Latest Activity

Tracy Meddows-Lynch Batten posted a discussion

Filming in Fann Street!!

Can there be some kind of emergency meeting with regard to illegal filming in and around GLE?In Fann Street this week alone we’ve had Two film crews, the first lot left behind 10 helium gas canisters (full size) and litter strewn everywhere. The second lot (tonight) were moved on 3 times by the police, and we had to endure 3 hours of disturbance!!The CoL Police received numerous calls, regarding the filming, only to turn up half an hour later, and stayed for approx 5 minutes and politely asked them to move on!! Which it took a further hour for them to leave, and again Fann Street left strewn with litter.With the surrounding Street closures around the Estate (Beech St, Golden Lane. Fortune St, and Brackley St) Fann Street is taking the brunt of Noise pollution, as well as these Film Crews. I did inform the Alderman of this last year, but not surprisingly if it isn’t Barbican Related, then there’s no interest. It all feels like no one wants to get involved or try to prevent further…See More
David Graves (your Alderman) commented on Sue Pearson's blog post CITY OF LONDON CORPORATION FAILS ITS RESIDENTS
"Paul, I'm surprised that referring to an audience caused you such upset. By "audience" I mean those who follow this site and the conversations/discussions which happen here. I expect that most of these are residents, but not…"
Tim Godsmark posted discussions
Paul Lincoln posted an event

Imagine Golden Lane at Net Zero at Under Crescent House

September 18, 2021 from 2pm to 4pm
Monthly meeting looking at best ways to tackle climate emergency in Golden Lane Estate. See More



114 discussions


592 discussions


1313 discussions


116 discussions


Site of former Richard Cloudesley School

168 discussions


16 discussions


17 discussions


214 discussions


Text Box


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





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:



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: 67

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


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:

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: .



© 2021   Created by Paul Lincoln.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service