I voted like this because…
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 don’t deserve such rights and neither does being a smart arse. No digs aimed sorry for using a naughty word. Anyhow…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.
We’ve 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.
I’m 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.
We’ve regrettably suspended @Austen_Jones account for a little while.
The reasons are that his posts aren’t 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. There’s precious little of it left in London, outside the parks.
3 Likes
Ditto the break-a-leg message to Matt.
I’ve checked Lewisham’s website and it doesn’t look like they’re doing a webcast of the meeting tonight - am I right in that?
2 Likes
And it’s 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 like…
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 can’t imagine anyone would have voted the other way - or even abstained)
Councillor Tauseef Anwar also put in a worthy objection, but @Matt_l’s 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 “quite an objection, well done”.
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 don’t include affordable housing, while another complained that the only accessible dwelling had a single bedroom, very critically questioning “disabled people don’t have children?” 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
[Side note, I sought and received permission from the chair for the pictures.]
1 Like
Thank you.
So that abstention was fair enough under those circumstances.
Also, it’s good to hear that Matt was so on it - we were so lucky to have a planning barrister because I dread to think what it would cost to engage someone of that calibre.
2 Likes
Yep - and pretty much required in order to have an unbiased and unquestionable vote, which this most certainly was.
Very lucky indeed.
Final point - tonight it was said that this application was recommended to go before committee because of public interest. So well done to everyone that was interested or involved in whatever way, and to the planning department for responding so well.
2 Likes
Matt - can I just add my heartfelt thanks for you giving up your time and considerable skill to protect this lovely patch of land we are all so fond of. A hearty congratulations on tonight’s outcome. We all owe you a drink and if you ever frequent The Chandos please make yourself known to Max the manager - there will be a drink waiting for you there from me.
3 Likes
Thanks to everyone for their support. Even to Austen, who is clearly on the same side of this fight to protect the Green.
10 Likes