edhistory

Maybe the Dulwich Society discussion group. When launched.

First determine the enemy's order of battle.

binkylilyput Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the loss of an organisation that provided them with > the care and support they need to thrive despite > poverty, trauma, neglect, deprivation, violence etc. Have Southwark Social Services found any?

See my post of 21 July.

Is there any evidence that "Kids Company" has closed?

Southwark Council award F.M.Conway more contracts than they have great people to do great work.

Here's the map of the "Lordship Lane (north)" designated area approved by Southwark Council on 21 July 2015. If you are a landlord or tenant in this designated area it affects you. Maps of other designated areas are on the Southwark Council web-site. John K

Not the period to comment. The TMO itself appears to have no commencement date. The spaces for this have been left blank. John K

whoops! Nicky Costin and Chris Mascord appear to have forgotten to insert a commencement date. Does this mean the TMO is invalid? John K

Pink streets: Ashbourne Grove Chesterfield Grove Blackwater Street Nutfield Road Frogley Road Spurling Road Zenoria Street Bawdale Road Hansler Road Shawbury Road

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/10983/appendix_ten_-_list_of_streets I can't work out whether the "pink" streets are included in the final confirmed designation.

Confirmed start date 1 November 2015.

You can make your own model: http://www.kingswaymodels.com/page33.htm

Even Mr James Barber is now falsely calling this overgrown area "Southwark Woods". SE22 Magazine, Issue 126. page 44.

Huggers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Quite a few streets were incorporated into this > bellenden regeneration scheme of the early > noughties including us in Nutbrook Street. we got > railings, victorian style pathway tiles of our > choice, doors and windows painted and repointing. > all for a hundred quid. Fun times of community > meetings. Our only regret is that we didnt choose > bedding for our narrow front gardens instead of > slabs. 65 properties in Nutbrook Street were part of the "Nutbrook Street Facelift Scheme". The cost was ?268,155. An average of ?4,125 per property.

Plan shows new rear slip road for deliveries.

Don't spend too much time on the interesting, but obsolete, 1857 Act. http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityFramework.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=312751&SubsidiaryNumber=0 A copy of the "SCHEME DATED 31/07/1995 AS AMENDED BY RESOLUTION DATED 08/12/2012" is what is needed. I don't have a copy. You could write and ask for one. John K

I thought these were the roadworks. John K

Qwe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I'm going to get hold of a copy of the 1857 Act > and see if this clarifies the issue. Copies rarely come up for sale. Ther is one here: http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=13014637987&searchurl=sortby%3D1%26tn%3Ddulwich+college John K

When does the planning permission, and especially the S106 requirement, expire? John K

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restricting-finance-cost-relief-for-individual-landlords That's the tax relief withdrawal. See also para 1.192 of the Red Book for withdrawal of the 10% tax deductible furnished property allowance.

There's a school over in West Dulwich... http://www.kingsdalefoundationschool.org.uk/resources/Kingsdale-Mobile-1-1-Learning-Letter.pdf

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi mockingbird, edhistory, > How have we not followed the deputation rules at > the Dulwich Community council? Oh Mr Barber, what did you do? You misread. John K

Smells like a CloudFlare problem.

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DF - it's been happening a bit for me too - the > posts take a while to show up. Not deleted. Just > slow. And if I refresh too quickly then the post > disappears. So I suspect technical underpinnings > not anything else. Might be the CloudFlare interception.