It would seem that some documents lag behind as a result of due process and as yet, not all of the submissions have been seen and I am working my way through a substantial number of documents now.
PINS advise that some 5 weeks after the commencement, the LPA submits the main SoCG that they have jointly prepared and agreed with the appellant to PINS. At this point, the LPA sends their SoC to PINS. PINS share the LPA’s SoC with the appellant.
At the 7 week mark, a PINS inspector will hold a conference call with the appellant, the LPA and any party who has been afforded Rule 6 status to
discuss the matters that will be examined during the inquiry and will issue a follow-up note. It also provides an opportunity for the parties to ask any procedural questions.
Some weeks later Proofs of Evidence must be submitted by the appellant, the LPA and Rule 6 parties before the Inquiry starts.
Time aplenty for compromise to be made and reach agreement about moving towards completing construction of the building.
For the mean time and rather interestingly, one document labelled "Appendix 18 olspn - sydenham town forum_asbestos_8 august.pdf" appears in the list of documents presented at this time. The original post can be found here.
The six page document is an extract from this very site that contains posts made in a thread that appeared between 28 July 2019 and 8 August 2019.
Someone was observing the thread and made a copy dated 8/9/2019 and it is now presented in evidence.
The thread is an observation on the report made by SydSoc to the Sydenham Ward Assembly about events at the Public Meeting held at the School. The SydSoc report to the Ward Assembly contained significant differences between its contents and the actualite of what did happen at the public meeting also chaired by Tom Copley. It led to a subsequent report being made in the form of a Question to Lewisham's Mayor Damien Egan, in which matters deemed to have been resolved at the public meeting, rather curiously, being raised once more. The thread begins this way....
More to follow in due course.JGD wrote: ↑28 Jul 2019 15:05 These draft minutes have been published in another place.
It contains some significant inaccuracies on events and commentary made at the recent public meeting at the school.
Whilst there was a small minority of Sydenham Society members present who endeavoured to dominate the proceedings, including one individual who brandished a placard who only reluctantly agreed to its removal when a majority of voices complained that his actions were rude and it prevented them from observing proceedings. SydSoc's presentation was lopsided. It advised the meeting that as a Society, they had not objected to the original design proposal. It moved on then to articulate a current preference for a different materials finish, namely brick, that until that point had never been proposed by the Society or the previous designers Their commentary returned to a previously deployed thread of unsubstantiated criticism that there was danger present on the school ground in that asbestos material had not been removed safely and written reports about it were not submitted on time. That was effectively and conclusively refuted as it was reported to the meeting that HSE had observed the controlled removal of that material and it was confirmed that there was no question of there being any latent contaminants present.
Members of the audience expressed dismay that these unsubstantiated rumours voiced at the meeting by SydSoc had been subject of fly posting in the vicinity of the school. Parents advised that they felt this was causing unnecessary distress in the minds of parents and children and they had made attempts to remove the offending posters.
Local Ward Councillor Tom Copley saidIt is regrettable that this assertion that there had been unanimous agreement on the "reference" has been made. At the school meeting the majority who spoke, were critical of SydSoc's interventions that were causing delay. The outcome from the school meeting is evidently and widely at odds with that reported from the Assembly.he had chaired the Sydenham Assembly meeting where the reference had been unanimously agreed and he believed the scheme’s critics were not a small minority of the community.
it was evident that those of us who were present that there was a majority view, by a considerable margin, that events in the whole matter were seen as being regrettable. However that majority view called for construction of the full scheme now had to be brought to completion soonest. SydSoc were challenged from the floor about about their prolongation of events by introducing new design considerations. All parents who spoke addressed the issue of their children's education being impacted by potential further delay.
Of the SydSoc presence, only Pat Trembath made any significant and positive impact by providing a precise and accurate narrative about the extents of works for the park entrance that had been approved in the original application, which countered the current designer's assertion of a much lesser scope of works.
Does any one else feel that Mayor Damien Egan's reported thanks to SydSoc are misplaced ?