LondonMix

I agree with most everything that's been said. If you are a landlord and own a property and all of a sudden you can no longer charge a rent that makes it worth your while to continue renting property you will sell your property (one way or another). This will increase the supply of housing for sale temporarily and bring down or restrain growth in property prices until a balance is struck and rental yields make sense again and the system rebalances. However, this will also create a shortage in rental properties- more people will be attracted by the new affordable rents to London who previously were priced out. A lot depends on where they would cap "fair rents" but, given rents would be set below market-clearing rates, one thing would be sure: outrageously long waiting lists to get a rent controlled property would be the norm. In NY this led to a lot of black market practices. In other places it just leads to massive frustration for young people who want to rent a place and stop living with their parents. Moreover, I don't think this would lead to a permanent reduction in house prices in London. Ultimately, more people would be trying to move to and live in London creating even greater shortages across the board. However, the temporary crash would pose serious issues for the banking sector and therefore the real economy for an extended period of time. Key workers and social housing have to be part of housing policy but there are no easy answers to London's high house prices and rents. The underlying issue is supply and demand and can only be addressed by balancing out growth in the UK (so every intelligent Brit doesn't feel the need to move to London to get ahead) as well as developing more property.

An Italian Ice-cream place is taking over Sally's (there are multiple threads on this). I've heard the guy's behind Beggin' Bowl on Bellenden Road are negotiating for Green and Blues space but I don't know if they have secured it yet. Not sure about the vacant place next the Cafe Nero. Isn't that were the cannabis farm was?

Is it really liberal to suggest its rude to respond to someone who is telling you that their partner fell for a scam by saying that only and idiot would fall for it and they deserved to be ripped off? No one would do that in real life. Its only the anonymity of the internet that allows people to behave this way.

Then listen to Lady D and ignore everyone else :)

Agree with Bouncy. What's the point of making fun of / hurling contempt at the OP? Just take it for what it is- someone reporting a scam in an attempt to be helpful. If people feel they'll be the target of derision if they come on here and admit that they were conned, people might stop alerting the community about these crimes.

Yeah, I was recently broken into as well and it's still really upsetting so I get it. The next day they tried to break in to the house next door! I've always found the area really safe but the last few weeks its felt like the area is being targeted. Who knows though. Maybe we are all just reporting these incidents on the forum more- we'll have to wait to see the crime stats when they are published!

Thanks for the post but your irony detector is way off. Everything people were saying was tongue in cheek regarding the description (note they focused on the colour of the car... not the people)

Given all the different views, again, I'd speak to a professional. I don't think you have anything to worry about but everyone on here is largely speaking from their own experience (including me) which may or may not be relevant given our different nationalities and the rules that may have changed since we applied.

Yes, thanks for the warning

I used to eat McDonald?s all the time when I was a teenager (maybe once a week) though I always went for the chicken burgers. However, its probably now been 10 years since I had anything there. My partner still likes it but just looking at it now gives me heartburn. I have lots of guilty treats but Micky D?s just makes me feel sick.

Eek, those value add scores and expected progress scores are worrying! If you want more detail, you might need to speak to the Department for Education to get more detailed value add subject breakdown now. A value add score below 1,000 means the students (taking in account the skills and ability they entered the school with) are progressing at a rate below expectations compared to average progress made for similar pupils nationally. Anything above 1,000 means above average progress.

It's expensive. First I had to get indefinite leave to remain (which involved sitting the Life in the UK Test etc and proving competency in English etc). To get indefinite leave to remain, you need to have been resident for 5 years I believe and show you can support yourself. After a year, subject to not having been out of the country for too long, you can then apply for a passport. This entire process only took me a few months (but my company paid for an expedited appointment). The longest part was waiting for an appointment to take the test. I have no idea how this would work for someone in the EU given you already (at least for now!) already have indefinite leave to remain. I'd speak to an immigration lawyer if I were you. Good luck. As Pickle says, if you consider the UK home now, its definitely worth doing. Also, e-dealer, the UK does not require foreign nationals to give up their citizenship to acquire British citizenship. I work with people who even have 3 passports / citizenships (American / French and British)!

thanks

Couldn't agree more with the last two posts. Some people who've recently moved to ED from busier areas might miss it. However, we picked ED because its in zone 2 but fairly quiet with just enough going on that you don't feel like you are living in a complete suburban backwater. Our friends from outside the area love it here, particularly the small scale of everything and the woods and parks. Outside of central London, I honestly can say that only Richmond and Hampstead have better green spaces in my opinion than this general part of SE London including Brockwell Park and Sydnahm Woods etc. Diminishing that through the creation of of a station on Peckham Rye Common would be a shame but if the overall project is really worthwhile then I'll support it.

Would these be for private or social housing if anyone knows?

Some might argue the lack of good transport is what has allowed LL to thrive. Its harder for us locals to nip into the centre concentrating demand for locally supplied goods and services. Once the area has enough shops it then can start pulling people in from outside the local area as LL does now. Not sure if LL could have started its initial phase of regeneration if people had lots of easily accessible alternatives. Now that its consolidated, better transport links might further enhance it as it will allow for even more footfall.

I suggest using two great resources for parents that can help you understand what's likely. In Southwark's brochure "Starting Primary school in Southwark" at this link http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2483/primary_school_admissions you can find the furthest place offered on distance (ie excluding care and sibling offers) for the previous year. Academies and faith schools don't provide that detail but I have found that if you email the schools directly, they can provide you with that stat within a couple of hours as they get the request so often! The brochure highlights if there was a bulge at a school as this will distort things and under those circumstances, I would again suggest you ring or email the school in question and find out what the distance was in the last year where there was no bulge. Once you have that you can enter your postcode and the postcode of your closest 6 schools at the link below to see exactly how far away you are as the crow flies, which is almost always the distance measurement used for primary admissions. http://www.freemaptools.com/distance-between-uk-postcodes.htm. The schools postcodes and email addresses are in the brochure at the first link. Good luck (it's so stressful). And remember, there are plans for permanent expansion of some of the local primary schools in the western part of ED / Dulwich Village etc. While you won't likely get into those schools, it might ease demand and therefore increase the catchment of some of the popular schools nearer you like Goodrich. Not sure what your timing is but Renata is usually really helpful and providing information about what's happening in primary education locally including where bulges are likely to occur next.

Its a tough one. The green spaces and vibrant community feel (which is in part due to the area being somewhat cut off) is what drew many residents here. I don't think people are against the tube per se but rather what those changes will mean for the area which will of course be both positive and negative.

My husband is there with you. I'm somewhat on the fence depending on the details though maybe slightly leaning in the 'pro' camp... StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Er, I remain in a small minority no doubt, who > don,t want the tube down here." > > don't know if it's a small minority, but I'm in > the same group

That is a wildly inaccurate characterisation of that thread Bouncy. I didn't understand something regarding the allocation of school places. Once you explained it, I totally accepted it was true that religious families had a better chance of attending a local school as you suggested. I simply said I would sooner advocate for the creation of more quality primaries to address the underlying issue (a shortage of local places) rather than ban faith schools (and I am not religious). How that fits how you just described the thread is hard to understand. Again, if I have misunderstood something or made a mistake in this or any thread just point it out. This personal argument with me is not necessary.

That's very true regarding the letters H. I was struck by this in the letter from the maternity unit. On so many points they agree with the draft, except with the final conclusion. For example, they and the external clinical panel agree that without a full A+E only a midwife led centre would be viable. They also agree that this would significantly reduce the number of women who could give birth at Lewisham and that the other hospitals don't have capacity to take on the additional high-risk mothers. For the clinicans who wrote the letter this is reason to keep both the A+E and the maternity services unchanged. The report believes this is reason the change to a mid-wife only centre and expand capacity at other hospitals as the travel distances aren't too onerous. From the ED letter, we can see that some of the concerns they raise have now been incorporated in the final configuration. They say that the admission stats (and therefore the effectiveness of a UCC to handle workload)on Lewisham underestimate the need for emergency doctors who are the only ones who treat patients from midnight to 8am. Their specific expertise prevents the need for admissions and some cases require an Ed physician to assess them or they would automatically have to be transferred even if admission isn't required. I believe as a result, ED doctors will now be retained 24/7 in the plan announced yesterday along with other changes.

I never said any such thing. I asked what her alternative was after she said there was a viable one. I didn't realise some of you feel those with differing views aren't allowed to participate in discussions on important issues. I've repeatedly expressed various concerns about the proposals, said I wasn't an expert while presenting the information detailed in the actual proposal. Instead of making this thread about me, let's please just stick to the very important issues at hand.

Strafer by A+E I think they mean the stuff a UCC can't deal with. So, I don't know anyone who was having a heart attack and couldn't immediately be dealt with- but that's not say this might not be an issue, its just not my experience. Long wait times for non-emergencies- broken bones etc- are chronically long and having a UCC should shorten waiting times. I am concerned about the additional strain on the ambulence service. I also wonder how realistic it is to assume people from outside Lewisham will use the UCC to balance out the system. A specific policy (like exists between Guys and St. Thomas) will need to be implemented where they tell people with non critical issues they will have a shorter wait at Lewisham... Only time will tell

It's not safe to have full maternity services without an A+E. Midwife led centres exist throughout the UK and are considered safe in general. Even the report acknowledges though that the maternity services at other hospitals need to be expanded (with capital imvestment) to deal with the change in maternity services at Lewisham. On balance this was still considered the better option long term as structurally A+E's in South London is deemed over supply (again, I don't know if that is true).

Saffron, I have not been as rude or aggressive with anyone in this thread as you've been with me. You should ask yourself why you can't discuss this without being unpleasant.