Sorry, this is s bit long due to the need for clarity on some points raised recently...

Voting
Should we just accept what the committee state without question? There are inconsistencies between the constitution and how the Committee are operating this SGM. The committee have stated there can be only 1 vote per household and also only from streets in the TLERA defined 13-streets area. Neither of these conditions have any backing from the constitution. If the Resident’s Association believe that 1 vote per household is acceptable, why isn’t it in the constitution? Where do the committee get their Rule about only allowing votes from within the 13 streets of the TLE from? This would go against the constitution that states very clearly that corporate members can vote.

Consultation
I spoke with most neighbours in the Council-defined 50m consultation area after I sent my Planning Application form into Lewisham Planning in Jan 2010. Therefore the Application correctly states I have not consulted neighbours. On anything subsequent to that Application form (e.g. my later Feb 2010 Design and Access statement) it correctly states I have consulted neighbours. Isn’t that quite straightforward really?
I have covered this before in the thread, so why you're posting it again now is beyond me. Unless it's mischievous…

Letters of objection
As I wrote above, I spoke to most neighbours in the 50m area, and in each of those meetings (including with our street reps living opposite us) each neighbour I spoke to confirmed directly to my face that they were ok with my plan or could not think of any reason why they would have a problem with it – yes, in every case!

After that, TLERA spearheaded an organised campaign of objections to my planning application, without a word to me, not one single question to me. Some kind neighbours informed me a team of people including the road reps were going around door-to-door giving vastly inflated children numbers (some as high as 44!) in order to scare people to put in objections. About 27 letters of objections were put in, and a few months later our road reps, sent in a nice packet of the repeat objection letters from the very same objectors mostly just quoting the same points again. TLERA themselves put in 2 distinct letters of objection, accompanied with their hired Chartered Surveyors report.

Just 8 objectors were from the area of consultation out of a total of about 16 – that’s 50% - clearly your suggested “all neighbours” is a bit of an exaggeration?

The other 19 objections came from outside the 50m-radius area of consultation, one from a Chartered Surveyor in Kent, and including some from neighbours who have kindly stated to me they now felt ashamed at having objected, having recognising that they had been stampeded into it against their own good common-sense. A number of those 19 are also from locations some distance away and therefore could never be affected by the Nursery in any way whatsoever – but all performing their TLERA duty to 'beef up' the objector numbers.

Our campaign
You claim it’s a campaign of hate – which I feel is completely disingenuous. This campaign has been about openness, fairness, and asking a very simple question:
If this nursery is such an awful problem, why has no-one actually reported it or complained to the council in 2 years? Why not one single complaint written or verbal to me? Why do many people on the hill and parents say it is almost impossible to tell there’s a nursery there during the day? Why is such terrible traffic congestion claimed, yet no-one can see it?

Paying for TLERA membership
In our case we have been members of TLERA for several years, but starting from early 2010 we were completely ignored and ostracized by our road reps despite having paid our subscription. We never received a single newsletter, or flyer for the whole year of our membership, while they worked actively against us.

When it became clear our road rep was spearheading the campaign of objections, we went to Valerie Ward, the TLERA chair at the time, and expressed our concern about the misinformation, and we asked to present our plans to the executive and to answer any questions they might have. Valerie's response: The Executive were not interested in hearing about our plans or speaking to us. We also didn't receive our envelope this year asking us to renew, so weren't reminded that our sub had lapsed. And when we were made aware of this fact and delivered our £5 to our road rep, he returned the envelope to us at our home on the estate, with a note saying we are not eligible for membership. Despite the chair agreeing that of course we were eligible, our road rep steadfastly continued to refuse to take our money! Other residents needed to intervene to take our sub down to the hon. secretary. So this has now been fully cleared up with the Chair, and we are once again fully paid up members.

This post was last modified: 05-03-2012 03:29 PM by pipling.