kiera

James, thank you for reporting the council's refusal to remove the section 106 protection from Dulwich Hamlet Football Ground. This is a good result, but unfortunately, it doesn't follow that the developer is going to be prevented from building on the football ground. The following extract is from the planning officer's decision:- "22 It is important to note that, notwithstanding the merits or otherwise of the planning application submitted by the Applicant in March 2016 (ref: 16/AP/1232) and referred to above, the application has not yet been determined.? There are a large number of issues raised by that application which have not been resolved. If the application (or any subsequent revised application) were to be approved at some point in the future then it is probable that the local planning authority would consider at that time whether there are any grounds for seeking new planning obligations in which case a deed of variation would be required in respect of the 1990 Agreement.? It is not, therefore, the case that the existing covenants would in themselves prevent the proposed development as claimed by the Applicant..........." http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!M7cXVlP2hd7I0%2bNow5xzKA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d

The application has been refused. I took this information from the decision notice, which explains the decision and is easier to understand than the abbreviation you quoted, so, e.g. "Refused for the following three reasons: 1. The obligations contained within the S106 Agreement dated 16/10/1990 being Clauses 4(3), 7(3), 7(4), 8 and10, which the applicant is seeking to discharge still serve a useful planning purpose. These being: - Clause 4(3) - the all weather pitch at Greendale Park has been constructed and provided in accordance with the terms of the 1990 Agreement and it is still open to the members of Dulwich Hamlet Football Club and others to make reasonable use of the facilities. - Clause 7(3) and 7(4) - Dulwich Hamlet Football Club is still in existence, has a licence to use the Dulwich Hamlet Football Ground and still uses it. - Clause 8 - Dulwich Hamlet Football Ground is still is use by Dulwich Hamlet Football Club, the land is still being used for leisure and recreational purposes.- - Clause 10 - The all weather pitch and football ground have been constructed and are still in use. There are therefore no grounds upon which the authority may determine that the obligations shall be discharged pursuant to S106A(6)(b)....."

(Deleted as duplicate post)

The planning application website has been closed to comments for a very good reason - the application has been decided. The removal of clauses from the Section 106 agreement has been refused.

Thank you so much Zebedee Tring - that's really helpful. It's exactly the sort of thing I wanted to know. It seems councillors are unfamiliar with this type of planning application. James, would you be willing to refer this application to be considered by the planning committee?

James. I think this may be outside your area, but it's a very important issue. Did you know that a planning application has been made to remove the section 106 protection on.Dulwich Hamlet football ground. 16/AP/4051 and http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1657240,1755294#msg-1755294 posts from 17th Nov. This protection ensures that the land retains its community uses,but the greedy developers want to be enabled to build on the football stadium without constraint. Can you give any information about this type of planning application, as it doesn't seem to be being treated by the council as a normal planning application. It has not been.advertised at all. Is it right that such a significant decision should be allocated to a delegated officer. The website is accepting comments, but does the council have to consider them or is it a private matter between the council and the developer? If so, the process is far from transparent. This application was only discovered by chance.

Veolia - I definitely agree that it would be helpful if the mobile recycling unit could be made available to us for more than the current mere 3 hours a month on a weekday morning. So, as suggested by previous posters - more locations & more choice of times, particularly as the number of permanent recycling sites are being reduced, as already mentioned. The next one to go is the one on Peckham Rye Common, due to fly-tipping abuse, The Friends of Peckham Rye Park have said it's going shortly.

The plant thieves have also been active in Camberwell Old Cemetery. I recently saw a message to them which has been placed on a grave by the family. It accuses them, in rhyme, of not only stealing the plants, but coming back for the lantern hooks. The poem goes on to say that the occupant of the grave did not like thieves, so his skeleton will haunt them to the end!

Thanks for clarifying B&G. I thought you were saying that he wanted comments now, but that post was six years ago, in the run up to making the decision to keep the lights.

Could you give a link to the message from Gavin Edwards to which you refer, as I can't see a post from him, nor any request for feedback to councillors on this issue/thread. Thanks.

The poor cat probably came from a nearby house, so you could knock on a few doors to see if someone knows which house it has come from.

Jacqui5254 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I love this shop front. It's a rare and beautiful > thing to be able to see such intact features of a > Victorian shop. > > Go and take a look at the original roller blind > boxes, the Victorian door with a tiny letterbox > for when letters were only a > few inches in size, the decorative brackets, the > original glass. To think that this will be > 'made-over', obliterating its history, is tragic. > I would buy it if I could and retain all those > features, so I hope whoever buys it is sympathetic > to its soul. Jacqui - did you know that there's another Victorian shopfront in Crystal Palace Rd, a couple of doors from the Great Exhibition? It's not in use and has been completely painted over in green, but is intact.

Minnie?? Fine a few days ago?? Poor Gwen had become almost bent double and in pain. I think she died as long ago as March. She was friendly to all. She liked talking to people and making sure the birds and animals were fed. Beckham asked the time of her funeral. It's 10am.

The "consultation" ended on 6th, the notifications from Conway about starting work were put through the doors on the 10th and the work started on the 14th. They obviously didn't let a "consultation" get in the way of their plans.

There is a lot of point. The council are clearing and reusing areas on a rolling programme agreed by cabinet in 2012 and based on a consultation of mostly Lewisham residents. They did not consult residents around Camberwell Old Cemetery and it didn't occur to them that anyone living nearby might care about the woodland or wildlife. A lot of local residents DO care and want to have a say in how the cemeteries are managed for trees and wildlife. The council have amended their plans several times due to public objections, so the strategy will have to be reviewed by cabinet, probably this year. I would hope that the opinions of local residents will be

Precious Star is talking about the nature on our doorstep. The gradual destruction of small pockets of wildllife friendly areas such as front gardens, leading to an irreversible loss of wildlife in the area. She is quite right that children living in East Dulwich today are unlikely to see hedgehogs or many species of butterflies in their gardens. Every front and back garden which is ripped up, or piece of waste ground which is built on, contributes to the overall loss. Neglect can be very good for wildlife. It is the neglect/minimal maintenance of this part of Camberwell Old Cemetery which has made it such a rare and special place in this urban area, which is why some local residents feel so passionately about it. Many local residents believe that these cemeteries can continue to be used as working cemeteries without destroying the nature which has become established in them. To walk along the woodland paths, seeing butterflies and listening to the birds is an entirely suitable use of this part of the cemetery for the bereaved.

panda boy Wrote: ------------ > Does anyone have any opinions on; > > Timescale of the project significantly changing......... Might this be the answer to your question?? The council moved forward with their plans because of protesters, who were supported by Peckham Rye ward councillors. The council had planned to use the recreation ground, but abandoned that because of the strength of public protest. They moved on to wanting to use the meadow behind Ryedale, which they'd already prepared for burials, having raised the ground level above the public graves, as is still quite evident. Ryedale residents protested, so the council moved on to "area z". Quote from Peckham Rye councillors' blog ? "As ward councillors we all thought it vitally important to protect Honor Oak Rec. This is a green space used by local residents and also used by local schools and football clubs.? Whilst I think many parts of Camberwell Old are beautiful and a haven for wildlife I think that sensitive reuse of parts of the cemetery which allow us to protect Honor Oak Rec are worth pursuing. All three of us are also committed to protecting the land immediately behind Ryedale at Camberwell Old as I do think burials would have an impact on the houses that back onto it and the alternative of planting a screen would mean a loss of light for these residents.? ?? What we proposed in 2012 was that instead we brought forward plans to bring back into use 'Site Z' at Camberwell Old........" http://peckhamryelabour.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/local-cemeteries-whats-going-on.html?m=1

I would say that the reason Sue was targeted was because she was openly trying to discredit him/SSW publicly. In Sue's own words ".......My thoughts were more that any of their supporters reading the thread would see the lie of the land,so to speak, and stop being supporters - not necessarily of the actual cause, but of the organisation relating to it."

Penguin68 Wrote: (extract) ------ You suggest that the council should reuse ?the currently used space that they have for local > burial? ? I am not sure what this means ? they > intend only to reuse space in the existing > cemeteries for burials ? I assume that you wish > this to be restricted to ?locals? ? whatever that > means, presumably you would insist on a residence > test both for the deceased and those arranging the > funerals? The council already insist on a residence test for both the deceased and the person arranging the funeral.

Loz quoted from the council's website - "- We plan to remove 19 significant trees in total - Following redevelopment of the site we intend to plant 60 new trees" Sue asked "Edborders, what do you have to say about those figures? Are you suggesting that the council is lying?" The answer is it all depends on how you define a tree. The council are using very different standards according to whether they are referring to felling trees or planting trees. So, when the council say that only 19 trees are to be removed, they are only counting trees with a diameter of over 150mm. Anything smaller is included as scrub. However, when referring to new trees they are to plant, they are referring to trees of 14-16mm diameter. If they used the same standard of 150mm, they could not claim to be planting any trees. Many more trees than 19 are to be felled. Extract from the tree survey in the planning documents "Detailed (measured) survey of all trees where set in dense vegetation is not always possible ............. In the case of woodlands or substantial tree groups, only individual and accessible trees with stem diameters greater than 150mm are usually plotted" http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!RJlwBh45WSKmsD25Hfirbw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d

He is referring to Kemnal Park cemetery, which is on the A20 in Bexley. It's a privately owned cemetery which is fairly new, so still has space. It's about 10 miles away. Tower Hamlets council has bought space there for their residents.