Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sorry lemerson, I don't think your objection is founded. If the problem can be solved by building as little new infrastructure as possible, that saves public money and minimises the impact to the environment of the new construction.


The soft defences will co-exist alongside the park. From what I can see on the council website it looks like none of the existing park facilities will be lost - they will only be temporarily out of order if this 1 in 75 year event (which sounds like a fairly extreme case to me) does happen. So, it's statistically likely that this will happen only once every 75 years - but it could even be less often than that.


As for Tellytubbies, the images published by the council don't look like anything of the sort - these are gentle and quite small slopes, not large hills. The flood meadows are new areas of planting within existing parkland which will add visual interest and help biodiversity, while again taking away none of the park facilities.


You suggest that the floodwaters should be diverted to open fields elsewhere in the area. Obviously I don't know the exact details but it's probably safe to assume that if this is even technically possible it will be significantly more costly, complex and disruptive to build, and the new construction will have a greater impact on the environment. It's just not worth all of that to avoid closing the park for what is statistically likely to be a matter of days in a 75 year period.



lemerson Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> jomou Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > These proposals sound perfectly sensible, not

> to

> > mention being much more environmentally

> friendly,

> >

>

> > In fact, the proposals do contain new drainage

> in

> > the form of flood meadows etc which hold more

> > water than a flat lawn -

>

> Hang on - so the plans include losing a large

> grass area where local people play, eat picnics,

> and relax all year round, over many years, and

> replace that permanently with a "flood meadow"

> scheme for the 1 in 75 year storm?! Sorry it

> doesn't add up. Nor do I want the park turned into

> Telly Tubby Land with these eyesores built. 'Soft

> drainage' sounds like a friendly phrase by

> engineers charged with solving a problem with no

> money. Surely clever engineers can divert the

> waters to the other side of the South Circular -

> the Dutch manage it?!

"I think that's unfair, lemerson made a reasonable request in a polite manner."


I read it differently - instead of responding to the substance of the post (which contradicted his/her assertions about lack of consultation) lemerson immediately responded in a way that, albeit politely, sought to undermine the credibility of the information via the implication that the poster (a) had an interest and (b) could therefore not be trusted to report accurately. Classic paranoid/obsessive/comspiracy theorist stuff, and consistent with the other posts.


It is notable that all the other posts on the topic come across as pretty rational and considered, especially by comparison.


FWIW, I'm in favour of the proposal for all the reasons set out sensibly above.

lemerson Wrote:

...... Surely clever engineers can divert the

> waters to the other side of the South Circular -

> the Dutch manage it?!



Are you referring to the Dutch polder system? This is for reclamation of land from the sea not emergency flood relief. In any event, they use banks (dykes) and open channels. I can't really see that working across the South Circular. The soft drainage proposed is very clever, sustainable, and how many people picnic in the middle of winter (when the flooding may prevent use of the park)?

Hi all


I should have made it clear in my earlier post that I am a longstanding Dulwich resident, but not a councillor, contractor nor Southwark employee, nor am I a candidate in the forthcoming local elections, and my interest in the flood management is apolitical. I am active in local residents' issues and amenity societies such as the Dulwich Society. In this case, I have attended Southwark's meetings and workshops on the proposed flood measures over the past few months and contributed my thoughts on the proposals particularly in the Village area. I am not a member of the Friends of Park groups but they have also been very active in attending workshops. There is a Consultation Summary Report document on the planning application document list which details all the meetings and groups involved, and issues raised during the workshops.


This is a big proposal affecting three large green spaces in the centre of Dulwich and it is important that everyone contributes so I encourage everyone to respond to the planning applications.


The consultation closing date has moved out to 5th February so there is plenty of time to review the documents. If I hear of any updates or meetings about the proposals I will post them on here.


Kind regards

All

Further to last post, I checked the Southwark web site again and the closing dates for the flood planning applications are:

Dulwich Park - 12th Feb 2014

Belair Park - 10th Feb 2014

Southwark Community Sports Trust (Dulwich Sports Ground in Turney Road) - 5th Feb 2014

Hi all,


I am on the Dulwich Park Friends committee. I or my colleagues have attended all of the meetings. The plans have gone through many iterations. One of the aims of the technical team has been to use gravity where possible, which in large part dictates where the holding areas need to be.


I know the technical team have answered individual enquiries, so if you have questions do ask them. John Kissi at Southwark is leading, with external consultants on board. And of course you can respond in the formal planning process.


Why not join the Friends and get our regular monthly email newsletter that would have alerted you to the public meetings and the chance to input? You can download an application form here (sorry, no online applications yet): http://www.dulwichparkfriends.org.uk/index.php/friends-info/join-us

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • As a result of the Horizon scandal it now seems very clear that the Post Office management are highly disingenuous and not be trusted!  There needs to be a campaign launched to challenge the threatened closure, unless the Post Office can demonstrate beyond doubt that the branch is loss making - and even then it could argued that better management could address this. I hope the local media take this up and our MP  and a few demonstrations outside wouldn’t do any harm. Bad publicity can be very effective!         
    • Unlikely. It would take a little more than a bit of Milton to alter the pH of eighty-odd thousand gallons of water.
    • It actually feels as though what I said is being analytically analysed word by word, almost letter by better. I really don't believe that I should have to explain myself to the level it seems someone wants me to. Clearly someones been watching way too much Big Brother. 
    • Sadly they don't do the full range of post office services
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...