northernmonkey

There are kids on that stretch of Melbourne Grove who have gone to Charter N in the past and also on Derwent too - but they don't tend to get offers in the first round so it would be wait list movement and very dependent on the individual year - I think that its likely you'd get it but you wouldn't be guaranteed. Charter East would be a cert but North would based on recent years be likely but not guaranteed. You would need a back up you were happy with.

Its not the 'only way you could do it financially' though is it - you could sell your house and move into rented. Then you could ultimately buy somewhere else either close to school or far away once you've satisfied the criteria published. What is very clearly not allowed is moving out, but retaining your home, renting in catchment for a year and then moving back. Its not about 'not being rich enough to buy closer' - renting is fine, but it needs to be your only residence you have access to.

Ah - i see you've gone from trying to deflect with word twisting, to just deflecting with some kind of weird attempt at belittling. Its ok - just post the source of the 'thing that you heard that definitely wasn't from a crank group or some kind of desperate leaflet from the local unelected Tories.

0/10 for deflection tactics Rockets. Also noting still no source...

Interesting that you thought you'd post about it, and came back to essentially snipe, yet still no source for your vague comment. Should probably clarify that if you saw it on a One Dulwich mailing or a Tory leaflet that doesn't count. It is entirely possible / probable that the borough wide CPZ roll back will mean adjusting income projections, but this doesn't mean that a specific project is unable to be completed.

Where did you read this Rockets - somewhere factual or some Tory leaflet? Its a classic misinformation spreading tactic ' i saw somewhere' - but vague, so it plants the idea in someones mind.

Interesting that the 20% VAT increase is a problem but the 10% plus year on year fee increases that have been happening at schools like Alleyn's since the pandemic aren't... in reality 20% VAT is the equivalent of paying 1 extra year of fees or so over the whole of secondary education. Its a drop in the ocean compared to the overall amount you've signed up for.

Its possible to buy rechargeable pumps (bosch do one) so if the barrier is the socket in the car that could be addressed by buying a rechargeable pump. Bosch EASYPUMP 3.6v Cordless Air Pump with Light | Mini Compressor Air Pumps (tooled-up.com)

@Jules-and-Boo its not the Island by the station entrance that's proposed to be removed, its the ones on the 4 arm crossing at RPH, Dulwich Village and Village way / EDG that are light controlled crossings. My understanding is that the islands are being removed to facilitate a right turn lane on Dulwich Village into EDG.

Interesting that the view is that parking offences are 'victimless crimes'. I think that i'd agree to a certain extent that where people overstay or park in permit bays without a permit the only issue is a loss of revenue to the council and I can't get excited about that. Parking bays are by definition a designated safe parking space. Where Dulwich does have a huge issue though is illegal /unsafe parking causing danger for all other road users and often pedestrians too. Parking on DYL often causes huge tailbacks as traffic can't get through - there are those who park blocking sightlines around schools, on zig zags, near to zebras etc all of which are a safety concern. There is also a lot of parking across dropped kerbs with tactile parking meaning that those using mobility aids or pushing buggies may have difficulties passing. None of this is a 'victimless crime' but can have very real dangerous implications for others and I'm happy to see it cracked down on by parking enforcement.

Its a tension - yes housing is urgently needed, but what is most needed in Southwark is homes for affordable rent - preferably social rent. There is a danger that in a 'we need more homes' view - that we allow any development to take place, including ones like this that may have been designed to avoid the need to provide any social or affordable homes and being built on land that is important for biodiversity, whereas 100m north there is a vast space given over to tarmac for parking for sainsburys - arguably the whole area could be conversed to housing above a supermarket as has been done in Nine Elms where the Sainsburys now has flats above and underground parking.

The 'roof level amenity space' is concerning too as it could set a precedent locally. Though aware that the development above M&S at the station also has some roof terrace space so perhaps that ship has sailed.

I agree Alice - there is a massive need for affordable rent homes - and not 1 bed either. From the proposal I think that it is 18 x4 bed homes, 12 x 3 bed homes and 11 studio flats (affordable housing - though Alice's point on this remains that its 80% of market rent in all likelihood so unlikely to be covered by housing benefit). 3 and 4 bed homes are very much needed, studio flats less so! In return for this tiny amount of semi - affordable housing the proposal is to have almost 400 students in a 7 story block which will tower over everything else in the area and also has a roof terrace. Given that there is no university nearby all 400 students will need to use local transport options and there will be a significant impact on the local infrastructure of term time only students. The main point I keep coming back to though is that the area needs affordable family housing and students don't pay any council tax so it looks like a lose lose situation for everyone except the developers.

Based on what colleagues seeking private rentals tell me, the situation for renters looking for homes is even worse. Realistically building student accommodation here may indeed be a 'build it and they will come' - but then where will they go - 100s of students trying to get on trains from East Dulwich station with the reduced capacity and frequency or on the already full busses at peak times? The density of population proposed is likely to be an issue. Its well beyond any other proposals that would take place, This location has been earmarked in the Southwark plan for some time as a location for house building so to turn it into student accommodation (when the nearest universities are perhaps the South Bank or Greenwich) feels like a missed opportunity for a full development of residential properties with the necessary amount of affordable homes specified. Essentially the student part feels like yet another attempt by developers to get round the requirement for affordable homes - this time by re categorising the site potential

I think rather than 'it would be better if it wasn't student accommodation' its more that this should be opposed. There isn't a need for this locally, there will be a significant impact on the area if it goes ahead and the building scale / size is too big compared to other local development. Also worth remembering that there is additional development proposed in the area behind the solicitors on Melbourne Grove and where the doctor's surgery used to be as well as the Greendale fields development. Family housing is what is needed locally and this should be pushed. Once a commercial landlord owns an HMO with 100s of residents there is no going back and re deciding that in reality that wasn't a good idea and it really should have been homes for people rather than student lets.