<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.1" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More details from Wandsworth</title>
	<link>http://www.precious-tooting.info/blog/2008/02/27/more-details-from-wandsworth/</link>
	<description>Protecting our precious green spaces</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 06:28:31 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: LM</title>
		<link>http://www.precious-tooting.info/blog/2008/02/27/more-details-from-wandsworth/#comment-69</link>
		<dc:creator>LM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:34:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.precious-tooting.info/blog/2008/02/27/more-details-from-wandsworth/#comment-69</guid>
		<description>Disaffected youth are unlikely to be paying high prices to private providers. Keep wildlife, people friendly park land and the possibility of informal football for juniors.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Disaffected youth are unlikely to be paying high prices to private providers. Keep wildlife, people friendly park land and the possibility of informal football for juniors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mr Victor Yelding</title>
		<link>http://www.precious-tooting.info/blog/2008/02/27/more-details-from-wandsworth/#comment-66</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr Victor Yelding</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 02:09:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.precious-tooting.info/blog/2008/02/27/more-details-from-wandsworth/#comment-66</guid>
		<description>It is patently obvious that the only numbers that add up in this cockeyed equation are the perceived revenues that may be gleaned from our land by Wandsworth Council, (and their "altruistic" partners, Goals Football).  Even a skateboard park or BMX track would satisfy our disaffected youth better than this!  I cannot believe that those elected custodians of the borough are not getting, or are going to get, hammered by their political colleagues, political opponents, local residents, "green" groups, dog-walkers, picnicers...  ad infinitum.  Political suicide?  We can only hope...  and get active enough to ensure that this is an own goal worthy of many an action replay.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is patently obvious that the only numbers that add up in this cockeyed equation are the perceived revenues that may be gleaned from our land by Wandsworth Council, (and their &#8220;altruistic&#8221; partners, Goals Football).  Even a skateboard park or BMX track would satisfy our disaffected youth better than this!  I cannot believe that those elected custodians of the borough are not getting, or are going to get, hammered by their political colleagues, political opponents, local residents, &#8220;green&#8221; groups, dog-walkers, picnicers&#8230;  ad infinitum.  Political suicide?  We can only hope&#8230;  and get active enough to ensure that this is an own goal worthy of many an action replay.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sue Eves</title>
		<link>http://www.precious-tooting.info/blog/2008/02/27/more-details-from-wandsworth/#comment-65</link>
		<dc:creator>Sue Eves</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2008 09:22:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.precious-tooting.info/blog/2008/02/27/more-details-from-wandsworth/#comment-65</guid>
		<description>New facilities would require 13,206 square metres. There are 8,212 square metres of existing facilities. The proposed development would mean a 4,994.00 square metres DECREASE in common land in the EXISTING area. 


By 'displacing' the 4,994.00 square metres to the 12,165 square metre Woodfield area, the council comes up with the sum 7,171 square metres - an 'increase' in common land.

Isn't the Woodfield area already common land?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>New facilities would require 13,206 square metres. There are 8,212 square metres of existing facilities. The proposed development would mean a 4,994.00 square metres DECREASE in common land in the EXISTING area. </p>
<p>By &#8216;displacing&#8217; the 4,994.00 square metres to the 12,165 square metre Woodfield area, the council comes up with the sum 7,171 square metres - an &#8216;increase&#8217; in common land.</p>
<p>Isn&#8217;t the Woodfield area already common land?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
