edhistory

Thanks Penguin68. That was a very interesting contribution. There's a lesson for Mr Barber not to rely on un-verified information from such sources. John K

Peckham Rye Common/Park bye-law: "31. No person shall without the consent of the Council provide or offer to provide any service for which a charge is made."

And here are the 2 metre LiDAR contours (before someone claims run-off)

For those interested in the allegation that the dead of East Dulwich will poison East Dulwich drinking water. Here are the references for the adjacent borehole reports. If you read the reports you can see the groundwater depth. John K

I'd like to know which pre-1914 water supply or gas mains are still in use.

I was told (on Sunday) that Southwark Council has allocated ?65k.

I've been told there's now an architect's impression of how the proposed walkway reaches the ground at the NNE end near Queens Road. Does anyone know where this can be seen? John K

> The beards, middle classes, and other recent residents of ED pay with cards for everything Ignorant and incorrect comment. John K

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's on their web-site suggesting cut-and-paste > comments to use. > > It's very funny. > > "This site is within the 400 day catchment area of > the River Peck Basin and is > an SPX1 site for groundwater collection for > drinking water. Southwark council > has carried out no detailed work with Environment > Agency officers to assess the > negative environmental impacts of new burials from > this development on water > pollution" This is the allegation about groundwater pollution.

> Regarding whether it is a wood or not - just go and look for yourself. Although it is interesting that it is always the people trying to protect it that say that. It's in the eyes of the believers.

There are also Archaeological Protection Zones. APZ 78 London to Lewes Roman Road APZ 83 Lordship Lane Barrow Both of which are spurious. And the two medieval sites we have in East Dulwich have been ignored. John K

Most of this affects East Dulwich.

This is getting too silly. Are the names of the petition instigators known? John K

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2420747 If it ain't in the Gazette it ain't legal. I don't think there is any legal requirement for any local publication. Useful for getting things under the radar. John Kennedy

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2420747

Azira Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > There's a lot of hyperbole Very good!

That is not a summary.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They've confirmed addresses for > neighbouring ward they have around 1,500 > signatures which means they have around 17% of the > electorate there. What does this mean? How was it done? Who did it?

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where do you think it is? In Southwark Woods?

kibris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have been told that starbucks is taking it over > from FEB next year A3 permission would be difficult. Here's the protected frontage map:

mynamehere Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Open Space left for common land and cemetery space > in the 1800's was land that flooded and was > useless otherwise. Camberwell Old Cemetery floods > in part. It is not allowed to bury in standing > water. Graves have recently been dug and filled > immediately with water. I cannot imagine what > edhistory might find funny about this. There is > run off from Honour Oak and high points south of > the cemetery and this is being handled by creaking > to capacity Victoria conduits and the entire area > is being monitored by Thames Water. > Can you point to the evidence for this? John K

It's on their web-site suggesting cut-and-paste comments to use. It's very funny. "This site is within the 400 day catchment area of the River Peck Basin and is an SPX1 site for groundwater collection for drinking water. Southwark council has carried out no detailed work with Environment Agency officers to assess the negative environmental impacts of new burials from this development on water pollution"

apbremer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who are these Sustrans jokers who seem to be > making all these arbitrary decisions on our > behalf?? http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=326550&SubsidiaryNumber=0

Southwark Council has exercised derogation from the new 2015 planning legislation. 66 Lordship lane is now part of a "protected frontage". This means that conversion to A3 usage might be difficult. No coffee shop. John K

Peckhamrye Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't understand why people need a physical branch I guess you don't buy stuff with cash and expect change.