LondonMix

For a well presented 3 bed Victorian house of average size (circa 1,000 sqft- 1,100 sqft) with a small garden in a central ED location that still has potential to be extended into the side return and loft, prices are circa 800-850k. See examples below: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=18121472&sale=1411438&country=england http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=32829102&sale=1411453&country=england Bigger garden or bigger house pushes up the price. Worse location and worse condition drops it. 4 bed Victorian houses in similar location and condition with similar or slightly larger gardens measuring 1,500 to 1,600sft (post extension work) are circa 1 million to 1.1 million. Bigger places and bigger gardens get an additional premium. The price is lower for places that need work and are further out. Prices are far above 2013 prices still (we sold our ED flat and bought our ED House that year). However, I do think that for the early part of 2014 prices for a very few transactions went ahead of that and have come down a bit since that high. The market is much calmer compared to 2013 and early 2014 which is definitely a good thing. I imagine prices will increase only very slowly if at all in London. ED may be boosted a bit by changes in amenities that will increase demand for East Dulwich compared to competing areas in London. I think the opening of M&S next year will boost prices (as silly as that is) along with additional shop openings in this area. I think the knock on impact of Peckham's gentrification will actually boost ED prices as well. There are people who like ED but are so snobbish they don't want to live near Rye Lane in its current incarnation. The redevelopment of the Peckham Rye station and the continued gentrification of Rye Lane will boost price growth in ED above the London average (that's my prediction at least).

Landberger-- I am basing the my statement that Harris Girls ED is oversubscribed based on statements made by Renata during that schools recent consultation on changes to its admission policy andalso on the secondary school thread. This year, there were only 4 schools with available places following first round offers in Southwark and the only one near here was Harris Peckham. Perhaps, after all of the movement on waiting lists the situation changed but at that time neither Harris Boys or Girls ED had any places.

Its clear to me that Harris was relying on the shortage of places in the south of Southwark to increase the popularity of Harris Peckham. Once middle class parents were forced to attend through lack of alternative places, the snobbery element that leads that school to be undersubscribed would dissipate making it a more popular choice going forward. I'm not saying snobbery is the only reason its undersubscribed but given its actually quite a good school academically now without any alarming behaviour problems, snobbery plays its part. If the Charter School opens in 2016, this will in part scupper the demographic dividend the shortage of places was naturally going to provide to Harris Peckham from next year. Please note that Harris ED Boys and Girls are oversubscribed. Harris Peckham might remain undersubscribed until 2018 depending on choices parents north east and west of the school make. Undersubscribed schools are financially insecure as they have virtually the same running costs as full schools but less revenue as revenue is funded per pupil. So while I don't disagree that a zoned lottery is a good admissions policy, Harris are demanding it out of their own self-interest which can't trump what the community wants in this instance. Distance admissions is allowed under the code of admissions and is a legitimate option. Parents have selected it and Harris shouldn't throw its weight around to intimidate MPs or civil servants. Their attitude is despicable. Similarly, I am worried about Charter's attitude to SEN. I actually thought Charter behaved pretty badly vis-a-vis Habs. Some of the posts on the forum and allegations of stories leaked to the press were abhorrent. Its all just so sad that something like education provision could bring out some of the worst traits in human nature.

You can only have zones if the allocation within them are lotteries. If you simply had two zones both based on distance (each zone taking 90 students as Harris suggests) would be that the first zone would have students closest to the school get in. then the second zone would have students closest to the school get in . The absurd situation that would result is those on the outer edge of the first zone would possibly not get in while this right behind them at the start of the new zone would. You'd have a band between the two zones where children where least likely to attend. Most schools with zones therefore allocate places by lottery within the zones. In fact I'd be interested to see an example of an admissions policy that has zones where both are done on distance. If you can find one please let me know. intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think it's "if" ;the tone of > correspondence from Harris shows that they ARE > throwing their weight around . > > Additionally I can see no other reason behind > their refusal to meet and discuss with Charter 2 > until September than a deliberate attempt to delay > the project making it impossible for Charter 2 to > meet important deadlines . > > FWIW given that Harris have mentioned an > admissions policy based on zones I don't think > they'll be pushing for a lottery .And personally I > think zones have much to recommend them ,not least > that they prevent an ever decreasing catchment > area as popularity grows . But I do think they'll > hold out for a reduced admissions number . > > While I think it's wrong that the current status > of education with competing schools and differing > admissions procedures allows politics and > capitalism to give Harris so much power and I > dislike their methods ,they do have a point . > > We need to hear from the steering > group/Charter/local councillors what their take on > Harris's threats is and how it can be dealt with > in a constructive way . > > Writing to MPs and Sec.of State seems a good > option .

Well James Barber's comments are more clear. I would guess he meant that planning is going to be more difficult as the Harris Federation is not happy and so they will interfere and use their political connections to block the school's planning application. Southwark's figures suggest the shortage will begin from 2016 in the south of the borough. On what basis is Harris challenging Southwark? Harris cannot force a school to adopt a lottery particularly when parents have shown no support for it. I am not opposed to lotteries but this feels like a rather naked attempt to ensure they continue to get affluent students in their schools even if parents don't want to send them to the Harris federation. The language Harris use is also very threatening and intimidating both to Charter as well as to our elected officials. This entire thing is so unseemly. I hope that Charter don't let themselves be bullied and that our elected officials do not allow themselves to be threatened.

Well James Barber's comments are more clear. I would guess he meant that planning is going to be more difficult as the Harris Federation is not happy

Harris are shocking. A shortage of places in the South of the borough will coincide with the opening of the school in 2016. The new places will ensure that no shortage develops in this area. The Federation clearly feels threatened but I can't believe they are actually challenging the opening and threatening legal action.

It was undersubscribed this year based on information posted by Renata on the secondary school thread. bonaome Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bornagain Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > bonaome Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > Have I missed a co-ed, non-faith, non-lottery > > > school, within a mile of Charter2? > > > > > > > Yes, Harris Peckham and it is under-subsribed. > > It's oversubscribed according to > this booklet on secondary admissions from > Southwark. It's also more than a mile from Charter > 2. And moreover, it looks like we would be very > unlikely to get her in there based on a distance > offer.

Exactly-- I was just going to respond the same. Also, while Harris Peckham is undersubscribed, the other two Harris schools are oversubscribed (though not as significantly as the existing Charter). bornagain Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bonaome Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Have I missed a co-ed, non-faith, non-lottery > > school, within a mile of Charter2? > > > > Yes, Harris Peckham and it is under-subsribed.

Fair enough. My family which is interracial has never suffered any abuse while there but honestly its been so few times I can't really say that people of color living there wouldn't have a hard time. A friend of mines sister lives there and she is mixed race. Next time I see her, I'll ask if she's ever experienced any trouble. I do think women often have an easier time with racism anyway though. Men tend to get my open abuse.

We've been 6 times since they moved in but always socialise at their house so can't really say what the people are like. There was a man clearly out of his mind on the bus once but in general the people seem normal enough as I get from the station to their house. Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unless it's changed beyond recognition in the last > 5 years, there are still far too many really > unpleasant white people in Eltham for.my liking.

I only meant he wasn't someone who would think a place was rough just because the patrons weren't rich and it wasn't a gastropub. Nothing more than that. I'm American so don't easily fall into the British class system. Sorry if after all these years I've made a faux pas. Anyway, back on topic. Friends of mine have moved to Eltham recently and while they don't love it, its fine and so cheap compared to this area. KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > what DaveR said. > > LM - What's with the hint on working class having > a more accurate definition of rough ?! When I > lived on IOW we used to go to Cowes during Cowes > week to scrap the yachties, they were pretty tough > guys and very few working class amongst them (at > least in the big posh marquee / club where we > traded with them). They certainly hit hard and > were no strangers to (wait for it) 'a good old > fashioned punch-up'. So I don't buy that for a > second, however romantic it may seem.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > late 1990's Palmerston was no rough pub, in 1990 > there was aggro there tho if you wanted some. Maybe early 90s. It was before my time but in my husband's time in ED as a student. You could definitely buy drugs in there. Definitely was rough. My husband is working class so when he says rough he doesn't just mean it wasn't a gsatropub.

I've been in ED more than 10 years and while granted its changed beyond recognition, I don't think in 2005 it was Penge. Just being realistic. My husband has been here even longer (late 90s when the Palmerston was still a rough pub). It takes a good 15-20 years for an area to transform so don't move someplace expecting it to happen overnight. legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Penge = East Dulwich a decade ago. Get in while > you can. > > Victorian housing stock, changing high street > that's not too over gentrified, big parks. > > Penge West is on the London Overground making > travel to East London or Docklands very simple > (basically you are on the tube), plus the train > goes into London Bridge. Penge East goes into > Victoria and Blackfriars. Basically the travel > from there is really easy. > > 176 bus to Lordship Lane if you miss it, no > parking restrictions. > > For some reason Norwood has always had the > potential to change but hasn't. Don't know why. > > (*disclaimer - I live in Penge so am biased. But > Time Out this week agrees with me...)

Sydenham is nice and well connected. If you affor there, that's what I'd go for. Hither Green should be in budget for you as is Beckenham. Beckenham feels more suburban but has very decent shopping etc (Waitrose), good schools, green space and reasonable transport links. Hither green is also decent and if you are the Lee end is close to the shops in Blackheath.

I have email confirmation that Redcombpubs are taking over the Cherry Tree. Apparently they are doing a major refurb but hope to open in 8 weeks.

Firstmate-- I think the point is that the school does have access to playing fields but that they are further away. The question is why should they be bused further away rather than using the park. The open questions are-- why aren't they allowed to use the park (since other schools further away can do so) and does the original rationale seem fair / valid. If it was simply a politically motivated attempt the undermine the school application (as some seem to be suggesting) then it should be over-turned. If the park is at full capacity with the schools that already use it, then that would be fair enough assuming there is some objective way of validating that claim. first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just wanted to add to the above that politicians/ > councils showed an incredible lack of foresight in > selling off school playing fields. We need to be > really careful that local parks do not become the > solution to that mistake thereby losing another > amenity valued and used by all the community. If > parks end up being playing fields they will > change, there will doubtless have to be > restrictions on other users for health and safety > reasons etc.. > > I can understand parental concerns and see that > the suggested usage would be politically expedient > for councillors under pressure from powerful > parent lobbies, but why was Harris allowed to > build a school without adequate play space? There > was always a suspicion that sooner or later there > would be parental pressure to use the park and the > proximity of Harris to the park suggests this may > have been a long game, especially when quid pro > quos to do with park funding and upkeep are > mentioned by councillors. Lack of play space was > an issue raised at the time and pretty much > ignored by the pro Harris lobby. > > Just think it could be thin end of the wedge. > > Fully expect to be shot down in flames, called a > nimby, anti child, narrow minded, anti change > etc..

Surely this should be about the children.

So sorry to hear your son has been hurt. Have you contacted the police? It sounds like you know who attacked your son. Given your child doesn't attend the school yet, I imagine the attack didn't actually happen at the school? I'm not sure what the school can do about it in these circumstances or why you seemingly hold the school responsible. Is there some detail that's missing?

Haha! The battle lines have been drawn. It would be funnier if it wasn't true... *Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There was a posse up at the school today talking > nodal points ('nodal point'.. a phrase set to > become the 'new weapons of mass destruction') and > how it had been moved to X but we should press for > it to be more back around around Y which would > give people at that school more of a chance - so I > raised my fist in the air and joined in the chant: > 'One, Two, Three Four - Nodal where it was > before'. It was brilliant - we all hugged each > other and I went home feeling totally empowered. > > Unfortunately, when I got home and hit Google Maps > I realised those people must all have been from > the 'other' side of the school and in fact nodal > point X is closer. > > Naturally, these people are now my bitter enemies.

MickMack I think a nodal point offsite is not fair under the circumstances. I actually think a lottery is fairest solution but not many like the idea and it sounds like Charter threw cold water on it at the Heber consultation! I also think the priority ranking for certain children with special needs coming after siblings should be changed. while I think the admission policy could be better, I don't agree with what some people are pushing for. Overall, what they are proposing is reasonably fair.

It might be worth contacting Renata as well as it falls in her ward rather than James B's though I am sure James will help too. midivydale Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I had no idea about this, outrageous! Happy to > support a campagin too to overturn this decision. > I am going to start by contacting James Barber > about this right away. I am not politically > involved (so no flaming from anti lib dems please) > but I must say that James seems like a man who > cares deeply about his community and I have > nothing but praise for him in the dealings that I > have had with him to date. He has always been > incredibly helpful and supportive with regards to > community issues.

I don't understand your question. I won't be hurt by a second nodal point but neither will I benefit as my house is likely in catchment anyway. So if you are asking if I have a bias, the answer is no. If you are asking why I care, I'm not sure what you think a legitimate reason for caring would be. I've hurt my back and am off work for two weeks. I'm probably more engaged for this reason than I could be if I was at work. Next week, I won't be able to respond in detail anymore, I'm sure to many people's relief :) I'm not involved with the Charter or steering committee etc if that's what you want to know. Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Hi MickMac-- > > > > I hoped the discussion would focus on areas > where > > legally the Charter has flexibility to make > > modifications that would influence the > composition > > and ethos of the intake-- SEN, siblings, > banding, > > and lottery. > > > > and are you therefore involved in the process in > some way, or just interested in the debate?

Hi MickMac-- I hoped the discussion would focus on areas where legally the Charter has flexibility to make modifications that would influence the composition and ethos of the intake-- SEN, siblings, banding, and lottery. That people repeatedly are asking for an admission policy that is primarily focused on ensuring they get in, is what it is. I don't define my community based on my postcode. I want a policy that is fair for the broader community. Even parents that don't get into the new Charter school benefit from it indirectly as it prevents other school catchments from shrinking when the increase demand kicks in and should support it. There are quite a few people who live in SE22 that are taking a similar perspective on the admission policy. Being from ED doesn't mean you have to advocate for something you feel is unfair or illegal. I am in SE22 by the way, pretty much right in the heart of ED.

Agree and my post was mostly directed to MicMack. I also hope it doesn't come across as a personal attack on anyone. I 100% understand the impulse to fight for access to what you think is the best option for your family. MsMaz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually we are way out of any catchment so it > wouldn't benefit my child but I understand it > would seem like too much of a manipulation and I > do accept a lot of your points - as it is > extremely complicated. And I also would much > prefer to see a lottery and banding system with > all schools, including this one. I am not > pro-distance at all. The system is already bonkers > when every school in Southwark has different > admissions criteria, and could well be using it > skew/manipulate etc, etc,