nxjen

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I was at Frank's last week and overheard > someone > > saying, Peckham was just like Shoreditch now. > > > Which is a ridiculous thing for anyone to say Looks for 'like' button

If you open the link to the spreadsheet posted by worldwiser the column to the left says either implement or cancel. I take this to mean that where it says 'cancel' any proposed changes to parking on those streets will not now go ahead whereas those where it says 'implement' will.

Good news

I found this thread from about five years ago but you should be able to glean some information from it. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,440809 Judging from the number of bees that have visited my lavender this year - fascinating to watch - there must be hives not too far away. I guess you've seen the London Beekeepers website? http://www.lbka.org.uk/home.html

dulwich2020 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't understand why they don't just use their > own wifi at home? I've never thought to take > laptop out to a coffe shop. why? Surely > everything has Internet at home now days? But equally you could say why don't people stay at home and make their own coffee.

http://www.theguardian.com/global/2015/aug/23/dulwich-hamlet-londons-most-hipster-football-club

This is a fantastic project but I do have one major concern. Given the narrowness of parts of the Coal Line, how do you intend to manage the dual use of pedestrians and cyclists? I think many pedestrians might be put off using a space which is shared with fast moving cyclists at such close proximity.

"no doubt, our valiant Liberal representative will then be claiming that it's "all the council's fault"." No, he'll claim it's Southwark Labour's fault!

Very exciting news for keen readers, Southwark libraries have launched their ebook and audio book service today. If you are already a library member you need to install the BorrowBox app and then register. Seems straightforward enough.

Actually, the service has been around since the introduction of wheelie bins (early 1990s?) so not really anything to do with gentrification. Just goes to show where's there's muck there's brass!

edborders Wrote: > > Perhaps Southwark cares which is why they will be > bulldozing clear whole swathes of the cemetery of > headstones and bones of your loved ones, leaving a > denuded environment for new bodies and bones, > which Southwark will soon clear out again. > ... > > Unfortunately, with re-using graves it either > involves keeping the headstone and putting a new > person under it (which isn't in favour among those > who want to pay the ?8k plus (?) to be buried)or > wiping away the monuments of your loved ones. This > doesn't take into account the pesky bees and > birds that live in the untidy mess of scrub that > has grown up above those graves. > I understand the graves in the area where reuse is proposed are at least over 75 years old and more likely over 95 years old so there will be very few, if any, who have personal memories of the deceased and wish to remember those buried in this area. This is unlike the rest of the cemetery where burials are more recent and where there are many who still wish to visit and remember their loved ones.

> > So, it was complete and utter hyperbole then. > > Was your argument so weak you had to resort to > what was essentially a bare-faced lie? What I find the most disingenuous is the unilateral renaming of this area of shrubland as "Southwark Woods" which implies there is a heritage that goes back many centuries and tries to present the current condition of the area as a permanent state founded on tradition and history. Spin!

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I believe the Southwark Plan at the time was to > redevelop all of Nunhead cemetery as per the area > that is still used for Turkish Muslim burials by > the gate. As I understand it, it was resident > group action FONC that prevented the entire > cemetery being reused in the same way. > When Southwark Council purchased Nunhead Cemetery, their intention was to retain about 8 hectares from a total of around 52 hectares as cemetery and to develop the remainder as public open space and nature reserve http://www.londongardensonline.org.uk/gardens-online-record.asp?ID=SOU063 and worked together with FONC in the restoration and renewal of the cemetery.

Keira - I think the 300,000 refers to burials in both Old and New Cemeteries, not just the Old Cemetery as stated by edborders above. The following is by Forest Hill Society: "Lack of burial space is not a new problem for Southwark. In the 1850's, the parish of Camberwell was having difficulty finding space for burials in its churchyards. The Camberwell Burial Board was established to find a solution to the problem, which they did - in 1855. The board bought 30 acres of meadow land and established it as the Burial Ground of St Giles, Camberwell. Camberwell New Cemetery was founded in 1901 in order to provide more space and was opened in 1927. By 1984, 300,000 burials had been carried out at the cemetery. The majority of burials now take place in the New Cemetery." http://www.foresthillsociety.com/2011/02/save-honor-oak-recreeation-park.html As Jeremy says, there is a huge difference between Nunhead and Camberwell Old Cemeteries. Nunhead was originally privately owned but when it became unprofitable in the 1960s, the owners just abandoned it. Suffering such neglect, it became a total wilderness that attracted dumping and vandalism which was distressing for those who had loved ones buried there. By Act of Parliament, Southwark Council acquired the cemetery for ?1 in 1975. Southwark Council had an action plan for the cemetery but it was the formation of the Friends of Nunhead Cemetery that brought new energy to the renewal process aided by funding from both Southwark Council and the National Lottery. So while the mix of nature and crumbling tombs and gravestones appears haphazard, a lot of work, money and maintenance has gone into creating this apparent random disorder. To paraphrase Dolly Parton, it takes a lot of money to look this natural!

And are you able to provide sources to back up your claim that most of the graves are paupers' graves?

dbboy - Well said

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MrBen from your logic we've had the gentrification > debate, so let's brush it under the carpet and > pretend it's not happening? > > Louisa. It's happened. Move on. The "older generation" have seen an enormous amount of change already in their lifetime and are more resilient than you appear to give them credit for.

That's so nice! I remember my grandmother used to have one in the form of a heavy metal dog and I could never understand why it couldn't be used when she moved house.

In June's issue of SE22 magazine, on page 44, James Barber writes that council officers have asked that the road closure be extended to Fellbrigg Road on Saturdays. Some of you will remember that this is what was proposed about five years ago but those living in the vicinity were against it. James is canvassing local opinion and is asking: 1. Should we relax North Cross Road parking restrictions on Friday (Yes/No) 2. Should we extend the Saturday market road closures, currently Lordship Lane to Nutfield Road, to either Archdale Road, Fellbrigg Road, or leave as is? 3. And to let him know if your're a local resident of the market or a regular user. He ends his piece by saying it's "really important you share your views before I comment to council oficers and they take anything further". He gives his contact details as: [email protected], telephone 07900 227366. (Apologies if this has already been posted about on the Forum, I couldn't find anything)

The cynic in me suggests they're waiting til after the election

Are developers allowed to mix and match planning permissions in this way? I would have thought that planning permission is granted on the whole scheme and the whole scheme has to be adhered to. Perhaps James can advise. Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ... Or more likely that the developers have > adjusted their design for levels 1 and 2 only for > this application so that people will think (as > above) " oh well only 2 flats, that's not so bad". > Then when permission is granted they revert to the > 8 flats on levels 1 and 2 (using permission > already granted). I think that is the most likely > scenario as the 'office' layout is all rather odd > and remember they argued that there was no demand > for such office space in there previous > application.

According to Which? they will not be compulsory http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/problem/do-i-have-to-accept-a-smart-meter

Peckham Rye is fantastic and partly due to the work and campaigning of Friends of Peckham Rye Park. 20 years ago or so, like many parks in London it was suffering from years of postwar neglect and wasn't the lovely, characterful space it is today. But though I favour Peckham Rye, in a week or so, Dulwich Park will briefly beat it when the rhododendrons bloom - they are really spectactular.

If you're irritated with the renovation expert already, it will be hard to get over this feeling and will not bode well for the future even if he is the best there is. Doesn't mean you have to go with the architect though - get in touch with other renovation experts before making a final decision?

I understand the lodge is privately owned. When the cemetery underwent the massive renovation, the lodge was renovated also and let by the council. The tenant exercised his right to buy, and who can blame him despite opposition from Friends of Nunhead Cemetery, and passed to private ownership. So not a perk for the councillor. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/cemetery-group-fights-lodge-sale-1416197.html