This little thorn in the flesh has the potential to become quite embarrassing for the Council because, as you might have noticed, Cllr Edbrooke name checked the Triangle Adventure Playground as being a "well run" example of a co-op style project at the last Kennington Oval and Vauxhall forum meeting. This is great (I think) because it demonstrates that she has the guts to resist the Council's line on the matter. Consequently, the Playground is now /finally/ receiving support from the three Councillors of Oval Ward; Jane Edbrooke (Lab), Jack Hopkins (Lab) and Ishbel Brown (Lib Dem) and I'm hoping that they're making strong representations to Cllr Robbins against closing it down (see below). In addition, they've promised to fund the playground from the Oval Ward purse. Now that's fighting talk, and it's a demonstration of the resistance that might be needed in the up and coming months....
There's other good news in the pipeline...
The Triangle Association committee have found a fund which might match funding from the Ward Purse, and would potentially pay for a solar power electricity system. Heads up to the Triangle Association for their pioneering (and green) co-operative work! Unfortunately, the solar power system requires a minimum lease of 10 years, so Lambeth Council will have to agree to cease eviction proceedings. In addition, the Triangle have gained potential access to further funds for the next 18 months, but they'll need a longer lease. I hope the Council do the right thing...
Posts
4 comments:
Why is it right to support the interests of the children using the triangle over the interests of the Tennison s Children who want/need a bigger playing space? What are the user numbers?
I would be concerned if decisions are made on the basis of which parent group organises best and shouts loudest.
Anon, I believe you're entirely right to ask that question. It was the question I asked at first...
And then I discovered that the Council drew up 6 ways to expand the school, only one of which included removing the playground (see this post here).
So, there are ways of expanding the school without removing the playground (and thus increasing the amount of available place space), and ways that the school and the playground might /share/ the space, but still retain the management by the Triangle Association, but the Council do not seem to be exploring these.
A children's playground is never going to win on the grounds of utilitarian argument, but I don't think it needs to come down to that. There are unexplored options that don't entail its removal.
Thanks
I had forgotten your previous post. There still does not seem to be a clear answer on why option 6 (which includes the end of the triangle) has been chosen. Surely there must be an answer. It s hard to believe the council would court unpopularity without reason.
I suspect a lot of this originates from insufficient school places. Part of the answer could lie with the unused Beaufoy and largely unused old Lilian Baylis. What happened to your ticker?
Same anon
Some of our councillors are pro-active in responding to queries put forward on this blog. Some of them less so. It would be great to have an answer over why option 6 was chosen.
I agree that we have a problem re. school places, but there are issues with all of the buildings you mention and some have political legacies. Unlikely that former LB will return to being a school, especially since SAZ have launched their sports idea (which is positive). One difficulty is that the entire site (including the car park) is listed. Former LB needs huge capital expenditure as some of buildings are nearly unsafe (as does the Beaufoy).
Council may be about to sell off the Olive (primary) school site. I will try to say some more in additional posts over next few weeks.
I removed the Beaufoy ticker because it was a plugin and rather slow to load, and swapped it with the calendar, which is embedded and still slow, but serves a wider purpose.
Post a Comment