Thomson House Proposal and Sheen Lane Safety (2)

It’s a bit rich to accuse the report of “playing politics” …..

SEE Edit Post “Thomson House: Cllr Cambridge replies” ‹ EastSheenMatters — WordPress

…. when the report was complaining about precisely that in the councillors’ behaviour – that they were having a great time trying to outdo each in rubbishing the proposal.

And as Councillor Cambridge must know, the idea is not simply to require DfE funding for a new school but to tie it to the development of social housing on the existing site.

There may be all manner of flaws in the plan but that does not excuse councillors from treating the request for it to be studied with such flagrant contempt.

Charles Miller


Discover more from EastSheenMatters

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Unknown's avatar

About Richard AH White

Retired Solicitor specialising in child law and former Tribunal Judge hearing cases on special educational needs and welfare benefits.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Thomson House Proposal and Sheen Lane Safety (2)

  1. Paul Giles's avatar Paul Giles says:

    “bit rich to accuse … playing politics”.
    Understood. But at the same time the timing of all this, just before an election, means such questions will be asked.
    Everyone wants greater safety around the crossing area and several of us made those points to the inspector in late 2024 all of which he generously ignored; accordingly I assume the area is declared ‘safe’ now and post Brewery development?
    Also I am unclear of the Council’s ie local taxpayers’ responsibility for the undoubted costs involved in any move for a Free ie not Council school?

    Like

    • EastSheenMatters was accused of playing politics. Does that mean that only politicians can comment on matters being discussed by the local authority?

      ‘Such questions’ can be asked but Charles Miller was questioning the way in which councillors put those questions. That was one reason why a link was given to the record of the Education Committee meeting, so that people could judge for themselves.

      EastSheenMatters is aware of many people who support the LibDem philosophy, but they had hoped that meant there would be better standards of public debate on local matters.

      A ‘feasability study’ would necessarily consider cost, and the safety of local children, and the acquisition of land for affordable housing, which the planning decisions lamentably failed to provide for.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *