Earl Aelfheah

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is interesting: > http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/feb/02/lo > ndon-property-market-bubble-cool-down-ey-item-club "....Arguably it would be more appropriate to treat it [London] as an investment market, rather than a residential market."

What's really irksome is that investor's get tax breaks. hpsaucey Wrote: > Spot on, but makes me so mad! We - eventually - > raked up enough to buy a shared ownership property > last year. It's our HOME and I wake up grateful > for it every single day. All we ever wanted was > somewhere to live. I know there are 'logical' > reasons for people buying as an investment, but > when people who want a property just to bloody > live in are priced out by those looking for > immediate investment/profit it sucks quite > frankly. > > H

This is interesting: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/feb/02/london-property-market-bubble-cool-down-ey-item-club

If you look at asking prices vs actual sold prices, there does seem to be a big inconsistency. There is of course a lag in terms of published sold prices and current asking prices which may account for some of this (assuming prices have actually soared over a period of just a couple of months), but I suspect that asking prices are pretty optimistic in some instances.

you can get motion sensitive, alarmed padlocks (and they're not as expensive as you may think. I used to use one to secure the bike cover at the bottom with. Any attempt to move the cover would set it off.

Agree re. all the psuedo military vehicles. My road looks like helmand province. We used to laugh at the Americans all driving ludicrous oversized tanks. tallulah71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What SJ and Ron70 said. > > Lots of young families moving here, breeding, and > needing education and that. I can't think of a > better use of space. > > What we really don't need are those idiots who > drive 4x4 cars so no-one can ever pass them. > Please buy smaller cars and get over yourselves - > We know you're rich, but you really do block most > of East Dulwich. And the world. ;) > > And east dulwich is fairly flat. You're not having > an "adventure" in your 4x4. You are just causing > traffic.

That little stretch of LL is becoming a right little food and drink hub. Just need Thomas Moore Hall to become a cinema and it'll be amazing.

Great news. James - What's the likelihood of also getting a new coed secondary school in the area (I think there was talk about the hospital site at one point)? Thanks

The waiting lists are pretty long (some up to 4 years). There are quite a few in the surrounding area though, so worth phoning round and seeing what's what.

I didn't mean to criticise anyone taking up these schemes - it makes sense from an individual's point of view to do what they can to get on the ladder. I just despair at the whole narrative around house prices. The fact that papers report increasing prices as 'good news'. Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It's completely cynical IMO. > > > > Tend to agree. I certainly am under no illusion > that the gov are doing this to help the likes of > me. But it's the only option open to us so we just > have to go for it and hope that we get a better > deal (or at least not a worse deal) next time.

I actually don't think you can blame the banks really. I mean, lending to people who you know are likely to default is not the most ethical thing and is (as I said) pretty cynical, but them their duty is primarily to their shareholders. It's not *entirely* the fault of government either, as they know that even if it would be in the general long term good to put measures in place to bring house prices down, it would be political suicide. Fundamentally, it's the fault of the many home owners who get excited about the ever increasing list value of their home, base their feelings of security and well being on it and use it to judge the success of government.

The banks are perfectly happy to lend to individuals that can't afford it, because should they default the banks still get their money back, with interest. With a deposit put down, prices rising and a taxpayer guarantee to boot, they can't lose. If they can squeeze a good rate of interest up to the point that the inevitable does happen then all the better (from their point of view). The banks and the government are complicit in this crazy 'help to buy' scheme because it's a vote winner with those already on the ladder (who tend to be the demographic most likely to go to vote), who like seeing the price of their house going up on paper. It's completely cynical IMO. Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's what we'll be paying. For two years... > > Funny how the people that are "high risk" are the > ones they make life most difficult for. And surely > the whole point of the government guaranteeing 15% > is we default is to take the risk away from the > banks, so we should be treated like everyone else, > but instead we just have to bend over and let them > roger us, because they can, and we don't have any > other option other than to keep paying low rent > for a dump or stupid rent for somewhere half > decent. > > > > I know it's cheap and simplistic and left wing to > have a go at the banks, but they are a bunch of > theiving @#$%&!

Sounds like a great idea. Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I reckon if Youngs took the site on and had the > team behind Dulwich Wood House going in to sort it > out as some sort of 'sister' pub/dining > experience, they could promote walks through the > woods connecting the two establishments I can't > think of anything better than a nice summers day > walk between the two places for a beer or even in > winter a nice open log fire in both. Foresight is > needed with this one. Come on Dulwich Estate put > those thinking caps on please. > > Louisa.

Agree with ??? that Camberwell was the more happening place around 03- although Inside 72 was good. Personally I think ed is better now (esp for my time of life - kids etc) than it's ever been.

Dare I say it.... 2014

Applications have been made to install them on lordship Lane, Ulvercroft and Heber Roads, Melbourne Grove, the East Dulwich Estate and Bellenden Road. If you live near any of these locations and would like to have access to secure on street parking for your bicycle, please contact your Councillors to register your support.

There have been several applications to have bike hangers installed using 'Cleaner, Greener, Safer' funding. Decisions are due soon, so if you would like to add your support to one near you, now is the time. See this link for further info.. http://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/help-get-secure-cycle-storage-on-a-street-near-you/

Sounds like it may be a Lambeth Hanger (http://www.cyclehoop.com/product/bike-lockers/bike-hangar/). Southwark Cyclists are co-ordinating efforts to get some installed locally.

Perhaps the stats for SE22 were nicked?

I'm sire soithwark will insist on half of it being made into parking spaces.

it's a good route, but I wish the barrier didn't go right across Chandler Way (so as to allow bikes past). jimbo1964 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually all the new housing that runs from St > Georges Way to Peckham Road seem perfectly safe. > Very well lit and seems like nice unthreatening > neighborhoods. I go down Chandler Rd sometimes and > cross into Lyndhurst Way. The Canal path can be a > lonely place at night.

Anyone know when the big unveil is happening?

Peckham's a dynamic area and always has been. It started of as an affluent suburb and has been through many transformations since then. It's hardly turned into Clapham.

There is so much exciting stuff happening in Peckham at the moment. I'm looking forward to the brick brewery opening it's doors in a couple of weeks.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > keeping a dog in the city is generally > antisocial > > > That's a bit OTT. Many would argue the opposite. OK. I casually overstated it. That said... my guess would be that a large number of people will have been kept awake by a barking dog at some point, trodden in their sh*t, or been intimidated by an aggressive canine whilst in a public place. Of course there are a majority of responsible owners, but unfortunately there is no restrictions on who can buy a dog. Is it generally undesirable to have (at least large) dogs in a modern, densely populated city? It is a strange quirk of history / our culture that we don?t think it weird. Should someone want to keep a similar sized animal in a small flat, or terraced house (such as a pig, or a sheep) we?d probably question their good sense and it?s potential to cause a nuisance more freely. That said, I wouldn?t want dogs banned, of course not. It would be good if people were generally a bit more conscious of how they affect others though. Most of the time, when a dog has jumped up at me whilst I?ve been out running or started licking my face as I sit in their owners home - I?ve been told things like ?he?s just saying hello?, or ?ah, he?s giving you a kiss?. Well no, no he is not giving me a kiss, he is being poorly controlled by someone who irrationally personifies their pet. [Edited after reflecting on others comments]