nxjen

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People blow in to these gaps, like motes caught on > the wind, for proximity to 'proper' areas - like > timid flies landing on the ankle of a carcass > rather than on its split and bloated gut. > Such poetry

Me four. More humourous than stupid. I sew a lot (please note I refuse to call myself a sewer!) but I too thought the thread was about drainage.

Blow ins from East Dulwich

Is there a document or legal agreement that lays down that Dulwich Estate has a remit to conserve Dulwich and if so, who is the remit from? I would have thought and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong that they were in a position to call the shots regarding conservation within the area as long as it complies with the Dulwich Supplementary Planning Document drawn up by Southwark Council.

Anyone who has seen a lot of jays in Peckham Rye Park is very lucky as they are very shy birds, I have only seen them on a couple of occasions in many years of using both the park and common. Makes me wonder if this is a genuine post, but on the off chance it is, I would be very alarmed if a cull of those species mentioned went ahead. And how to prevent them returning??!! A report from the RSPB will make interesting reading. Foxes and squirrels are vermin as well - should they too be culled?

I agree with Penguin. They have recently introduced a duty doctor system where if you feel the problem needs dealing with before you're able to get a routine appointment, the doctor will call back and arrange for an emergency appointment if they feel it appropriate. Have to admit I was very doubtful but can speak from experience that the system does work, and my problem was quickly and effectively treated.

There was a previous thread on this, started in 2011 with more recent updates in 2014. Opinion is it's a nice place to live, I've always found it a peaceful place to walk through. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,793169,page=1

Outside Willow on North Cross Road

Attempting to transplant to Goose Green a great idea. Cleaner, greener, safer funding?

But as people are quoting history as a reason for their retention, to be authentic shouldn't the occupancy reflect this? According to the 1911 census, no. 2 Railway Cottages (as they were then called) was occupied by the Head Porter, his married daughter and husband, and a second, single daughter, whilst at no. 3 lived a Signalman, his wife, son and 2 daughters whose ages ranged betweeen 14 and 20. The Station Master lived at No. 1 (or Station House as it was then called) with his wife and 2 young children. I'm joking of course about proposing occupancy levels be the same as they were a hundred years ago and I agree, whilst also agreeing with Penguin regarding the probable indoor space, they are attractive. It has to be bourne in mind though that when the flats/library/retail building has been completed the visual environment is going to be very, very different. Anybody living in these cottages will look out onto a four storey building a great deal closer than the present railway embankment which will surely block out a lot of light. A development that has commercial on the ground floor with residential above makes a lot of sense, though when I last looked the application was still not online so not in a position to pass comment on what is being proposed. The person/people I really feel for is the occupier/owner of No. 1 Railway Rise, the house not included in this planning application, who may be in a very unenviable position.

That's going to be on the old garden centre site. This application is about the row of cottages opposite.

Thanks for posting this which appears reasonable. The OP mentioned redundancies and no mention of redundancies is made in your statement. Would it be possible to clarify what the situation is regarding possible redundancies?

I agree with Ernesto, though quaint, there's nothing special about them and wouldn't stand any chance of being listed. Take a walk around East Dulwich and you'll see there's enough period housing to satisfy the most fervent John Betjeman disciple, in fact when I first moved into the area I found the ubiquitous bay windowed terraces incredibly dull. Of course, it depends on what the proposed new build will be, the plans don't appear to be online yet. What's intriguing though is the proposal only covers 2 of the 3 cottages - does this mean the one closest to Grove Vale is remaining?

"Finally. How to fund it. Bizarrely selling 2/3rds of the site - which was all funded by local public subscription" Would be interested to see your references that the hospital was originally funded by public subscription. My understanding was that the land was bought in the 1880s by the St Saviour's Poor Law Union (this covered the area around Southwark Cathedral, Bankside and the Borough) to build the St Saviour's Workhouse Infirmary, so when it was built it was not intended to serve the local Dulwich community and was paid for out of the St Saviour's Poor Law rate. Charles Barry Junior, architect for the Dulwich Estate, was concerned the infirmary would affect property prices - plus ca change and all that!

So to clarify, are you saying there will be 19 redundancies or that out of the 19 there will be some redundancies?

I'm interested why these cemetery woodland areas are now being called Southwark Woods, or do you mean to say woods in Southwark?

I've noticed when people use the word "technically" there is usually little else to support their argument.

I don't understand, which business has been evicted? If you mean the Garden Centre, I was under the impression, though perhaps I'm wrong, they owned the freehold and sold that to the developers who will be building the flats, library and retail space. The retail space will be a lot smaller than DKH Sainsburys and will appeal to a different customer base than Sainsbury's. Sainsbury's is that far away from the station to deter commuters wanting to get something on the way home whereas a M&S Simply Food, or similar, would attract a lot of passers by.

IMO the old station building is unremarkable and possibly not in very good condition. I'm all for preserving old buildings that have some architectural merit and/or history but neither applies here. Is it known what the problems are regarding demolition? ETA: Looking at the elevation posted by Blackcurrent on 20 November 2014, it seems like the station is being retained?

Jeremy's earlier suggestion it's a training exercise makes most sense.

The link is to a website that shows bomb damage during the Blitz 1940-41. There's another website that lists damage done in 1944 by V1 and V2 rockets. It gives details of both the Co-op / Shawbury Road explosion and the one referred to by KK. http://www.flyingbombsandrockets.com/V1_summary_dulwich.html

Depends what kind of condition they are but there's a large textile recycling bin outside the MIND charity shop on Goose Green that can be used for pillows and bedding.

easytiger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ....on Lordship Lane and side roads to replace the > 30 minute cap. > > Council wants to save local shopping centres using > this > model. > > Anyone agree/disagree on this consultation? Hmmm ... this model may help in places where out of town shopping has killed the local high street but this solution isn't a one size fits all remedy. And with more and more outlets looking to open in Lordship Lane and surrounds, does East Dulwich "shopping centre" need saving??!!

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Got a notice today talking about this in the barry > road area (near Barry's offlicence) > > No problem parking around here during the day so > why now introduce restricted parking spaces when > they aren't needed? > > Is this the start of a push for a cpz (again) The same is being proposed for the stretch on North Cross Road that includes ED and Lloyds the Chemist, currently parking is unrestricted but the council is consulting on introducing one hour free parking (talk about spin). Many people who park there now are residents and owners or employees of local businesses including those on Lordship Lane and if restricted parking is introduced it will only add increased parking pressure onto surrounding streets. The accompanying paperwork suggests this proposal is being put forward to improve the local economy but this seems a little vague. I think, if accepted, the change would be more detrimental than beneficial. Changing from restricted parking to one hour's free parking seems like a good move, reducing unrestricted parking to a maximum of one hour not so. Can't help but think Council are hoping to slip something through here.

You could take the London Overground to Canada Water and explore Rotherhithe, lots of interesting things there from the river, former docks, the old Rotherhithe village area and newly created green areas. Very tranquil. Southwark Council have produced a leaflet describing places of interest that includes a map. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/900/places_of_interest_in_rotherhithe