside rather than joining with an additional objection on the points I believe have merit and to now face a barage of personal abuse to bully me into submission.
Weāve regrettably suspended @Austen_Jones account for a little while.
The reasons are that his posts arenāt furthering the discussion, meaningfully engaging or respecting other opinions, are going in circles, may not be acting in the best interests of the wider community. Critically they also appear to be turning on valued contributors who are positively contributing efforts into both the discussion and planning objection - people we would very much like to help and thank.
Please send any questions or comments on the above to @moderators, keeping this topic on, er, topic 
5 Likes
Good luck to @matt_l for the meeting this evening.
Hope the outcome guarantees local people will keep this green space. Thereās precious little of it left in London, outside the parks.
3 Likes
Ditto the break-a-leg message to Matt.
Iāve checked Lewishamās website and it doesnāt look like theyāre doing a webcast of the meeting tonight - am I right in that?
2 Likes
And itās been refused!!!
8 Likes
Great stuff - thanks for the update @ForestHull and for your efforts tonight @matt_l, and everyone else who has contributed!
4 Likes
Superb! Thanks for the update @ForestHull, and to @matt_l for representing all the local people who objected 
2 Likes
Sorry kind of a bit likeā¦
So is this Good news for us ??? Am I allowed to jump for joy kind of not sure at moment how to take this in
Great stuff!
Was it unanimously carried? (I canāt imagine anyone would have voted the other way - or even abstained)
Councillor Tauseef Anwar also put in a worthy objection, but @Matt_lās was a master class! It was factual, informative (apparently developers disregard for planning committees and the work caused can be considered as material concern according to a recent Ministerial direction) and ended with a charm offensive thanking the planning officers and committee for their efforts.
The chair also thanked @matt_l and said it was āquite an objection, well doneā.
The vote came quickly and was unanimous to reject the planning application (discounting one abstention due to declared interests - a relation living close to the site).
Other interesting comments were that one committee member said they thought it should be unacceptable to view proposals that donāt include affordable housing, while another complained that the only accessible dwelling had a single bedroom, very critically questioning ādisabled people donāt have children?ā One committee member was also interested in the size of the poll that has previously been organised and submitted to determine prior public use of the green space (180+ respondents, I forget the exact number).
So a good outcome, and a refusal so solid that any attempt to appeal would surely be futile given the current plans.
Well done all, and well done @matt_l - you are far too modest!
4 Likes