henryb

Even the aerial shot on google maps shows an example of the problem. White van stopped in yellow box obscuring the view of pedestrians crossing road, car going south L-Lane commits to right turn into East Dulwich Grove whilst pedestrians are still crossing. What is going to happen next? The other problem in my opinion is the lack of appropriate investigation and sentencing by the justice system. Hospitalizing someone then leaving the scene should get you a lengthy custodial sentence and life driving ban imo.

The catchment in 2013 with a bulge class, so a 3 class intake, was 516m which takes to part of Cheltenham Road. Even with 4 classes I can't see it getting past the golf course. There are lots of unknown variables but it still not ideal at all.

Thanks for that Righty. Did they have any indication of much the catchment area would grow? Last year it was 386m. The black hole of provision seems to stretch all the way to Forest Hill Rd.

Thanks Belle.

Fuschia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'As the site is Metropolitan Open Land, the > footprint of the new building did not exceed what > had been demolished; no MOL was lost. The full quote is: "The free standing Bowlers' Nursery building, which was never visible from the walk, was also demolished. As the site is Metropolitan Open Land, the footprint of the new building did not exceed what had been demolished; no MOL was lost. " So I guess they are referring to the new Bowlers' Nursery building rather than the new building for the Ashmount school which is the other side of the park walk way. > It is the case that above a certain size (1000 sq > m?) discretion doesn't lie with a local council Yes by the sounds of it any application would need to approved by the Mayors office and reviewed by the Secretary of State - but that is not going to happen if no application is made in the first place. My point is: regardless of the process if Islington can get approval for a new school building on MOL then so, in principle, could Southwark. > Anyway, Harris have said they don't want to build > on the land at Harris girls, haven't they? Have they? Looking back over the various threads there seems to be conflicting information about this. I guess if they are working on the assumption that can use the hospital site then it isn't surprising that they would say there isn't room at the Girl's School.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I really don't know how many times I need to say > this but the decision to build on MOL is not made > by Southwark . > They can apply ( as they have done in the past to > extend school buildings on the Homestall site ) > but it would clearly be silly to apply when the > application will be so out of line with the > national policy . Could you explain how this primary school in Islington was approved? http://www.penoyreprasad.com/projects/ashmount-primary-school-crouch-hill-community-park/

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Should Southwark ignore the national policy ,go > against the policy and waste money putting an > application in ? Well, I guess, what I think they should do is talk to Harris, find out what their concerns are about building on the Homestall Rd site, see if those concerns can be alleviated by use of other land in the area. If they can be - then apply for a MOL change. That way the hospital site would be free for use as a Secondary school and parents with young children in Peckham Rye/South Nunhead area get a primary school near where they live.

I think this is the area.

Hi intexasatthe moment, From here http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/policies/3d-10.jsp It says "Any alterations to the boundary of MOL should be undertaken by boroughs through the DPD process" To me that sounds like Southwark should be the agency initiating the DPD process.

> Thames Water are > very clear that giving access would be a risk to > water quality. Hi James thanks for your reply. On what grounds did they make the claim it would risk water quality? If a golf course doesn't risk water quality why would sports facilities for locals schools?

So be clear - are you saying Harris *would* be prepared to build on the site where the portacabins are but can't because it is classified as MOL?

Hi James, Out of interest - what is the MOL in question for the Homestall Rd site? Just a thought but if the issue for Harris at Homestall is the loss of sports facilities couldn?t Thames Water be approached to see if some of Nunhead Reservoir be used for that purpose. There is a golf club on Beechcroft Reservoir so presumably they can take some weight. There is also the old nursery site next to Honor Oak Park station ? has that been considered at all? I am a parent living in the south Peckham Rye ward. Our oldest child entered reception year in 2013 and we put down the 5 closest community schools and didn?t get in any. I would hate for any other parent to go through that situation as it was quite stressful.

It is bad here though. I am with AC. I have lived many other parts of London and have not been bothered by flight noise before but when the flights are directly overhead and start at 4 am it is incredibly noisy and disruptive to sleep. Maybe it is the valley that amplifies it... or maybe ED is a very quiet place generally so you notice it more. But seriously I have never been woken up by a plane before I moved here. I guess there is not a lot that can be done about existing air traffic but as Heathrow are campaigning to expand then there is certainly a lot that can be done to not make it any worse.

It looks like a common frog to me. Toads are more warty.

Under 7s can climb at JAGS. Just there has to be an instructor there. I think they have a session on Sunday mornings.

The highway code recommends pedestrians wear something fluorescent at night. Would anyone stop and shout at someone if they weren?t doing so? Yes pedestrians and cyclists should take reasonable steps to get themselves seen but it really depends on the context ? if they were cycling a couple of hundred yards on residential streets then the additional risk they are putting themselves in isn?t worth getting upset about. It is actually refreshing that someone thinks it is safe enough to cycle late at night. The problem with the these complaints about cyclists isn?t that they are not justified ? it is that they blatantly ignore why the roads are dangerous in the first place.

The endless moralising in Thomas does wear thin after a while. I am going out on dangerous limb here - but in my opinion Chuggingtons is way superior.

Ha Classic. However considering it has 1700 comments and is being shared around social media sites - I think the Editors probably knew what they were doing. Do the Guardian even pay for Comment is Free submissions?

I've tried getting on the north bound 63 at burgess park in the morning rush hour.

Because it isn?t just about existing transport provision - it is also about the potential for economic development. OKR area clearly has big potential for development and why it is likely to be chosen if only route is. Tunnels are very expensive to build so usually some major economic benefit is needed for them to be justified. Hopefully both routes will get chosen. Failing that I hope local politicians get behind a tram scheme from south Southwark to Elephant and Castle ? I believe James Barber proposed one a couple of years ago.

Bit too odd to be casing. Sounds more like delusional OCD behaviour to me. Was there any pattern the bins marked? Odd/Even house numbers - something like that?

Saw two stag beetles flying last night around twilight, then later a bat. I didn't know there were bats in ED.

We moved here from near West Dulwich four years ago after our first baby. Really love it here. There is definitely more a of a friendly community feel and lots more to do for young families and adults for that matter. West Dulwich always felt like a suburb of Dulwich Village to me.

Yes but what is "reasonable grounds for annoyance"? Kids skate on our road - no problem with that at all. Bellenden Rd is a residential street after all. But I agree he shouldn't have run off.

It is not illegal to skateboard on the road. On what grounds do you think he would be liable? He fell off. I guess it would depend how closely the motorcyclist was following.