Headteacher heckled at controversial sports dome meeting in Cheam

Headteacher Peter Gale speaks at a meeting at Nonsuch High School for Girls

Headteacher Peter Gale speaks at a meeting at Nonsuch High School for Girls

First published in News
Last updated
Sutton Guardian: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

Anti-dome campaigners and residents heckled a headteacher at a meeting last night about his controversial plans for new sports facilities.

More than 40 people attended the first of two meetings at Nonsuch High School for Girls, in Cheam, which wants to build a sports dome, pavilion, running track and pitches.

Audience members interrupted headteacher Peter Gale during a speech when he acknowledged the existing parking problems in roads near the school in Ewell Road.

Sutton Guardian:

Resident Sally Williams asks a question at the meeting

School shrinks proposed sports dome in face of opposition

Sally Williams, who belongs to pressure group No to Nonsuch Dome, shouted out: "Quite clearly there is a problem. You are building something that’s going to create a further parking problem."

Mr Gale said he disagreed and another woman said: "Well, I live opposite the school and I do not disagree. I think you’re just forging ahead."

The headteacher explained that the school would create 55 extra parking spaces as part of the project.

But she hit back saying: "You are going to open it in the evenings to help pay for the development.

"We will suffer because there will be an increase in the flow of traffic. All that traffic, all that pollution and all that noise will be our experience."

During the meeting, three students from the school outlined the social, physical and mental health benefits of sport in an appeal for residents to back the plans.

One girl said: "We can’t see how any further participation in sport can be negative."

Another added: "We have to look at this project as an investment in the dreams and hopes of young people."

Meanwhile resident Frances Wright made an impassioned plea for the preservation of nature reserve Warren Farm, which runs alongside the site.

Ms Wright, who brought along a picture, said: "What about our mental health benefits? Look at this beautiful picture. This is the scene that the school will ruin.

"We want to go and walk in open spaces and to continue to enjoy looking at the beauty of the scene without any floodlights or horrible artificial domes over the top."

Sutton Guardian:

In response, Mr Gale said: "That’s your opinion and I respect your opinion. I think that it won’t ruin walks in Warren Farm if you look how we are going to screen it."

In addition to landscaping, architect Keith Benyon-Tinker said the dome would be patterned in order to "blend in" and its generator would be in a sound-proof enclosure.

Mr Benyon-Tinker said: "Lights are directed downwards so the light transmission though the dome will be minimal."

Roger Thompson thanked the pupils for their "very informative" speech and said: "The health benefits of sport are immense, no-one can deny that.

"Likewise so are the detrimental health benefits from irritation, stress, anxiety and other mental difficulties."

Mr Thompson, who lives opposite the proposed floodlit football pitch, said: "We as residents in earshot will have that hideous shouting every night of the week."

After the meeting, Councillor Graham Whitham, who represents Cheam ward, said they had pushed the school to engage in "open discussion" with residents.

Coun Whitham said: "Tonight is all very well, but might have been easier if they had spoken to people beforehand and said what their ideas were beforehand.

Sutton Guardian:

"This is one of the frustrations that I think people have had. They have only been presented with an end result."

Campaigner Neill Denny said he was amazed that Mr Gale had said he was "not sure" how much the project would cost.

Mr Denny said if the school does not know the cost then it could not anticipate how much use they need to make it viable.

He said: "It’s quite extraordinary that they are going to build this thing but they cannot really project how much traffic it’s going to generate or noise."

Sutton Guardian:

A planning application has been submitted to Epsom Council.

View the plans, with reference 14/00444/FUL at www.epsom-ewell.gov.uk

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:50pm Thu 21 Aug 14

labyrinth says...

The remark by the pupils, simply says it all when it comes to the utter, rank selfishness of this development - "We can't see how any further participation in sport can be negative." No, of course they can't - despite the facts that they already have fabulous sports facilities at the school, and that virtually everyone who will use this "sports Hub" will be DRIVING there!

Most of the pupils at Nonsuch are driven to & from their sport, with Mummy belting down residential side roads and, more often than not, parking whereever she feels like it even if that's over the drive of a disabled person who cannot then get out of her house.

What a dreadful, selfish, arrogant lesson for the staff at Nonsuch to be giving their pupils!
The remark by the pupils, simply says it all when it comes to the utter, rank selfishness of this development - "We can't see how any further participation in sport can be negative." No, of course they can't - despite the facts that they already have fabulous sports facilities at the school, and that virtually everyone who will use this "sports Hub" will be DRIVING there! Most of the pupils at Nonsuch are driven to & from their sport, with Mummy belting down residential side roads and, more often than not, parking whereever she feels like it even if that's over the drive of a disabled person who cannot then get out of her house. What a dreadful, selfish, arrogant lesson for the staff at Nonsuch to be giving their pupils! labyrinth
  • Score: 17

5:06pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Neversun says...

So in order that the girls at this school may have yet more sport (in addition to the fantastic facilities they already have!) the whole area around it is to be blighted with even more congestion from traffic - until after 10 pm at night, every night, when serving matches and clubs - and the whole area loses a beautiful, peaceful common.

It's no secret that most people drive to sports facilities, nor is it exactly news to anyone around here that all the existing sports clubs (David LLoyd, Nuffield etc) are always short of members. There is no need for this horrible dome and its attendant tracks, clubhouse etc: there is already plenty of sports provision in Cheam. What we don't have, is a proper, safe road system with a 20 mph zone near our infants' school, to dissuade all the speeding drivers who belt down the road after dropping their daughters off at Nonsuch!
So in order that the girls at this school may have yet more sport (in addition to the fantastic facilities they already have!) the whole area around it is to be blighted with even more congestion from traffic - until after 10 pm at night, every night, when serving matches and clubs - and the whole area loses a beautiful, peaceful common. It's no secret that most people drive to sports facilities, nor is it exactly news to anyone around here that all the existing sports clubs (David LLoyd, Nuffield etc) are always short of members. There is no need for this horrible dome and its attendant tracks, clubhouse etc: there is already plenty of sports provision in Cheam. What we don't have, is a proper, safe road system with a 20 mph zone near our infants' school, to dissuade all the speeding drivers who belt down the road after dropping their daughters off at Nonsuch! Neversun
  • Score: 15

6:47pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Janegauld says...

I was at the meeting last night and was interested to hear the school highlighting the importance of sport and access to sports facilities for disabled people and those with mental health issues. I would be interested to know if the school plan to allow free or subsidised regular access to disabled people and groups wanting to use the facilities. Sadly I think if this development goes ahead it will only benefit affluent groups able to pay for the privilege.
I was at the meeting last night and was interested to hear the school highlighting the importance of sport and access to sports facilities for disabled people and those with mental health issues. I would be interested to know if the school plan to allow free or subsidised regular access to disabled people and groups wanting to use the facilities. Sadly I think if this development goes ahead it will only benefit affluent groups able to pay for the privilege. Janegauld
  • Score: 17

6:55pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Environment-worker says...

Mr. Gale the headmaster is certainly ambitious. But he has to look at what he is spoiling, as well as what he hopes to achieve. He has it in his hands to crush the amenity of Warren Farm. Sport is important, but so are quiet places for recreation and they are fast running out even within the Nonsuch area which is becoming more like a tourist centre in the main park.

To think that the green and white patterning on the dome is going to make it look better is ridiculous.

Mr. Gale, please set an example to your pupils, and value our quiet beautiful open spaces - those few we have left.
Mr. Gale the headmaster is certainly ambitious. But he has to look at what he is spoiling, as well as what he hopes to achieve. He has it in his hands to crush the amenity of Warren Farm. Sport is important, but so are quiet places for recreation and they are fast running out even within the Nonsuch area which is becoming more like a tourist centre in the main park. To think that the green and white patterning on the dome is going to make it look better is ridiculous. Mr. Gale, please set an example to your pupils, and value our quiet beautiful open spaces - those few we have left. Environment-worker
  • Score: 13

8:50pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Sally.Williams says...

Councillor Whitham makes a very valid point, why did this meeting not happen before? The residents, Cllr Whitham and Cllr Burstow and Epsom & Ewell Borough Council have all been advised the school the school to follow best practice meet with the residents. Back in May Mr Gale said he was happy to meet with residents to discuss our issues. It has taken until August, nearly three months, to finally hold a meeting and then only AFTER the planning application has been submitted. This was quite clearly NOT a consultation meeting just a presentation of a plan that we already know is going to make life much worse for residents. We have deep and very real concerns that about traffic and parking and the harm this development will cause. Mr Gale accepted there are problems on the Ewell Rd in last nights meeting but refused to listen or hear that his planned sports centre would compound the existing problems. We live day to day with these issues we know better than anyone how bad it is. Mr Thompson raised the issue of noise, the 'state of the art 3G floodlit football pitch' which Mr Gale has ambitions to be used as a football centre of excellence and the dome which has little acoustic insulation will cause high level of noise for residents who probably live no more than 50M away, until 10pm or more likely 10.30 pm by the time users have got into their cars and gone home. The floodlights will be at upper window levels and will cause light pollution. Noise particularly causes stress which is very damaging to health and children who will be trying to sleep will be even more affected as their bedtime is earlier. I really feel for the families who live on Holmwood Close/Road. Their lives will be blighted forever by this development. Ms Frances Wright who has spent much of her life fighting to protect the park from ludicrous developments spoke passionately lat night and raised very important points about protecting our historic and beautiful park from a development that will not conserve or enhance the special qualities of that environment, she also argued about the health benefits of peace and quiet for health and well being. Many local walkers support her important perspective. The residents were very positive about sport and the three students who spoke were eloquent and passionate, but this facility is overambitious and in excess of what a secondary school requires to provide a quality curriculum, and the area really does not need more community facilities, we are very well served by existing facilities locally.
Councillor Whitham makes a very valid point, why did this meeting not happen before? The residents, Cllr Whitham and Cllr Burstow and Epsom & Ewell Borough Council have all been advised the school the school to follow best practice meet with the residents. Back in May Mr Gale said he was happy to meet with residents to discuss our issues. It has taken until August, nearly three months, to finally hold a meeting and then only AFTER the planning application has been submitted. This was quite clearly NOT a consultation meeting just a presentation of a plan that we already know is going to make life much worse for residents. We have deep and very real concerns that about traffic and parking and the harm this development will cause. Mr Gale accepted there are problems on the Ewell Rd in last nights meeting but refused to listen or hear that his planned sports centre would compound the existing problems. We live day to day with these issues we know better than anyone how bad it is. Mr Thompson raised the issue of noise, the 'state of the art 3G floodlit football pitch' which Mr Gale has ambitions to be used as a football centre of excellence and the dome which has little acoustic insulation will cause high level of noise for residents who probably live no more than 50M away, until 10pm or more likely 10.30 pm by the time users have got into their cars and gone home. The floodlights will be at upper window levels and will cause light pollution. Noise particularly causes stress which is very damaging to health and children who will be trying to sleep will be even more affected as their bedtime is earlier. I really feel for the families who live on Holmwood Close/Road. Their lives will be blighted forever by this development. Ms Frances Wright who has spent much of her life fighting to protect the park from ludicrous developments spoke passionately lat night and raised very important points about protecting our historic and beautiful park from a development that will not conserve or enhance the special qualities of that environment, she also argued about the health benefits of peace and quiet for health and well being. Many local walkers support her important perspective. The residents were very positive about sport and the three students who spoke were eloquent and passionate, but this facility is overambitious and in excess of what a secondary school requires to provide a quality curriculum, and the area really does not need more community facilities, we are very well served by existing facilities locally. Sally.Williams
  • Score: 9

9:26am Fri 22 Aug 14

Lewis2014 says...

I was at the meeting and was AMAZED at how little the Head knows about his own planning application. He seemed to have entirely vague estimations of usage, thus was unclear about traffic. He had NO IDEA how much the sports centre would cost to build, the Burser, the architect and the Head all could not say how much, even one aspect, the 'dome' would cost. This money comes from the public purse, as a tax payer I ask have they got the best price quotes? If they have no idea of the costs then then they surely haven't. How much money have the spent already on surveys, architects plans and other reports putting together this plan, this doesn't come cheap - its astonishing that they do not know these facts!!! Residents were very concerned about traffic and he seemed very unclear about how much usage the site would have. He acknowledged there may be a problem with David Lloyd users possibly using the new parking in the evenings, the parking on site is under great pressure already, and he talked vaguely about a barrier, but as it is an open facility for the community and is not a member only club this is completely unworkable. Parking on site is already pretty heavily used in the evenings if I was a DL user in a rush for my class I would park my car in there if DL parking was full which it frequently is. I found the whole meeting astonishing if it wasn't such a serious issue for Cheam I would have found it completely laughable.
I was at the meeting and was AMAZED at how little the Head knows about his own planning application. He seemed to have entirely vague estimations of usage, thus was unclear about traffic. He had NO IDEA how much the sports centre would cost to build, the Burser, the architect and the Head all could not say how much, even one aspect, the 'dome' would cost. This money comes from the public purse, as a tax payer I ask have they got the best price quotes? If they have no idea of the costs then then they surely haven't. How much money have the spent already on surveys, architects plans and other reports putting together this plan, this doesn't come cheap - its astonishing that they do not know these facts!!! Residents were very concerned about traffic and he seemed very unclear about how much usage the site would have. He acknowledged there may be a problem with David Lloyd users possibly using the new parking in the evenings, the parking on site is under great pressure already, and he talked vaguely about a barrier, but as it is an open facility for the community and is not a member only club this is completely unworkable. Parking on site is already pretty heavily used in the evenings if I was a DL user in a rush for my class I would park my car in there if DL parking was full which it frequently is. I found the whole meeting astonishing if it wasn't such a serious issue for Cheam I would have found it completely laughable. Lewis2014
  • Score: 4

2:18pm Fri 22 Aug 14

labyrinth says...

Lewis2014 wrote:
I was at the meeting and was AMAZED at how little the Head knows about his own planning application. He seemed to have entirely vague estimations of usage, thus was unclear about traffic. He had NO IDEA how much the sports centre would cost to build, the Burser, the architect and the Head all could not say how much, even one aspect, the 'dome' would cost. This money comes from the public purse, as a tax payer I ask have they got the best price quotes? If they have no idea of the costs then then they surely haven't. How much money have the spent already on surveys, architects plans and other reports putting together this plan, this doesn't come cheap - its astonishing that they do not know these facts!!! Residents were very concerned about traffic and he seemed very unclear about how much usage the site would have. He acknowledged there may be a problem with David Lloyd users possibly using the new parking in the evenings, the parking on site is under great pressure already, and he talked vaguely about a barrier, but as it is an open facility for the community and is not a member only club this is completely unworkable. Parking on site is already pretty heavily used in the evenings if I was a DL user in a rush for my class I would park my car in there if DL parking was full which it frequently is. I found the whole meeting astonishing if it wasn't such a serious issue for Cheam I would have found it completely laughable.
Totally agree. The real problem is the arrogance of Nonsuch; don't forget that they almost got this thing through with no objections at all from Cheam, and only fulsome supporting comments on Epsom's planning site from pupils and staff at the school! These were nearly all people who live miles away, and who extolled the scheme's benefits for them - utterly disregarding the effect on local traffic and Warren Farm. It was only by sheer chance that we were alerted to it.

The school's attitude seems to be that we ought to be grateful for their presence here amongst us - and the Head's lack of understanding of local traffic problems shows this. I wonder if he has ever stepped out to Anne Boleyn's Walk at the end of the day, and seen parents speeding along the road / parking over residents' drives / simply stopping in the middle of the road so that no one else can pass? We have sufficient problems with Nonsuch parents (and some pupils!) - we do not need yet more lavish sports facilities, still less ones open until after 10 pm!
[quote][p][bold]Lewis2014[/bold] wrote: I was at the meeting and was AMAZED at how little the Head knows about his own planning application. He seemed to have entirely vague estimations of usage, thus was unclear about traffic. He had NO IDEA how much the sports centre would cost to build, the Burser, the architect and the Head all could not say how much, even one aspect, the 'dome' would cost. This money comes from the public purse, as a tax payer I ask have they got the best price quotes? If they have no idea of the costs then then they surely haven't. How much money have the spent already on surveys, architects plans and other reports putting together this plan, this doesn't come cheap - its astonishing that they do not know these facts!!! Residents were very concerned about traffic and he seemed very unclear about how much usage the site would have. He acknowledged there may be a problem with David Lloyd users possibly using the new parking in the evenings, the parking on site is under great pressure already, and he talked vaguely about a barrier, but as it is an open facility for the community and is not a member only club this is completely unworkable. Parking on site is already pretty heavily used in the evenings if I was a DL user in a rush for my class I would park my car in there if DL parking was full which it frequently is. I found the whole meeting astonishing if it wasn't such a serious issue for Cheam I would have found it completely laughable.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. The real problem is the arrogance of Nonsuch; don't forget that they almost got this thing through with no objections at all from Cheam, and only fulsome supporting comments on Epsom's planning site from pupils and staff at the school! These were nearly all people who live miles away, and who extolled the scheme's benefits for them - utterly disregarding the effect on local traffic and Warren Farm. It was only by sheer chance that we were alerted to it. The school's attitude seems to be that we ought to be grateful for their presence here amongst us - and the Head's lack of understanding of local traffic problems shows this. I wonder if he has ever stepped out to Anne Boleyn's Walk at the end of the day, and seen parents speeding along the road / parking over residents' drives / simply stopping in the middle of the road so that no one else can pass? We have sufficient problems with Nonsuch parents (and some pupils!) - we do not need yet more lavish sports facilities, still less ones open until after 10 pm! labyrinth
  • Score: 2

5:01pm Fri 22 Aug 14

labyrinth says...

Janegauld wrote:
I was at the meeting last night and was interested to hear the school highlighting the importance of sport and access to sports facilities for disabled people and those with mental health issues. I would be interested to know if the school plan to allow free or subsidised regular access to disabled people and groups wanting to use the facilities. Sadly I think if this development goes ahead it will only benefit affluent groups able to pay for the privilege.
I'm sure that the disabled residents in roads such as Anne Boleyn's Walk would like to ask the Head - before you use the disabled to further your expansion plans, how about trying to do something about the regular parking in front of driveways, carried out nearly every day by parents from your school? And, how about, why not give us a 20 mph zone here so that we don't risk our lives when we cross the road?
[quote][p][bold]Janegauld[/bold] wrote: I was at the meeting last night and was interested to hear the school highlighting the importance of sport and access to sports facilities for disabled people and those with mental health issues. I would be interested to know if the school plan to allow free or subsidised regular access to disabled people and groups wanting to use the facilities. Sadly I think if this development goes ahead it will only benefit affluent groups able to pay for the privilege.[/p][/quote]I'm sure that the disabled residents in roads such as Anne Boleyn's Walk would like to ask the Head - before you use the disabled to further your expansion plans, how about trying to do something about the regular parking in front of driveways, carried out nearly every day by parents from your school? And, how about, why not give us a 20 mph zone here so that we don't risk our lives when we cross the road? labyrinth
  • Score: 0

8:42pm Fri 22 Aug 14

Monstermunch17 says...

If anyone wants to know the definition of NIMBY-ism, please take a good look at these pages. Also a good study in how people with wealth and status are are able to lobby far more effectively than the poor. This will not go ahead - too many people with money and influence able to make noise, their noses having been put out of joint by the thought of someone nicking their parking space.
If anyone wants to know the definition of NIMBY-ism, please take a good look at these pages. Also a good study in how people with wealth and status are are able to lobby far more effectively than the poor. This will not go ahead - too many people with money and influence able to make noise, their noses having been put out of joint by the thought of someone nicking their parking space. Monstermunch17
  • Score: 1

10:26am Sat 23 Aug 14

labyrinth says...

Monstermunch17 wrote:
If anyone wants to know the definition of NIMBY-ism, please take a good look at these pages. Also a good study in how people with wealth and status are are able to lobby far more effectively than the poor. This will not go ahead - too many people with money and influence able to make noise, their noses having been put out of joint by the thought of someone nicking their parking space.
You could not be more wrong. Your view that"people with wealth and status" are able to lobby more effectively, has no relevance at all here. In fact, the opposite is true! It is Nonsuch school which has the wealth and status, and they mustered it to support this development - writing letters of support from very nice addresses - but none of them anywhere near the area in question! In fact, most of those in opposition to this development, live in tiny cottages and 2/3 bedroom houses. Your point is absolutely meaningless: the wealth and status are mostly on the side of the developers.

As for "too many people with influence able to make noise" - again, rubbish. None of those in opposition to this are people of influence - we are all just locals with ordinary jobs (or retired therefrom) and most of us are very far from wealthy. The people with influence are the ones associated with Nonsuch school.

The issue is not 'nicking a parking space'. It is twofold - firstly, this is an exceptionally congested area which goes into gridlock on a regular basis, with side roads used as rat runs even though they serve schools & ought to be 20mph zones; it cannot cope with yet more traffic. Secondly, this dome would wreck an area of unspoilt parkland which is haven for wildlife - simply so that Nonsuch pupils and teams from all over the area can have yet more lavish sport facilities - which incidentally they already have. Have you been to the David LLoyd Centre? Magnificent. No more is needed for a school this size, and there are plenty of other sports facilities in the area - all of them under-used.

Incidentally, the term 'NIMBY-ism' was the invention of a member of the landed gentry, a minister in the Thatcher govt. who was the possessor of thousands of acres, who had no idea of what it is like to live in close proximity with anyone. It is a completely discredited term, useful only to those who wish to promote development regardless of the effect on a particular area and the lives of those around it.
[quote][p][bold]Monstermunch17[/bold] wrote: If anyone wants to know the definition of NIMBY-ism, please take a good look at these pages. Also a good study in how people with wealth and status are are able to lobby far more effectively than the poor. This will not go ahead - too many people with money and influence able to make noise, their noses having been put out of joint by the thought of someone nicking their parking space.[/p][/quote]You could not be more wrong. Your view that"people with wealth and status" are able to lobby more effectively, has no relevance at all here. In fact, the opposite is true! It is Nonsuch school which has the wealth and status, and they mustered it to support this development - writing letters of support from very nice addresses - but none of them anywhere near the area in question! In fact, most of those in opposition to this development, live in tiny cottages and 2/3 bedroom houses. Your point is absolutely meaningless: the wealth and status are mostly on the side of the developers. As for "too many people with influence able to make noise" - again, rubbish. None of those in opposition to this are people of influence - we are all just locals with ordinary jobs (or retired therefrom) and most of us are very far from wealthy. The people with influence are the ones associated with Nonsuch school. The issue is not 'nicking a parking space'. It is twofold - firstly, this is an exceptionally congested area which goes into gridlock on a regular basis, with side roads used as rat runs even though they serve schools & ought to be 20mph zones; it cannot cope with yet more traffic. Secondly, this dome would wreck an area of unspoilt parkland which is haven for wildlife - simply so that Nonsuch pupils and teams from all over the area can have yet more lavish sport facilities - which incidentally they already have. Have you been to the David LLoyd Centre? Magnificent. No more is needed for a school this size, and there are plenty of other sports facilities in the area - all of them under-used. Incidentally, the term 'NIMBY-ism' was the invention of a member of the landed gentry, a minister in the Thatcher govt. who was the possessor of thousands of acres, who had no idea of what it is like to live in close proximity with anyone. It is a completely discredited term, useful only to those who wish to promote development regardless of the effect on a particular area and the lives of those around it. labyrinth
  • Score: -3

3:07pm Sat 23 Aug 14

Lewis2014 says...

Monstermunch17 wrote:
If anyone wants to know the definition of NIMBY-ism, please take a good look at these pages. Also a good study in how people with wealth and status are are able to lobby far more effectively than the poor. This will not go ahead - too many people with money and influence able to make noise, their noses having been put out of joint by the thought of someone nicking their parking space.
Oh if only I was rich and influential! I am deeply normal mum of two, I live in a two up two down, and care about my park and my community. I want my children to inherit an environmental legacy that they can enjoy and I will fight for that. We love going to Warren Farm and enjoying the quiet and beautiful flowers in the sunshine. There are so many people we meet there who enjoy Warren Farm for the same reasons, that it feels like a million miles away from the hustle and bustle of our busy urban area. If fighting for those things makes me a NIMBY - then I am proud to be a NIMBY!
[quote][p][bold]Monstermunch17[/bold] wrote: If anyone wants to know the definition of NIMBY-ism, please take a good look at these pages. Also a good study in how people with wealth and status are are able to lobby far more effectively than the poor. This will not go ahead - too many people with money and influence able to make noise, their noses having been put out of joint by the thought of someone nicking their parking space.[/p][/quote]Oh if only I was rich and influential! I am deeply normal mum of two, I live in a two up two down, and care about my park and my community. I want my children to inherit an environmental legacy that they can enjoy and I will fight for that. We love going to Warren Farm and enjoying the quiet and beautiful flowers in the sunshine. There are so many people we meet there who enjoy Warren Farm for the same reasons, that it feels like a million miles away from the hustle and bustle of our busy urban area. If fighting for those things makes me a NIMBY - then I am proud to be a NIMBY! Lewis2014
  • Score: 7

5:28pm Sat 23 Aug 14

Monstermunch17 says...

Not too bothered about the origins of the phrase, we all know what it means. It means I'm not so sure you'd be fighting so hard for green spaces over the side of the Borough, where it won't directly impact you.
Not too bothered about the origins of the phrase, we all know what it means. It means I'm not so sure you'd be fighting so hard for green spaces over the side of the Borough, where it won't directly impact you. Monstermunch17
  • Score: -5

7:54pm Sat 23 Aug 14

labyrinth says...

Monstermunch17 wrote:
Not too bothered about the origins of the phrase, we all know what it means. It means I'm not so sure you'd be fighting so hard for green spaces over the side of the Borough, where it won't directly impact you.
Wrong again. I, and nearly everyone I know, have / has campaigned strongly against the Incinerator, because we do not want to be "Sutton: the borough to which all the others bring their rubbish."
[quote][p][bold]Monstermunch17[/bold] wrote: Not too bothered about the origins of the phrase, we all know what it means. It means I'm not so sure you'd be fighting so hard for green spaces over the side of the Borough, where it won't directly impact you.[/p][/quote]Wrong again. I, and nearly everyone I know, have / has campaigned strongly against the Incinerator, because we do not want to be "Sutton: the borough to which all the others bring their rubbish." labyrinth
  • Score: 7

7:56pm Sat 23 Aug 14

labyrinth says...

Lewis2014 wrote:
Monstermunch17 wrote:
If anyone wants to know the definition of NIMBY-ism, please take a good look at these pages. Also a good study in how people with wealth and status are are able to lobby far more effectively than the poor. This will not go ahead - too many people with money and influence able to make noise, their noses having been put out of joint by the thought of someone nicking their parking space.
Oh if only I was rich and influential! I am deeply normal mum of two, I live in a two up two down, and care about my park and my community. I want my children to inherit an environmental legacy that they can enjoy and I will fight for that. We love going to Warren Farm and enjoying the quiet and beautiful flowers in the sunshine. There are so many people we meet there who enjoy Warren Farm for the same reasons, that it feels like a million miles away from the hustle and bustle of our busy urban area. If fighting for those things makes me a NIMBY - then I am proud to be a NIMBY!
VERY WELL SAID 'Lewis2014!' Your response totally refutes 'monstermunch' and his/ her erroneous assertions.
[quote][p][bold]Lewis2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monstermunch17[/bold] wrote: If anyone wants to know the definition of NIMBY-ism, please take a good look at these pages. Also a good study in how people with wealth and status are are able to lobby far more effectively than the poor. This will not go ahead - too many people with money and influence able to make noise, their noses having been put out of joint by the thought of someone nicking their parking space.[/p][/quote]Oh if only I was rich and influential! I am deeply normal mum of two, I live in a two up two down, and care about my park and my community. I want my children to inherit an environmental legacy that they can enjoy and I will fight for that. We love going to Warren Farm and enjoying the quiet and beautiful flowers in the sunshine. There are so many people we meet there who enjoy Warren Farm for the same reasons, that it feels like a million miles away from the hustle and bustle of our busy urban area. If fighting for those things makes me a NIMBY - then I am proud to be a NIMBY![/p][/quote]VERY WELL SAID 'Lewis2014!' Your response totally refutes 'monstermunch' and his/ her erroneous assertions. labyrinth
  • Score: 1

2:34pm Tue 26 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

Well former pupil Joanna Rowsell managed to get an olympic gold medal (well done her), so the existing facilities obviously are not cramping the pupils' style too much...
Well former pupil Joanna Rowsell managed to get an olympic gold medal (well done her), so the existing facilities obviously are not cramping the pupils' style too much... ResidentTony
  • Score: 3

4:14pm Tue 26 Aug 14

labyrinth says...

ResidentTony wrote:
Well former pupil Joanna Rowsell managed to get an olympic gold medal (well done her), so the existing facilities obviously are not cramping the pupils' style too much...
In fact, the existing facilities are excellent, far beyond those available to pupils in other schools in the borough. This proposal is a commercial operation, put forward with no regard whatsoever for the effect on the local area.
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: Well former pupil Joanna Rowsell managed to get an olympic gold medal (well done her), so the existing facilities obviously are not cramping the pupils' style too much...[/p][/quote]In fact, the existing facilities are excellent, far beyond those available to pupils in other schools in the borough. This proposal is a commercial operation, put forward with no regard whatsoever for the effect on the local area. labyrinth
  • Score: 0

8:39pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Monstermunch17 says...

In reality, this development will have little impact on the area. Let's hope all these affronted residents will be as strident in the battle to save the boroughs' theatres, which are a genuine asset to the town , wherever you life.
In reality, this development will have little impact on the area. Let's hope all these affronted residents will be as strident in the battle to save the boroughs' theatres, which are a genuine asset to the town , wherever you life. Monstermunch17
  • Score: 2

10:16pm Wed 27 Aug 14

labyrinth says...

Monstermunch17 wrote:
In reality, this development will have little impact on the area. Let's hope all these affronted residents will be as strident in the battle to save the boroughs' theatres, which are a genuine asset to the town , wherever you life.
Wrong again. I don't know how you know about the impact, but it would be huge. The area is already gridlocked at certain times, and this would make it much worse. And that is without even considering the loss of the amenity of the beautiful open space of Warren Farm - which may I remind you, is enjoyed by many more people than just those who actually live next to it.

The borough's theatres are a totally separate issue.
[quote][p][bold]Monstermunch17[/bold] wrote: In reality, this development will have little impact on the area. Let's hope all these affronted residents will be as strident in the battle to save the boroughs' theatres, which are a genuine asset to the town , wherever you life.[/p][/quote]Wrong again. I don't know how you know about the impact, but it would be huge. The area is already gridlocked at certain times, and this would make it much worse. And that is without even considering the loss of the amenity of the beautiful open space of Warren Farm - which may I remind you, is enjoyed by many more people than just those who actually live next to it. The borough's theatres are a totally separate issue. labyrinth
  • Score: -2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree