Jeremy

I just looked up the lineup. It's a pretty interesting concept... putting in a celebrity with 9 random members of the public and see what happens.

Sue - sarcasm detector a bit rusty, perhaps.

Right. Unlike your contributions, Mr Constructive. For the record, I live very very close to the site in question, and would rather not see overdevelopment on my doorstep. I'm just pointing out that when considering the application, it is worth bearing in mind the need for social housing.

Snooker groin.

I believe Badminton House has been sold to a developer. It really is about time it was sorted out. I guess the sale must have included the lease of the shop unit (costcutter) too, which could be interesting. The derelict block at the bottom of Bromar road has also been sold off, planning permission has been granted for 5 x 4 bed houses (3 storey). There's a LOT of material in the latest application, so I didn't go through it all. But I think you're right about losing the fenced play area. I guess we'll also be losing some green space where the air raid shelters are (sloped bumpy area on north side of Pytchley Rd). But overall, I guess London needs more social housing, so you could argue it's for the greater good.

dubstep

ironic glasses

skinny jeans

RosieH is right, Shoreditch is pretty awful on a Fri/Sat night these days, full of the type of people who would have been going drinking in Liecester Square a couple of years ago. I know that sounds snobbish, but... Am I imagining this, or are a couple of people on this thread associating McDonalds and Wetherspoons with gentrification?

pinocchio, there's no such agreement, they just don't bother taking the signs down. The new owner usually ends up doing it themselves.

grabot - yep, that's how I read it, 7.7 million pa to rent this particular building. The 1.5 was the annual saving made by purchasing the building instead of renting. So basically it's cheaper to pay interest to a lender, than it was to pay the landlord's cut. With the added benefit of investing in prime central London property, in an area which is undergoing rapid redevelopment.

So this basically boils down to you not trusting Southwark's finance department to find a loan at a competitive market rate? If you really feel it's important that you know the terms of the loan, you really would be best off contating the council (or one of the councillors) directly.

grabot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is interesting. I can't say that I > understand commercial property, but in crude terms > if the building is bought for ?170m to yield a > saving of ?1.5m per year, that represents a > multiple of 113. That seems enormous. With stock > markets trading at multiples closer to 10, > wouldn't it be better for the council to allocate > the cash elsewhere? I don't think that's right, the investment multiple is the total money back divided by the total money put in. But in simpler terms, the approximate yield is 7.7/170 = 4.5% (ignoring costs and maintenance). Sounds like a pretty typical rental yield to me. If you looked at dividend yield in the stock market, I think you'd find that 4.5% was well above average. And surely prime central London property is much lower risk. I'm sure there's a good chance I'm missing something, but still... not sure really sure why people are questioning the purchase.

I am struggling to understand the objection. The original post asks "Will Services be cut? Will other charges go up?". Why would this be the case? If the council have reduced their outgoings, why is that a problem? What is the council's supposed ulterior motive?

PD, totally agree that you shouldn't back down if someone is just trying to silence you. Not sure the forum is so cliquey though... certainly not as much as it used to be. The views amongst regular posters are more diverse these days. I think there are very few absolutes in ehtics and morals. It's hard to say whether something is objectively right or wrong when we all have our own personal values. When arguing a point with someone who has conflicting beliefs, more often than not you'll never reach agreement. But it should be possible to share your ideas without writing off your opponent's views as disgusting, showing off about your ski holiday, or claiming victory by saying that you're getting under their skin. We all get pissed off and lose our cool from time to time. But it's hard to come out of it without looking bad.

Parkdrive Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pot and kettle my friend Try to take it as advice (and it certainly wasn't just aimed at you). It doesn't make you look good when you stop debating the topic and just try to annoy each other. I suspect my words will fall on deaf ears though.

Guys - if you get a kick out of pissing each other off, I'd say you need to do a bit of growing up.

MrBen, in your situation, is it not just easier to lay new reclaimed floorboards over the existing floor (in both dining room and kitchen) rather than excavating a concrete floor? Is the stuff really that expensive?

ram001 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i couldn't think of anything worse than council > housing for that land. OK, I'll bite. Why's that, then?

Of course you're totally right, Bumpkin. Existing transport in Battersea is limited, just like it is in our part of SE London. But one important difference (which some people haven't quite grasped) is that there are currently no plans to build 800 flats, plus extensive retail and office space, centred around an iconic national landmark in East Dulwich or Peckham. It's also important to realise that central London is starting to expand outwards into areas like Borough, Vauxhall, and Battersea. There needs to be infrastructure in place to support this growth.

Maybe that's why they don't run it any more! Can't be fun if you dislike 50% of your customers that much. But of course there is snobbery here... people with grandiose delusions, and the gleefully upwardly mobile hoping that LL will morph into a clone of the more expensive area they couldn't afford. Surely this also happens all over London though.

There's nothing wrong with fondue, Gidget. Hope you sorted it out, Alan... I guess the worst case scenario is heating it up on the hob and reheating every few minutes.

There is a tube dead zone in most of south London. Including Battersea.

Ruskin Park is a good spot too.

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We are all safely out of town. ?50 to get in yer > Local You must be F** joking! But Have a Nice > Time! What pub is charging ?50?