first mate

The photo is perfectly charming and anyone who says otherwise...Roberto...shall feel the sharp end of my clettering stick!

Perhaps a topiary garden....? With some Niwaki too?

Aaaaaaaaah!

Overall there seems much to be learned about the yew tree. Do hope there might be a rethink.

P68, yes agreed I had also pondered the poison aspect, but if this is the reasoning then it should be stated. I think many children would be fascinated by topiary- just think Edward Scissorhands..on second thoughts perhaps not.

Well the 'magical forest' is darn sight more intersting and creative than the proposed replacement. I also feel the reply you got from the Capital woman was somewhat misleading, even disingenuous- just my opinion. RCH has said, though obviously not in his gift, that perhaps the architects/Southwark/Mr John might be persuaded to keep the trees. I guess, from their perspective the only problem might be protecting them whilst building is ongoing. I do hope a way can be found to keep them in situ. Do you also do Niwaki, Lucy?

This is from the current application: Growing area The strip of land along Bellenden road will be connected with both the main and the Reception playground. A new planter with instant hedging set behind a new vertical bar metal fence will separate this space from the street, safeguarding pupils. It will enhance the street setting of the school and provide a learning resource through proving planting space for all the Years of the school.

Perhaps the real reason is the nature of the trees- yew, and upkeep, given they are topiary. Nonetheless, I don't feel they should just be ripped out, especially not if they are to be replaced with more trees. And, Jeremy, I share your reservations about quite how this space is to be used...cannot see anything in the current plans that details this or mentions external learning/play areas on a narrow strip next to the road.

I note part of the rationale is that they will be removed to make way for an external learning space/garden. I wonder what will actually be put in their place? Does the presence of these trees totally inhibit learning/use of the space? It is hard to see from the photos how much space they take up. I'd have thought that the children might enjoy learning about how the trees are trimmed and tended and perhaps, at key festival periods, the trees could be carefully decorated with items made by the children. In summer the trees might give valuable shade, also something children can hide behind and play hide and seek. A cursory reading of the plans implies, though it is not clear, that the topiary trees are to be removed and then four new trees planted!?

They really are a magnificent labour of love- how awful that developers can just wade in and destroy with full support of the council, or so it would seem.

A tip if the hat to Reynard.

As I said, I'm interested to hear from councillors across the various parties. I guess those that frequent the forum most, and who have already commented on the above, might be expected to do so again.

My point is not one of grand conspiracy, but I do feel it suits various agendas to somehow fail to grasp the bigger picture. I would be interested to hear what councillors have to say about the likely sum impact of the various schemes? James Barber has been on the forum this morning but is not commenting. For instance, He certainly gave the impression that the Picturehouse would not impact parking.

I wanted to ask again, why, when only quite recently we were assured that The Picturehouse, the new proposed M&S and tbe new Harris School Development, would have no impact on parking because, and the following rationale appears in every planning application, the public will cycle , walk or use public transport. Why then is it that "coincidentally" there are a welter of new parking restrictions suddenly touted for the surrounding area? Could councillors please make the effort and explain? Proposals to introduce restricted parking on and around Lordship Lane where there has been none? Proposals to put large swathes of yellow lines either side of dropped kerbs? The introduction of yellow lines on Northcross Road when the market only runs for two days? Proposals,at great expense, to prettify the junction of NX Rd and make it a "safer" junction by building the path out thus reducing traffic flow. Thus piecemeal approach is CPZ by stealth and councillors are not being honest with the public. The same applies to emerging issues to do with 20 mph speed limits and the Townley Rd junction fiasco. We need proper consultation, transparency and accountability.

James Barber was adamant that this development would not affect parking. I'd be interested to hear from councillors from all parties why we are being bombarded with all these new parking restrictions. The same for the yellow lines down much of North Cross Rd, allegedly there for the market stall holders, yet the market operates for only two days a week.

This would be a shame. Especially when the huge, blue building that is designated commercial space ( next to Dulwich leisure centre) is allegedly to be torn down and made into high density flats. What a farce. This latest application will no doubt have been made by a developer who has no interest in the fabric, character or structure of East Dulwich, other than how it can best be ripped up and turned into a meaty profit for himself and his investors. Baaaagh. There has to be some overview of development or ED will be homogenised and characterless before we know it.

Monica, precisely.

Well Morrisons are struggling so perhaps M&S would work better there. That said I feel very sorry for the people who live on Railway Rise if they are to have a four storey monstrosity towering over them.

I do rather agree, there are many who do not drive in a reasonable manner. Even at 30mph or 40mph there is always some idiot who thinks that is too slow too. I just wonder if a number of roaming,static checks with stiff, on-the-spot fines would make a difference? I resent my safety, and that of others, being compromised by someone who feels they are such a marvellously safe driver/their time is so precious that the law does not apply in their case and they are entitled to bully the rest of us off the road.

SteveUK1978, It does sound though as you do actually manage to park? On my street some days I can park close to my home, other days I might have to park a street or two away. Yes, it is a pain but I do always manage to park, even if that invovles a wait, sometimes up to half an hour. I'd far rather this than restrictions which really will be the thin end of the wedge.

The tipping is beginning. If the council can just create a few more pressures on local parking their work will be done. Just a few more dropped kerbs, a few more double yellows,a bit more restricted parking imposed for no apparent reason, a bit more development/housing creating pressure for more parking and bingo...CPZ, and the council can get to work pulling in the dosh.

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kford Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It's not a limit, it's an ambition and a > reminder > > to slow down. > > Well, legally, it is actually the limit - but I > get your point no one is going to get charged for > doing 23 on quiet road, however if you are going > over the limit and you knock someone down then you > will be at fault. So are you saying that from now on we can just ignore 20mph and instead drive at 30mph because 20 will never be enforced, either by camera or plod? I must say that does seem to be the attitude of the many drivers who have aggressively tailgated me up Sydenham Hill over the last few months. I feel positively wrong-headed, even foolish, for actually trying to adhere to the speed limit (doesn't mean I agree with it).

It sounds rather underhand.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > hi first mate, > H don't get the connection you've made between > this secondary school proposed admissions policy > change and a 2nd Harris primary school for the > area? > > Regards james. Hi James, Harris' rationale for a second ED Harris Primary is based on local need, if another local Harris school can so easily change its admissions policy so it no longer serves local children (Harris Girls and possibly Harris Boys ED) it is entirely possible other Harris schools will follow suit. Or to put it another way, what guarantees could you offer that this won't happen within a few years?

I do hope that the EFA are in the loop on Harris' proposed changes to their admissions policy. After all, a shortfall in primary places for local children is the underpinning rationale for the 2nd ED Harris Primary application.