Earl Aelfheah

The northern line extension is ridiculous. It provides a couple of extra stops were there is little existing demand, at massive public cost and with the main people to profit being property speculators. It also diverts the line off it's natural course, driving it into a dead end with little opportunity for future extension. Still residents of Camberwell, whilst crawling along the Walworth Road on the 176, can at least ponder how their taxes are helping boost some Singaporeans investment portfolio.

how depressing

.

I hate the way that we look at it as some sort of gift from 'developer money', when in fact it's a massive taxpayer subsidy for investment properties. How about the tax we pay being used to provide us with transport services, minus the siphoning off of loads of it from vested private interests. cle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is 2.5k homes that big a deal compared to > the existing population of Walworth and > Camberwell? I hate this obsession with > regeneration and new developments - god forbid > anyone builds something to serve a long-standing > area. I know it's for developer money primarily, > but also an obsession with shiny new rubbish. Are > there no developer-ready sites along the Walworth > Road catchment?

so nearly 3000 people sign a petition for an extension via Camberwell and are ignored... and apparently that's a good thing? Instead of viewing the construction corporations as kindly philanthropists happy to invest in transport for the good of Southwark residents, perhaps we should consider the fact that they will get significantly more from any deal than they contribute. The vast majority will come from taxpayers (you know those folk already living in Walworth and Camberwell for example), who will be subsidising an 'exciting new investment opportunity' in 'London's vibrant new quater', in order to make handsome returns for overseas investors and Lend Lease or whoever else it is who get's to profiteer from it all. We pay our taxes so that we may have decent public services, including transport. For more than 60 years, Camberwell has had the prospect of a Bakerloo line extension dangled in front of it and now we're told that their elected representatives are going to support the interests of property developers over a well established community - their own electorate?

Dulwuch Park's middle is class. I hate the edges though.

Iceland don't sell them. Bet a Waitrose would.

.... Drug mules selling horse

Ghost guzumpers.

There have definitely been a couple of properties sitting on the market even after price reductions of late. I think that the local market may be cooling a little.

Apparently a garage in camberwell has just sold for over half a million http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/11/most-expensive-garage-in-britain

It is impossible to talk in general terms about whether or not ED is 'worth' the premium. It depends entirely on your circumstance, a subjective judgement of the area and how much that premium represents to you.

If you walk around east dulwich, you'll see it's all big hair, white teeth and gold. Absolutely

I agree with Owen: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/10/housing-hysteria-home-ownership-tories

yep, 3 bed on Heber has droppped price pretty quickly too.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > which is what it will almost certainly become. > Costa anyone? > > (given Nero and SB have a presence already?) Where's the Starbucks?

I agree with Jeremy.

Guess it depends whether you would see racism in the following post: Evening all - just had a white male on bike knock on our front door. All lights were off. By the time my partner got to the door, the man had started the cycle away from the house and shouted back 'wrong house'. Anyone else had a knock close to Colwell this eve?

That's a real shame. Depressing

Grade II only effects the outside appearance of a structure, so wouldn't effect a change to the inside. I really like this idea. Maybe it's one for cleaner, greener, safer funding?

Fair enough, my bad.

@ numbers - You have quoted my post and then paraphased an arguement (not made) that people should have 'known their place'. You are inferring that I have criticised those taking up the Right to Buy. I have explicitly stated the opposite. That is not engaging with the arguements made.

Like a lot of people, my parents got married and moved into a council house. The cheaper rents allowed them to work hard and save a deposit for their first house. It's not true that council housing somehow locks the 'working class' out of property ownership and that only right to buy offers them this opportunity. In fact it is the exact opposite. For many, council housing represented an essential leg up onto the property ladder. This no longer exists for the majority of people, who stuck paying huge private rents will never have the chance to save up a deposit. To suggest that Right to Buy encourages social mobility is nonsense. It only does so for those lucky enough to be given a this one time windfall - once the asset is gone, it's gone. The individual is given a leg up, but the ladder is kicked away for those below them who will never have the same opportunity. I wouldn't criticise those who take up right to buy (after all, you would be a fool to look a gift horse in the mouth), but it should be stopped as a matter of policy.

If you're going to be regularly flying back and forth from Spain, the farm ceases to be very 'eco' I'd have thought. Good luck to you though, sounds like a nice lifestyle.

Cheers Jeremy, sorry to have inadvertently duplicated a thread.