Latest Activity

Tim Godsmark posted a discussion

City of London Draft Local Plan

I have just sent the City planners a consultation response on behalf of GLERA about the City of…See More
13 hours ago
Imagine Golden Lane posted an event
Thumbnail

IMAGINE A ZERO CARBON GOLDEN LANE at Under Crescent House near to the tennis courts

May 15, 2021 from 2pm to 4pm
Saturday
Nicholas Tait posted a discussion

Window cleaner recommendations

Hi neighbours,We’re in Bayer House and are looking for a window cleaner to clean both inside and…See More
Saturday
Melissa posted a discussion

Two bed flat needed on Golden Lane

Dear residents, we have a lovely one bed council flat on Stanley Cohen House with a huge balcony.…See More
Wednesday

Forum

HEALTH & WELLBEING

107 discussions

ESTATE OFFICE ANNOUNCEMENTS

568 discussions

GENERAL COMMENTS & QUERIES

1303 discussions

MAJOR WORKS & PROJECTS

116 discussions

COLPAI

Site of former Richard Cloudesley School

167 discussions

BERNARD MORGAN HOUSE

16 discussions

COMMUNITY CENTRE

17 discussions

ITEMS FOR SALE OR RECYCLE

210 discussions

@GoldenLaneEC1

Text Box

Facebook

There are four Golden Lane Estate related facebook accounts and you can follow them here: goldenlaneEC1 

Golden Lane Estate / RCS site 

Save Bernard Morgan House

City of London

OPEN LETTER TO THE COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL 

 

14/4/21

 

Dear Members of the Court of Common Council,

 

As the Chairs of the City’s three largest residents’ associations, we urge you to heed this petition, signed by more than 1,250 people including many of our members and other City residents, that will be presented at your meeting tomorrow: http://chng.it/Y8H6M7DsHf.

 

 

The City Corporation’s relationship with much of its residential electorate has not been improved by a planning process where business interests continuously trump residential. Failure to heed this petition would put residents at a further disadvantage and be likely to widen and deepen discontent among residents, without whom the City Corporation would not exist as a local authority.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

Adam Hogg

 

Chair, Barbican Association 

 

 

Tim Godsmark

 

Chair, Golden Lane Estate Residents’ Association

 

 

Roger Way

 

Chair, Middlesex Street Estate Residents’ Association

   

Views: 59

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

PETITION UPDATE

On 14 April 2021, Councillor Mark Bostock forwarded to all members of the Court of Common Council a joint letter (below) from the chairs of the City’s three largest residents’ associations regarding a petition about the City’s planning process: http://chng.it/Y8H6M7DsHf.

On 15 April, Councillor Bostock formally presented that petition to the Court.

In the Court meeting, a member asked:

“Can I ask the member, given that he's a member of one the largest residential wards in the City, what does believe will happen if the Corporation rejects or completely ignores this petition?”

Councillor Bostock replied:

“If the Corporation does not heed the petition, we will see more action on the part of residents, as we saw with standards reform and defeating the proposed expansion of a City school in the Barbican. 

Since the Corporation only has the status of a public authority because it has residents, I think the Corporation’s leadership would be well advised to stop acting against them.”

Another member suggested that the objection to planning applications being decided by small panels (instead of by the full Planning Committee as at present) was not an objection in principle, but one concerning the composition of the panels.

Councillor Bostock replied:

"All those who have signed the petition have declared that they oppose the introduction of panels 'to avoid corroding democratic accountability’...

The petition says, 'democratic accountability is already weak within the Corporation'. This is due to the anomaly of the business vote which does not exist in other local authorities. So to propose some kind of compromise regarding the detailed composition of these unwanted panels misses the point and would still compromise democratic accountability. Our electorate do not want that.

I would remind members that panels are the subject of only one of three points in the petition. The other two relate to the perception of bias that is embedded in our planning process. There is no reason for our electorate to accept or compromise on that either.” 

The petition, which has 1,270 signatures, will now be considered by each of the governing Policy and Resources Committee and the Planning Committee. In the meantime, it remains open for further signatures from City residents, City workers and anyone interested in preserving the City’s heritage: http://chng.it/Y8H6M7DsHf .

 

RSS

© 2021   Created by Paul Lincoln.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service