mikeb

Thanks John, I'd not seen that before. nice interactive version available here: http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/crace/a/zoomify88781.html So Camberwell Grove could possibly be considered to be the first by-pass in the area? Purpose built road, straight, modern bridge over the railway ...

I'm intrigued as to what constitutes as "rat run". Is it simply traffic travelling on roads where people don't want it? I don't think it can be about the intended use of the road as there are very few roads around here built specifically for large volumes of motor vehicle traffic. Camberwell Grove is a straight through-road, more so than Grove Lane or Champion Park. In maps of the 19th and early 20th centuries, Champion Grove looks like a much more major thoroughfare than Grove Lane. Even Champion Hill looks bigger. It seems that Camberwell Grove is now commonly understood to be a rat run. It seems things can change. Maybe we should stop focusing on what has been in the past and instead come to an agreement about what we want for the future. There appears to be alignment between those who want to discourage driving everywhere per se and those who just don't want it on their road. The fact that we might lose a north-south route just because of poor maintenance seems like a poor substitute for actual debate.

Sadly Gilchrist apparently felt no need to cite sources. Original text here: http://www.blakesociety.org/about-blake/gilchrists-life-of-blake/chapter-ii/ [amended to note that in earlier posts which I had not read in full, I appear to have been significantly outgeeked. Nonetheless, Happy Birthday Blake.]

Report on decision now filed. Makes clear that they would only look at these obligations in the context of proposals of the wider site. http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!M7cXVlP2hd7I0%2bNow5xzKA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d

Does anyone know if this is the right page on Southwark's website to leave a comment? The page suggests that consultation closes 22 December 2017 which seems an awfully long way off ... https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/borough-wide-junction-protection/consultation/intro/

Yes that's right: different people. Peter Michael Bennison, heating engineer: http://www.pmbennison.co.uk/Home/EthicsAndTestimonials, born October 1971 Peter James Bennison, property developer: http://www.meadowres.com/who-we-are?id=148089, born January 1970

Re Meadow Residential, this appears to be controlled by Meadow Partners LLP https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/OC400730/filing-history/MzE3MzQ4NTA4OGFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0 https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/OC345550/filing-history/MzE4NzE5Nzc5OWFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0 See related parties note for link to Meadow Capital Management LP, which is registered with the SEC at the address for Meadow Capital https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1673868/000167386816000001/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml Meadow Capital is a property fund run by ex-Westbrook people. A quick search on Westbrook comes up with this https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/21/westbrook-partners-new-era-flats-hoxton though to be clear, this article dates from after Kaplan left (although he was probably there for the Dolphin Sq acquisition). More background on Meadow Capital http://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/new-yorks-upstart-investors-find-big-profit/ [updated to refresh links to source documents]

Already done. What a shambles

Thanks Duke. @Abe - certainly appears that way. At the very least, I would have thought the discharge needs to be linked or conditional on resolving the wider situation. For the record, I think we should dispute the assertion that "For reasons set out in the 2016 Application and the documents accompanying it, that development is not only entirely acceptable and in accordance with policy, but also in the public interest." To my mind, they have not demonstrated this. In particular Hadley has never demonstrated that (a) the club is non-viable without the development *and* (b) the club will be viable after the development. It has always seemed odd to me that a club with regular paying crowds of 1,500-2,500 is not viable today but will certainly be viable after a redevelopment. More likely most football clubs spend up to the limits of resources available, so they are always on the brink of viability. I will be objecting again.

He did when I went in September.

@ Uncleglen - that article is vacuous - it makes the assertion claims that there is / could be a better system than democracy but provides no reason for thinking that there might be, only that the current system has some bad features. He says that democracy is the "least-bad system of government". The more accurate and more perceptive quote is Churchill: "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." ie we keep coming back to democracy despite its flaws because the alternatives that have been tried have been much worse: aristocracy, autocracy, communism, anarchy, ecclesiastical, Maoism, etc.

Looks as though it has been in this condition for a while - Google Streetview is dated April 2015.

As per its latest annual accounts with Companies House. Northridge Capital Limited is ultimately controlled by WAFR Holdings Limited, which is a Cayman Islands company. Northridge's disclosure is pretty unhelpful in this respect observing that the because of the "nature of the share capital" of WAFR Holdings Limited, it is not possible to determine the names of the controlling parties from time to time". I think this is code for "WAFR Holdings Limited has bearer shares", which is often a red flag for money laundering. Fortunately, WAFR Holdings reveals slightly more to the US authorities and an SEC filing dated 20 June 2013 (ref 333-165147-09) for a JP Morgan CMBS deal notes that "The sponsor and nonrecourse guarantor is Saturn Property Investments, LLC, which is wholly owned by WAFR Holdings Limited, a Cayman Islands holding company. WAFR Holdings Limited is owned by the principals of the Abudawood Group, which is based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The Abudawood Group manufactures and distributes global brands like Proctor & Gamble, Quaker Oats, Clorox in Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East." more here: http://www.abudawood.com/abudawood/company/story/past/ Following the death of the founder Sheik Ismail Abu Dawood in 2005, the group is now controlled by his son Osama Abu Dawood. More here: http://www.arabianbusiness.com/the-world-s-richest-arabs-530591.html?view=profile&itemid=530662#.WBh4gvlzMVU I don't think there is any link to Ivan Bateman who is behind St Aidans http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1532206,1578908#msg-1578908 ------------- Edited to say that certainly there seems to be some partnership between St Aidans and Northridge given St Aidans is advertising properties from this development on its website: http://www.staidansgroup.com/projects/20-grove-vale.html#

Just came across these - nice perspective on ED http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-aerial-view-north-east-of-dulwich-high-school-playing-fields-tennis-20488955.html http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-aerial-view-north-east-of-herne-hill-velodrome-sports-grounds-railway-20488952.html http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-aerial-view-north-east-dulwich-college-playing-fields-alleyn-park-20488936.html

What I would really like is one of these http://stephenwalter.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/RIVERS-OF-LONDON-2014-2.jpg or these http://stephenwalter.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/LONDON-SUBTERRANEA-2012.jpg But they're just a bit more expensive ...

Awesome. I've just bought one. Thanks everyone for highlighting this

Quite noticeable between 4am and 7am particularly if your windows are open Anyway, I asked a subtly different question which you appeared to have misunderstood: why sometimes does City land eastwards but Heathrow Westwards? It means we get both flight paths over us

Just a thought - it's particularly frustrating when both Heathrow and City are landing overhead. This shouldn't really happen ie both into the wind, but it seems that City is less sensitive to wind direction. I think Dulwich is probably the only area where both approaches fly over. Maybe worth seeing if the CAA could force them to coordindate

thanks. Very encouraging.

I've been 'lounged'. How exciting! Feel like I've made it after almost ten years on the forum

I'm looking at school transport arrangements which may involve relying on the trains travelling from North Dulwich (or East Dulwich) to Tulse Hill i.e. against the flow of commuters, where most of local frustration has been felt. Does anyone know how reliable these trains have been recently?

This is interesting: GLA comes out in support on condition of more affordable housing (which Hadley will no doubt say they can't afford) and a greater density. They seem to have accepted at face value Hadley's contention that the club isn't viable now but will become viable in the new stadium - wonder if they got any other information from Hadley to support this. http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!IcwfMXbDQNsQ%2fzAkhNOduA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d

Pretty sure my brother has a boiler installed in the bedroom of one of his kids, boxed in a cupboard. Knowing him, this was definitely signed off by building regs etc.

I've completely written off East and North Dulwich stations, now using Denmark Hill and Forest Hill plus cycling / running and buses. I think September will see the real impact of the timetable

@pop9770 - sadly this isn't either or, but both City and Heathrow. And with bigger and more frequent planes to City over ED when wind is from the east, we will rarely get a break from aircraft noise.