Gordonbrock: Once more into the breach

The Brockley Society will meet with Lewisham Council on Tuesday to discuss their opposition to the current plans for Gordonbrock School's redevelopment. Given Mayor Bullock's answers in the BC virtual hustings, it seems unlikely that the elections will have changed the Council's position, so how much room remains for compromise from Lewisham's point of view is unclear.

The Brockley Society has published their report from the recent public meeting of their members and other interested parties here and included a Q&A, which sets out their position. Most noteworthy is this answer:

Q. Why did you make the legal challenge, and will you now withdraw your challenge?

A. We made a legal challenge on the lawfulness of December's Planning Consent. No screening decision had been obtained on the requirement to fulfil an Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposals. This was a serious error. Without our challenge, the buildings at Gordonbrock would be undergoing demolition and we would not be in the position to put forward realistic alternatives. Lewisham consented to our legal action; we have agreed to their consent; the action should be signed off in the courts within the next few weeks. Lewisham will then have to make a revised Planning Application. We hope to persuade the council to adopt significant changes to the design for this new application.


Angry but not sure why.... said...

Well I hope they collect HHs comments

The Cat Man said...

keep the existing building - add a glass extension!

Anonymous said...

I was at the mtg last week and I'm afraid it was an absolute masterclass in how to leave a room full of people feeling angry and disenfranchised. Around 100 parents and local residents had gone there expecting to be able to vote on a motion they understood had been submitted at the previous Broc Soc mtg, but for some procedural/constitutional reason which no one managed to explain clearly to those present, the motion was not allowed to be put.

Instead we had this weird consultation form at the end which left me wondering whether STV really was such a great voting system afterall! Nevertheless, most people there completed it and the response was:

"1st Choice Lewisham plans - 80
1st choice Brockley Society Proposal - 19

Should Brockley society continue their involvement with the GordonBrock school project?

Yes 34
No 71"

I've a lot of time and respect for the hard work Broc Soc members put in to the local area, and the plans put forward by the Council were far from ideal. However I think Broc Soc have called this wrong and badly misunderstood the mood of the local community.

As I understand it the Council has offered to make a few welcome changes to their plans, namely using better materials than the render that was proposed, and altering the entrance so the modern building doesn't block the Edwardian one behind it. I think Broc Soc has done well to extract these changes and should now not make any further legal challenges. We really need to get the building works underway pronto before the funding disappears.

The Cat Man said...

Sue, what is keeping you busy nowadays? Are you involved in brockley max?

Robert said...


I think that the people that came to the meeting who left angry, had that very intention before they entered the room. This is why many of those who have supported the BrocSoc declined from attending, and those that were there too intimated to speak.

Despite what had been publicised by some parents, including Simon Newman on this blog - the meeting was never intended to be an "EGM" and there was never an agreement to vote on a motion.

Simon talked about having a petition of BrocSoc members with 50 names, but no-one in the Society has seen this.

The vote at the end was an excercise in consultation - though you are perhaps right in saying that it was flawed!

Our intention for the meeting was to make our case by talking through our proposals, then answer questions afterwards. We were able to achieve the first of these objectives, but were unable to address the second as we were not given the chance to.

There is a fundamental difference in opinion within the community here: is conservation and design quality important in our area and worth fighting for, or should we allow any development on the basis of something is better than nothing.

No amount of shouting and direct threats changes the fact that many people think that the quality of our built environment is incredibly important. We see it as the role of the Brockley Society to represent this point of view.

It is now Lewisham's role to find a way through this in a way that is constructive and conciliatory. We have now put forward two suggestions of how this might be achieved, and we will meet with Senior Officers next week to discuss these options again.

I hope, after all is said and done, at the very least Lewisham will be more proactive and sincere in their cinsultation process in future.

Anonymous said...

There is a strong risk the public funding that had been available for the Gordonbrock school redevelopment will disappear as a result of the delay caused by the BrocSoc injunction. I presume that the BrocSoc will then be in the forefront of those raising funds for the eventual school redevelopment?
My kids went to Gordonbrock twenty years ago - the buildings were in need of refurbishment at that time. Let's hope it is not another twenty years before funding becomes available.

Robert said...

I agree with you. 20 years ago the building did require refurbishment, and it still requires significant improvements now.

Although I can't tell you why this didn't happen at the time, I can say that Lewisham have committed to this funding now, it is local funding, it is in this year's budget, and contracts have been agreed with the developer.

It has been the purpose of the BrocSoc campaign to ensure that this funding is well spent, and the school gets the extension and refurbishment it deserves. Not the terrible scheme put forward by Lewisham first time around.

If that is not within the remit of the Brockley Society, I don't know what is - especially as what we are talking about losing is such a significant architectural presence in the area.

A parent said...

Sue - Broc Soc do understand the mood of the local community - I'd say from BC the mood is mixed. They also understand the mood of the parents who were there that evening, but unlike politicians do not have to sway to one pressure group. Nor was this a disenfranchisment - disenfranchised from what? Charity's are not democratic organisations. This one acts to fulfil a remit of conservation - not pleasing a proportion of parents, local councils, or green objectives.

Brockley Society have always tried to work hand in hand with the council and councillors - I think you do yourself a diservice by posting these comments without finding out why the motion could not be heard. You seem to imply that Brockley Soc has done something wrong in holding an open consultation meeting (which they didn't have to do) and question their competence and honesty. I think'll you'll find that a parent said there was going to be a vote on a motion and tried to force it through. Thank god charities in this country don't operate that way; and bullying (yes bullying) tactics aren't supported by all councillors.

Anonymous said...

@ a parent: I don't think Broc Soc did understand the mood of residents in the local area (that is LADYWELL, where the school is located), but hopefully now after the mtg they do have a better idea of it.

I haven't and wouldn't condone bullying, but I would expect a fair bit of flak if I pulled the plug on a school's rebuild plans just a fortnight beforehand, leaving parents to foot the bill for childcare arrangements they had made for the hols.

I did ask Broc Soc officers after the mtg why the motion wasn't allowed, and they did explain to me, but frankly I wasn't convinced. Simon Newman, the parent who tried to propose the motion, had done his best to find out how to propose a motion at a Broc Soc mtg and had either misunderstood or been misled/misinformed. There were around 100 people in that room expecting the motion to be taken, with no clear explanation as to why it wasn't. Regardless of the constitutiional rights and wrongs of it, it was poor PR on Broc Soc's part to leave everyone there in the dark as to why the motion wasn't being put. And would it really have hurt to have taken the motion as a straw poll on people's views? I personally don't think so.

And tempting as it is to believe that Brockley Central readers' views are representative of local residents' views as a whole, they are not, they are only representative of a certain sector within the community - as the poll on the front page of the site so ably demonstrates, Greens would have been home and dry in the recent election, rather than out on our ear!

Robert said...


But we did have a straw poll. That was voted on at the end of the meeting: "Do you support Brockley Society's continued involvement with the redevelopment of Gordonbrock School".

What was not acceptible was to invite a whole group of people who have never been to a BrocSoc meeting before, and do not share our views on conservation, and ask them to determine the society's approach constitutionally, to a particular campaign.

Remember - these are the same people who cheered when someone stood up and said they were going to destroy the Brockley Society.

I explained this to Simon, and a number of other parents, and we would have happily done so again at the meeting, if we'd have been given the chance to.

Shocked said...

Oh this is interesting Sue - you think Broc Soc delibrately misled a parent on how to field a motion? You know the members of Broc Soc. Shame on you.

And as for the parebts who had to foot the bill for childcare - huh? Didn't they already have to do this - how did the decant change this?

Notice how you are now partisan and think this is only Ladywell's remit. I was also there and remember most of those in opposition being shouted down.

Long may Broc Soc challenge bad planning and politcially expedient moves and CONSERVE what is left in this borough, without it being demolished for other agendas.

Anonymous said...

@Shocked: Shame on you for twisting my words and selectively quoting me like that!I don't know who said what to whom at the previous Broc Soc meeting as I wasn't there, hence I said 'either misunderstood or misled or misinformed'.

Broc Soc can't have it every which way - say that everyone who lives in the conservation area is automatically a member and then complain when a group of those people take issue with a stance Broc Soc has taken. Or equally, dip into planning issues outside the conservation area, then be reluctant to allow those in the immediately affected area to air their views on the matter.

The children were due to have an extra 4 days holiday each side of the decant. Lots of parents arranged extra childcare, trips to grannies etc to cover those 8 days. When the decant was cancelled, so was the extra holiday and parents were left out of pocket. Clearly not wholly Broc Soc's fault - if LBL Planning hadn't screwed up in the first place it wouldn't have happened, but it's just one of the reasons why lots of parents were angry with Broc Soc.

All credit to Broc Soc for organising the meeting with the local community, for Rob's carefully prepared 40 minute presentation and for allowing those in favour of the rebuild to have their say, but I think the society shot itself in the foot with the way it handled the whole issue around the motion that was tabled.

Robert said...


Absolutely right. Of course we are interested in what our neighbours think of this issue, both inside and outside of the CA - which incidentally, is not the Berlin Wall, just a line on a planning policy map. I'm not sure beating tribal drums here is going to help matters.

We have a very clear remit, and we always have done; to protect our architectural heritage and campaign for good quality design in the area. In these respects, I can't think of a proposed development in Brockley in the last 20 years that has so urgently required our involvement.

You must understand, and so must everybody who does not necessarily agree with us - this issue is at the core of why the Brockley Society was established in the first place. It is also something that we feel very passionately about.

The truth is, there is plenty of middle ground here for Lewisham to give the community what we all want - a fantastic school facility that brings the community together, instead of dividing it. As I said before - true consultation at the heart of the design process would have been the key to unlocking this, but sadly that moment has passed.

Robert said...

I'm sure I only spoke for half an hour. Perhaps it just seemed like 40 minutes!

a parent said...

mmm.... hate to contradict you Robert but it was 45 minutes

Tressilliana said...

This comment makes it all clear:


Forget all the flimflam about everyone in the conservation area being a member, all the appeals for help - if you don't agree with the current committee, you're not welcome. That now seems very clear.

Also, as I've said before but I think it bears repetition - where was BrocSoc when the initial plans were being drawn up and discussed at council level? Where was BrocSoc when the first planning permission application went in, something like five or six years ago?

Tressilliana said...

Well, it would have done if it had come out.

This one:

This comment makes it all clear:

'What was not acceptible was to invite a whole group of people who have never been to a BrocSoc meeting before, and do not share our views on conservation, and ask them to determine the society's approach constitutionally, to a particular campaign.'

Anonymous said...

On 5th March Lewisham Council received a letter from solicitors acting on behalf of the Brockley Society, asking for the decant to be cancelled and for no demolision at Gordonbrock. They then entered Judicial Review proceedings at the High Court. This lead to the decant being cancelled as Lewisham had made a mistake in the planning process.

Who instructed those solicitors? How many people were responsible for that huge enormous decision to let that letter go to Lewisham? The trustees of BS? the executive committee?? Who? In those papers they told the High Court they were acting in the interests..of the wider public!!

These same people are still wrangling with Lewisham Council about their legal costs! Yes the Brockley Society want us taxpayers to stomach a cancelled decant, pay the extra £74K lost because of that and pay their lawyers!! And they think the Gordonbrock parents are aggressive! Taking JR proceedings is one of the most aggressive things you can do!!

Who has ever heard of JR or any court proceedings by a conservation group being taken in stealth? Who has ever heard of a conservation group proposing an alternative design for a building?

In the Mercury Robert Park seems at a loss as to why the Parents feel there is an emergency situation..because every day is another day we should not be in that school.

Robert Park is fully aware that the contract between the developer and Lewisham has a great big fat get out clause- IN THE EVENT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS!

Anonymous said...

BrocSoc doesn't seem to have any meeting dates/times on its website. The most recent meeting is 'AGM: 19th November'. Is that this year, or last year?
When are BrocSoc meetings? As members, everyone in the conservation area is entitled to attend. The best approach for people who care about the Gordonbrock situation is to attend the next meeting. When is it, does anyone know?

Robert said...


The Brockley Society are a Conservation Group.


The only people we are representing here are those parents and local residents that have signed our petition and support the notion that the Council's approach to the redevelopment of the school has been misjudged.

Judicial proceedings were not necessary as Lewisham consented. There is no wrangling over costs as Lewisham also agreed to pay our costs within two weeks of sending out the letter. This was not a great sum, and was as much a surprise to us as it was to you.

There have been many occasions where a Conservation Group have taken legal action against contested developments.

I agree, it is slightly unusual for conservation groups to propose their own alternative plans. We did this to demonstrate our commitment to the redevelopment of the school, and make a positive contribution. We also did it to try and dispel the myth that the only possible route forward for the school was significant demolition.

Bea said...

I back the Broc Soc on this 100%. I suspect much of the anger and frustration from a sector of the parents is due to the last minute changes of plan i.e. bang goes my holiday and also mentally having to readjust to new circumstance i.e. I was all prepared for the decant and now it’s not happening.

However, in the longer term interest of future children attending Gordenbrook and the integrity of the building I think it is better to wait for a "good" building than take a shoddy compromise.

OK - outside loos aren't great but not the end of the world. There're plenty of parents & grandparents who can remember using outside loos! And I was taught in portacabins but still managed to get a decent education. It was the commitment of the teachers, the ethos of the school and my school friends that contributed to this.

Anyway, it would seem that Broc Soc and Lewisham Council appear to be moving towards a compromise (coalition fever per chance?) and hopefully the funds set aside will be used this year and if not may well be carried over for next year.

As to parents going to the meeting and expecting to vote on a motion, I recall a number of times on this blog Brock Soc stating that no motion would be held.

Anonymous said...

I was taught in portacabins and it was freezing and a bit rubbish. How do teachers feel about it? It's their work space? The argument about what we or our grandparents had is not an especially credible argument.

Robert said...

There is only one portacabin building currently at Gordonbrock which is used for teaching - that includes two classrooms.

Like Lewisham's planning scheme, BrocSoc's feasibility proposal seeks to replace this, moving all classrooms into a new purpose-built block attached to the Edwardian buildings.

Anonymous said...

Robert - since you seem to have time to reply to everyone else, perhaps you can answer the query: When are BrocSoc's upcoming meetings? Date/time/location please.

Anonymous said...

The next open meeting - and the issues being discussed will be published in the newsletter and on the website when details are confirmed. Suggest you keep an eye on there.

Anonymous said...

How much will it cost to turn the flimsy feasability into a full design that can be tendered and implemented? It's never too late to withdraw funding, can you imagine going back and asking for another 75k for a complete redesign? Assuming the compromise is taken forward instead what will that cost? Varying contracts is where contractors make hay. Enjoy.....

Anonymous said...

It's interesting isn't it? The greens get a lot of critisism for being dreamers and grounded in the real world but they seem to be one of the few people who are saying we ought to go with what we have with all it's imperfections. If this refurb fall through will the brocsoc consider that a victory?

Parent said...

Let's work to get a good solution, it is possible. As Robert pointed out
'I can say that Lewisham have committed to this funding now, it is local funding, it is in this year's budget, and contracts have been agreed with the developer.'

BrocSoc is not your enemy. So, your plans got screwed, 5 years ago it happened to a previous set of parents and that time it was Lewisham who called it off.

Gordonbrock needs a refurb of some sort, let's make it the best it can be. But let's not forget, it's good teachers and good leadership that make for a good education, perhaps the school needs to work on that a bit more.

Anonymous said...

That's precisly the point. Contracts agreed, for the existing scheme. Varying that scheme will cost, in fact hasnit already? Have abortive costs been incurred? I'm not trying to be awkward, I have no string opinions on the archetectural merit but I doubt there'll be no change to the cost. I've seen many contracts collapse because of this kind of thing.

Anonymous said...

The arrogance of Broc Soc (or is just a small number people claiming to be Broc Soc) is starting to seriously irritate me.. . . .

This is the **BROCKLEY** society, not the Brockley & Ladywell society, nor the Lewisham society. Its proper business is in the Brockley conservation area and GordonBrock school is not in that area. Although it is in its environs.

There was a clear call from a Broc Soc member, a member by virtue of living in the conservation area, for an EGM. He says he has the 50 signatures needed. The representatives of Broc Soc have not explained why an EGM has not been called.

To my memory (about 30 years living in the conservation area) Broc Soc has never sought an injunction before. This is a very dangerous precedent. It has been asked: who exactly took this decision? How many people? Constituted as what?? Taking advice from the membership how??

Also to my memory Broc Soc has never commissioned plans. Again a very dangerous precedent. And again questions have been asked regarding how much these plans cost. Who authorised them? What is the connection, if any, between the people in Broc Soc who commissioned them and the architects who presumably were paid to produce them?


My irritation is the continued denial of any responsibility by Broc Soc. If the project is abandoned Broc Soc will state that the responsibility is Lewisham council's.

My irritation is the continuing denial that the people who attended the meeting were not proper members of Broc Soc, because the do not agree with the position being put forward by the people purporting to know exactly what Broc Soc should be doing.

My irritation is that twice english heritage (?) considered an application to give the buildings listed status, and twice decided they did not have sufficient merit. But 'Broc Soc' still persists in a dangerous course of action.

My irritation, with everyone involved, is that no one seems to be attempting to find out what Broc Soc members actually think.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the above post, and therefore would call upon BrocSoc most strongly to hold a full and proper meeting as soon as possible, so that ITS MEMBERS can ask these questions and express their views in the appropriate manner.
So, once again I ask: WHEN AND WHERE is the next BrocSoc meeting?
Saying that it will be 'announced in due course' just isn't good enough. The society should have a programme of meetings set on an annual basis. It's constituted as a charity, its trustees have certain governance responsibilities. So when's the next one?

Bea said...

Why is it dangerous precedent? I think it's a great one! Shows they've got teeth!!!

And why should it list its timetable just for you when you want it. They said they will anounce it. That should be good enough!

Tressilliana said...

BrocSoc spring newsletter:


Two meeting dates given:

Brockley Society Open Meeting
Tuesday 13 July, 8pm
Brockley Social Club

Brockley Society AGM
Tuesday 9 November 8pm
Brockley Social Club

Anonymous said...

Why don't these parents having a bash at Broc Soc just get behing the society instead of moaning? It looks like their ideas are much better.

Also, if they end up looking for blame if funding is lost they should probably look at themselves as well. If everybody got begind one good option, the council would probably go with that. As it stands who know's where this might end.

Heidi said...

"Times-running-out" on funding is no good reason to me to chuck up any old building for the kids. We should be able to preserve our heritage whilst also improving facilities for todays children and those for years to come. Current parents opinion is no more valid than anyone who lives in the area and may have children/grandchildren attend the school at some stage in the future. This buiding will not just be for the kids that attend today, its an important community facility which will serve us all for years to come. I personally want our history preserved as much as possible whilst improving the service.

Anonymous said...

I see the newsletter features an ad for a homeopathy centre.

Anonymous said...

Allowing the minority of hot headed parents to decide on the demolition of the school would be an aberration similar to making a referendum amongst mobsters on whether the income tax is a fair way to raise money for the government.
I am sure that even Sue can understand this concept. Suggesting that the demolition of 100 years old building is put on the same level of 4 days of holidays I think has beaten all the other jokes I have read from these guys. Just tell granny that she can’t charge you for not keeping the child, I am sure she will understand.

Anonymous said...

TO the 'irritated' anon.

Yes a parent has said he has 50 signatures of those who support BrocSoc's ideals - I don't think they have been presented to Broc Soc though. Once the society receives that, Broc Soc, I believe has to publicise the motion to all its members before a vote can be held.

Broc Soc doesn't need to seek its member's permission to take out an injunction or to put forward plans. No questions have to be 'asked' re the architects or the cost. Broc Soc is simply doing what it was founded to do - and well within its remit. No charity asks all its members before it takes actions - that's why there is a working comittee.

A few of the parents have taken other action themselves: I believe they have gone to the Charities commission to complain of Broc Soc's actions, threatened to sue Broc Soc, and even contacted the architects and some Broc Soc member's places of work.

Are they fulfilling the threat at the last meeting to 'destroy' Broc Soc if they don't conceed.

I personally do not think this forum here is helping at all. Nor are the actions of the parents who want to see the demolition go ahead. Broc Soc are having discussions with the council and are looking for a way forward. Time to get everyone peacefully around the table and abandon threats and accusations. This is in their remit, accept that, and instead of trying to destroy the organisation, work with it.

Oh and I won't put my name here - as someone my contact my employer because I disagree with them regarding local conservation.

Anonymous said...

Brocsoc is comprised of people like Headhunter and Patrick1971.

Anonymous said...

Is that meant to be an insult? If you ever came to a meeting you'd be suprised at the range of people there. And I wouldn't mind a bit if Headhunter or Patric came along. Or (even) you.

Headhunter said...

What? How did I get dragged into this?

Robert said...

Welcome to BrocSoc Headhunter. You've been recommended by your peers.

First job is baking cakes for the Summer Fayre.

Headhunter said...

Actually I did some voluntary work at the Summer Fayre a couple of years ago - I was selling tickets for "train" rides if I remember rightly... Not sure my cullinary skills are up to much though.

Gordonbrock Parent said...

Sue, I certainly didn't turn up at the meeting and expect to witness the shocking behaviour of those parents. Destroy Broc Soc brigade, they certainly were. Why would they vote on anything to do with Broc Soc constitution, the notion is quite ludicrous. I went to the meeting to hear what Brockley Society were offering. I was very impressed. I was appauled at the mayor's right hand man and his tirade.

The bully boys really are in town.

Irritated said...

The danger is quite clear from the effects that it has had. I am not a 'bully', I do not shout at meetings, but I think, like Sue, that this was a step too far by Broc Soc. . . .

Anonymous said...

How many aliases do you have Robert?

Robert said...

Anon (07.43).

How ironic that you would make such a remark under an anonymous moniker.

I can assure you that I only post under my own name. It was the one that was given to me at birth, and is the same one used by my great grandfather.

There are many people involved in the campaign against Lewisham's planning scheme. Do you really presume that every comment you don't agree with is my own?

However, carry on. I'd much prefer it if you continue to persue your personal vendetta in this way. My skin is thick enough to take it, and it gains you no ground on this issue.

I would suggest that Nick looks into the possibility of restricting posts on this blog to those that have set up named accounts. As it stands, discussions here have not helped the debate at all. I've tried to post constructively when I think it has been appropriate - but from now on, I will probably pass.

Anonymous said...

I assume as a charity, that demonstrating value for money is important or even obligatory to Broc Soc. Could I therefore ask what tendering process (if any) was used when commissioning the feasibility study.

Monkeyboy said...

Funding safe? http://bit.ly/dg1w10

Anonymous said...

Anon- charities don't need a tendering process for this sort of thing - moreover the scope of work was small. Nice try.

Monkeyboy - interesting article - but Lewisham council has assured that funding is safe if work start this financial year.

I have been posting under anon but supporting Broc Soc - I will also bow out of any Gordonbrock discussions here as I don't think the are very constuctive.

Anonymous said...

Fair enough. I'll have another try. Are Broc Soc confident that any savings made by adopting their proposals will outweigh the funding already lost due to the delayed decant.

Anonymous said...

No one knows what BrocSocs idea will cost because they do not have a fully developed, priced alternative scheme. Nice sketch though.

Anonymous said...

I am one of the parents that is annoyed and angry by the Brockley Society but its been a few weeks since i looked at this site. It seems the people running the society continue to be patroniseing and continue to behave arrogantly and self righteously. Its about time you stepped back and reflected that you called this wrong. The school is not in your area, not worth preserving, you have behaved undemocratically and risked the funding for the scheme. Please go away now.

Anonymous said...

If as reported government spending on school buildings has been frozen while schemes are reviewed, will that affect Gordonbrock no matter what scheme is chosen?

Anonymous said...

Yes. Every single penny of public money is at risk of being cut. We need to get a spade in the ground ASAP to guarantee any development

Anonymous said...

Yes. Every single penny of public money is at risk of being cut. We need to get a spade in the ground ASAP to guarantee any development

Anonymous said...

Big Society, not Brockley Society

Anonymous said...

Big Society, not Brockley Society

Anonymous said...

Hey, thats catchy...

bored and tired said...

...especially when you say it twice.

simon said...

As my name has been mentioned here, I think I should comment.

The facts regarding the motion were:

I attended a meeting of the BS on 20th April as it was agreed 20 minutes would be allocated at the end to discuss Gordonbrock following a discussion regarding Brockley Mews. I raised my concern regarding loss of funding should work on the school not start this financial year. The BS stated that was not their issue and they would continue to object to any plans they did not like.

I tabled my motion at that point which was seconded.

Constitutionally as required, I subsequently put it in writing and also put in writing that I have the support of 50 residents/members of the BS/Conservation area. This list has been offered to Rob Park and Clare Cowan more than once. They have not asked to see it.

It was left at the meeting on the 20th that the BS would arrange a meeting regarding Gordonbrock once a suitable venue was found.

The BS chose to call the meeting of the 4th May as a public meeting.

The BS have not explained why they have refused to table my motion or what they indend to do about it.

I raised my voice at the meeting on the 4th to be heard, after standing with my arm raised for at least a minute and being completely ignored ny Clare Cowan.

I am not a bully and am amused at being called so by a bunch of anonymous keyboard warriors who appear to have no grasp of the current economic climate or indeed know me personally. I suggest they better spend their time at the computer watching a re-run of last nights news detailing the probable loss of £126m of Gvt funds allocated for school refurbishments!

If raising my voice and pointing a finger is a crime against society, then I stand guilty. My only regret is it has been raised to deflect from the real issues and to discredit as a whole.

At the next meeting I shall sit quietly in the corner, meekly raise a hand and be ignored. No doubt I will be accused of not caring, lacking passion or being perfectly happy to hear manipulations of the facts.

Robert, if I, as a resident of the conservation area for more than 17 years is not "by right" a member of the BS as your web site states, may I please ask, who is?

It was asked by more than one person at the meeting on the 4th May why my motion was not addressed. You have not answered this in your Q&A section on your web site.

I doubt very much you will answer it here either.

Thick skin is not needed if one is telling the truth.

Anonymous said...

Welcome back Simon.

Did you have a nice holiday?

Anonymous said...

£60 million of cuts over the next 3 years by the mayor of Lewisham Mayor is being reported by a local paper.

Tamsin said...

Which, given they are the largesst employer in the borough, is a bit worrying.

Brockley Nick said...

Presumably this is the same £60m that was already identified some time ago. http://ow.ly/1Nvdg

Anonymous said...

Another local paper is is reporting the Mayor is proposing to increase the number of people in his cabinet to make the £60 million cuts.

Anonymous said...

Love the new initialism for the society - The BS!

Brockley Central Label Cloud