mikeb

Am I missing the point here: is the reason why the club is "not viable in its current form" as Hadley continually puts it, due to cash operating losses pre rent e.g. the cost of staging matches? Or is the rent / property cost pushing it over the edge?

Agree s106 should in theory provide for community development. But in practice it seems that developers always do better than councils in this negotiation. My take is that pretty much the entire planning gain should be taken by s106 levies - as this gain is entirely due to the council awarding development rights / changing use. From that point onwards, developers are welcome to whatever value they can generate from new construction / making an area more attractive. If such an approach leads to less development then so be it - the alternative is a straight transfer of value from the community to a developer.

I think this one is a strong contender as well http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-30981639.html I can't quite imagine who would buy this at this price - they need to appreciate the architecture yet probably have 1 or 2 children, yet not require any outside space

I help run a local Playgroup. We were thinking of ways we could improve it. What do you think makes a good group? Have you seen anything that works well. Do they have stipulations regarding over subscription? How to they organise teas/coffees/clearing up? Any ideas welcome. It is voluntary and we do not have a huge budget.. (Mrs) mikeb

@SJ - yes I think I probably would if I were after a handmade / custom-built guitar that took incredible attention to detail to construct.

Well done for trying - it will be the quickest way for you to get to work and get to know London at the same time. Try here: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/289/map_of_the_cycle_routes_in_southwark For Holburn, you're going to have hit a main road at some point, probably Blackfriar's Bridge Rd. but you can skip Walworth Road and Elephant by using the cycle routes.

"Property is one of the drivers of 'mobility' (or whatever you want to call it), and appreciation (particularly where it varies regionally) provides an opportunity for people to improve their home in a way they might not otherwise have been able to. Most people's salaries alone are not big enough to really fund a proper upsize/scale (particularly if, as you and others are suggesting, taxes on properties are increased)." Your house should only "appreciate" in value if it actually gets better - there is no god-given right to house price escalation. Homeowners who wish to "trade up" should generally be happy if house prices fall overall - for the same percentage fall, the reduction in price for the bigger house is cheaper in ? terms than for a smaller house. Stability seems better than appreciation or deprecation (though maybe at lower levels). The way to move up to a better property should not be to use a windfall (which comes at the expense of non-homeowners) but to earn more or do something tangible to improve your house.

Jeremy - I have no stats to back this up, but I would have thought moving like-for-like is far less common than downsizing / upsizing or moving to another part of the country entirely. Ideally, house prices would be stable so there would be little tax paid. But if they start rising then this should temper it. Quids - yes, fine with me to have a capital loss to offset as with other capital losses. I agree with you that we need more houses and fewer booms. If houses are indeed not an investment but instead somewhere to live (akin to a consumer good) then they must be the only consumer good where price rises are celebrated.

Maybe we should lounge this discussion now - I'm not sure it's about ED any longer ... Most gains from house price appreciation are not down to "hard work" - they are a windfall or an investment gain if you will. By all means, have an allowance for money spent on improvements, just like any other CGT asset. Yes you don't realise the gain until you sell, which is why it's better than a mansion tax. While we're at it, I'd reduce stamp duty, which is a ridiculous tax - tax the realised profits not the transaction itself. I don't see why CGT would reduce mobility: it comes from a gain i.e. the cash is there. If it means you have less to spend on your next house, then so be it - so will everyone else (and just maybe price rises might be tempered). And the current "misallocation of wealth" is being driven by government policies already: gains from property are undertaxed compared to other forms of investment, leading to an excess of investment in property. We need to equalise tax between UK tax residents and non-residents - that just encourages fast foreign capital inflows. And yes we need more new build houses where people want to live - the Victorians at least had this right, even if the build quality wasn't all that (I'm not advocating more back-to-backs!). This isn't about penalising homeowners - in fact, they still get to keep the vast majority of market-driven gains they make on their property. It's about a more equitable society, in particular the intergenerational equity that others have noted. By our casual approach to this situation (tax, planning laws, supply), we are entrenching the split between haves and have-nots. This will come back to bite us at some point.

Glad you've settled that for many people, property is an investment and for many others, it's a case of "buy before it goes up and becomes too expensive". The windfall gain that someone like Penguin68 will have when they finally leave their ?0.5-1m property is untaxed. It will become real money that can be spent on a larger house somewhere else in the country or a smaller house with some left over for cruises / grandchildren / whatever. Capital gains tax on property gains would be fairer than tackling the issue via inheritance tax (since it is levied on a realised cash gain). To be clear, I would love property prices to be stable or even to decrease (and I say that as a homeowner).

There should be capital gains tax on sale of any property - if we're going to treat houses as investments then they should be taxed as such.

Very loud this morning around 6:00am - pretty much a continous rumble / roar overhead, as the noise of the previous plane is still going as the next one flew over. EP, SJ etc may be right that we are powerless to change it but that defeatism is itself a little depressing.

Separate question, but does anyone know what is to become of the old nursery site on Nunhead Green? Presume someone has considered it as site for a primary school

You can go in that butchers on a Saturday afternoon and it's like a morgue - he really doesn't seem to enjoy his job. Does anyone know what rents are like at that end of the Lane?

Just thought I'd highlight that Heathrow is owned by a selection of a Spanish infrastructure company, the governments of Qatar, Singapore and China and the pension funds of academics / civil servants in Canada and the UK (finally a UK locus!). These are the big winners from Heathrow, not Londoners. It is quite possible to be able to fly around the world by using a hub elsewhere. For New York from Manchester, Dublin offers a better service now than Heathrow particularly with US immigration in Eire. We are in thrall to rentiers who value the index-linked income which flows from owning Europe's main airplane hub. But the fact is, this hub could be anywhere and most Londoners would barely notice. Ideally, we could keep it in the UK but not flying 80,000,000 people over the roofs of 3,500,000 people. Let's do this before we gift them another runway.

I'm enjoying this thread, much more than the property porn or planning arguments. I love the Sexby Garden, didn't know it was previously called the Olde English Garden. For an unexpected treat, I can recommend the canal path behind Peckham Library in about five weeks' time. Reminds me of the country lanes where I grew up.

Whether you view the OP as irrelevantly whimsical or irreverently lyrical, Burbage's post is definitely highlight of the year so far.

Because it's March, just before councils' fiscal year end and budgets are "use it or lose it". Every year it's the same.

got to say, I've been on this forum for 7 years as well (not 15,000 posts though) and the vitriol from this one has really surprised me. Just for the record, I'm another of this tiny minority who detests the noise from airplanes and the attitude of the government / Heathrow that we just have to put up with it. Problem is that for those are who bothered by the noise, arguments and data don't actually reduce their problems. And someone else saying "not a problem for me, you should just deal with it" is just adding accelerant to the fire. take a step back: we land 350,000 flights each year right over 3m+ people starting at 4:45am and finishing around midnight. Just maybe we could do this better? maybe before we further entrench Heathrow with a third runway?

My say: aircraft noise in East Dulwich is often unbelievably loud particularly between 4.30 and 6am, especially considering how far from Heathrow we are. In my personal experience, it's as instrusive here as further west eg Oval, Clapham Junction. Of course this is a subjective view. What else could it be? It's not enough to actually drive me mad (unless my windows are open) but it's the only negative aspect of my life in London which I expect to continue getting progressively worse over the next 10 years, which is a depressing prospect. As for this being something that I accepted when I moved here, I think that's not quite right. Flights during the day, like trains or buses, are something that normally fade into the background of life. It's not until you're lying there at 4:30am with the window open that the impact becomes clear - i.e. after you've moved in. It's not just one noise every 45 seconds: it's pretty much continual with peaks every 45 seconds. I don't really want to move out of East Dulwich because apart from the flights, I like the area. But yes, I'd like to improve my life if possible. Who doesn't? I'd probably accept more flights during the day if that meant fewer at night / early morning. But I think there is no capacity to increase daytime flights. Yes moving the airport would be "moving the problem onto other people". There are approximately 3 million people in South London. How many would be adversely impacted by noise in a different location? Taking the big picture, it seems quite mad to me that slowly over 50 years we have reached a situation where Europe's busiest airport lands about 350,000 flights each year directly over the largest city in Europe.

And hoping that they snuff it quickly and cheaply, otherwise it will all go on palliative care.

Peckham Honey usually available in Marsden Rd Wildlife centre. Very floral. BNG - do you know how to get hold of some Clarkshaws beer?

Think they used to get trams along this route in Victorian times, which would suggest it possible to design a junction that accommodates cars. http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/25171/pages/5543/page.pdf

I think that's unfair, lemerson made a reasonable request in a polite manner. Siouzie's contribution was helpful, in particular the suggestion to speak to the Friends of the Park. But yes, I would assess her contribution differently if she were a councillor or contractor (though I don't believe she is either). In terms of past floods, I've found reference to a report titled "An Investigation of Sewer Flooding in Dulwich, 2004" though not yet the report itself. I think the environment agency maps are derived from information provided by Southwark Council. A bit difficult to make much more progress with Southwark's website being down.

Robert - lemerson's point is that the flood in Herne Hill last year would not have been prevented or alleviated by these plans. I'd still appreciate any details on location and cause of the floods referred to in the proposals.