Earl Aelfheah

It?s a nice, historic building. Seems a shame to knock it down.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Without getting into discussion about the success > of the Beer Dispensary is this a good sign that > the Grove Tavern could be made to work? Please to > direct me to any other relevant thread. The > Harvester was not my cup of tea, but seemed to be > popular enough and I had the odd drink in the > garden. It could work, but more profitable as flats. Hence it?s being allowed to deteriorate to the point where people are begging for it to be knocked down.

It?s very shortsighted of RM. just another nail in their coffin

Buses are not that much faster than walking and a lot slower than cycling

The weird thing about this property is that they seem to have had a loft conversion done relatively recently. Why would you get a modern loft conversion done on a house that is falling down?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ..... we don't have a critical shortage of places to park > cars locally. Interesting. No need for a CPZ then?

I rank them all shite. The chain is run by a brexit loving, dog and music hating knobhead. Spoons sucks. It?s the Ryanair of the booze business.

Can?t believe they?ve closed the East Dulwich office. Missed a delivery and now need to go to Peckham to collect my parcel. As it?s only open for a limited number of hours during the day (and I work)., I?ll not be getting it. Will be very careful not to order anything which comes via Royal Mail from now on.

There is what sounds like an owl, hooting it?s head off near Heber Road. Could it actually be an owl, or perhaps something else? Any ideas?

I noticed this the other day and wondered about it. Shamefully, I didn't give it any deeper thought, but now that you point it out, it really does look very dangerous. I'm surprised the neighbour whose house is joined to it hasn't made more of a fuss.

Looks good. Hope it doesn't get 'tagged' within minutes of completion.

Why are the Council so determined to privatise the roads in ED?

If this isn't what happen at OKR and Battersea (both of which are being facilitated by a massive public investment from TFL / the taxpayer) - I will eat my hat: https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/qkq4bx/every-flat-in-a-new-south-london-development-has-been-sold-to-foreign-investors

TFL should be providing transport where there is demand for it. Not subsidising luxury flats (which invariably end up being sold off plan to overseas buyers). At the same time the council homes we've paid to be built are sold at less than market value and end up in the hands of private landlords (with taxpayers then having to also subsidise the increased rents). It's an absolute scam. Why are our taxes are being poured into the pockets of private landlords and property developers? It infuriates me that they can say that reopening the station would 'serve the local community' but that there is 'no business case'? TFL are meant to be in the business of serving London's 'local communities'. They're funded by our taxes, in order to provide transport infrastructure, not to act as an arm of Galliard FFS.

The best hire bike scheme I have seen is the one which operates in Brighton. The bike have built in locks and so need to be locked properly, but don?t necessarily require a specific docking space (though there is an extra charge if you lock it outside of one). They work really well , don?t get left anywhere and don?t require as much infrastructure as the Boris bikes.

https://www.camberwellonline.co.uk/2018/09/tfl-no-business-case-to-reopen-camberwell-train-station/ TfL have said ?no? to reopening Camberwell station.

TFL have decided that although it would benefit the local community, there is ?no business case? for reopening Camberwell station : https://www.camberwellonline.co.uk/2018/09/tfl-no-business-case-to-reopen-camberwell-train-station/ It appears that TFL aren?t about serving the transport needs of local communities, but only about finding ways to divert public money into the pockets of developers in order to subsidise investment vehicles / luxury flats.

The Vote Leave end game: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/18/rightwing-thinktanks-unveil-radical-plan-for-us-uk-brexit-trade-deal-nhs

Well said Rendel.

binkylilyput Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A weed cafe would be a welcome addition to > Lordship Lane indeed There was a weed factory on Lordship Lane not too long ago (above the then Threshers).

It?s really annoying. We had years of disruption whilst they redeveloped London Bridge. The promise was that services would improve and that the pain would be worth it in the end. Services haven?t improved. They are significantly poorer.

"Peckham area is at a relatively higher risk of surface water flooding"...They'd be better off ceasing the approval of drop curbs and stop encouraging the paving over front gardens

It's 'better for the council' suggests some wayward priorities. I thought the council was here to serve their constituents and do what is best for them.

If TFL want people out of their cars, then they have to improve public transport in Southeast London. A good start would be a bike parking facility, like the one at Finsbury Park, in Brixton. Also Southwark need to work with them to extend Boris bikes. Of course, extending the tube into SE London would be best, but it appears that new lines are now entirely contingent on being able to direct public money in a way that subsidises the profits of 'luxury' housing developers.

Why do they keep approving drop kerbs and allowing people to concrete their front gardens then? Why are they supporting the privatisation of public space, via CPZs? How does that reduce private car ownership exactly? I guess it prioritises the transport needs of wealthier residents? So in that sense there is a form of regressive rationing.