LondonMix

Did any parents formally petition for a 2nd school for Nunhead? If not, surely the logic makes no sense...

I've been thinking about this and I don't remember a campaign for a Harris Nunhead. Was the application for a Harris Nunhead made based on the 'excess support' for the ED Harris application. That application had double the minimum support it needed. Was that used to apply for a second primary even though no specific campaign was launched? James, can you clarify?

If you are limiting this analysis of rent as exploitation to London then yes. Elsewhere though food can be more expensive than a small 2 or 3 bed apartment for a family of 4. The point DaveR was making its odd that making a business of providing other life essentials raises no concern but renting is discussed as very different when its effectively the same.

This is rediculous. The entire system is supposed to be about parental choice, not trying to duplicate support for two applications and have the DofE decide. Parents should choose whichever school is actually their preference- period. There is no risk that there isn't enough support for a school as enough support has already been registered for Habs to be successful once the DofE reviews the application to ensure its inline with broader national policy even if it reflects local desires. If you want Charter as your first choice then support it and if it proves more popular than Habs amongst parents I am sure the DofE will consider that when deciding. However, supporting both applications makes no sense.

Poker time, food is not affordable for everyone everywhere. In many places a families food bill can exceed their housing costs.

No one has ever fogotten that Poker. Also, farmers benefit from increasing food prices and manipulate the cost of food by controling output. Consumers benefit from falling costs. For everything in life that is sold- food, shelter, clothing the equation is the same.

People who buy food do not own the means to produce food. The example is exactly the same. People paying someone else for a temporary satisfaction of need. Owning a home is the equivalent of owning land to produce food. Renting shelter is the equivalent to buying surplus food from someone else. Most people can rent even if they can't buy just as most people can buy food even if they don't own the means to securely produce food for themselves for life. No difference.

SJ, housing is no different to food. A farmer has more food and sells the excess that needs to be bought repeatedly by non-farmers. One could argue no one should have more land than they need so everyone could have arable land and produce their own food etc. The only difference is that most people don't want to farm while many renters want to own in this country and can't. In much of the world renting is a lifestyle choice that is fine because of stonger tenancy rights. If you want to moan, moan about that.

Cost to refurb, fit out and convert the loft was probably more than 90k. But yes, developers have yo pay stamp duty and capital gains tax. Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > House in Ulverscroft Road: > > > > Sold for ?630,000 on 24th Feb 2014 > > > > Was in need of "improvement". Improved. > > > > Now on the market for ?975,000 (sic). > > > > > http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/33255606 > > Loft conversion + cheap and cheerful refurb... > 90K? 345K gross profit... woah. > > Do developers have to pay stamp duty AND income > tax?

I love this place too. It helps that its right around the corner from me, but its definitely my favourite place for wine. I buy (too) many bottles a week :)

Yes, James, it would be good if you answered my second question as well regarding how many more places are needed in Nunhead now if the Ivydale expansion goes ahead.

James are you saying that Harris cannot reject a site proposed by the EFA on the grounds it's unsuitable? Can you be specific about what rights schools have in the site selection process- I would have imagined they would be leading it. Also, does the primary school place forecasts suggest that both the Harris Nunhead school and the expansion of Ivydale are necessary or would either on its own suffice in light of the other new primary schools opening: Harris ED, the new Bellenden school run by Dulwich Hamlet etc

Thanks for the link. It doesn't look like their application is granting them any changes to the existing configuration of the terraces or any of the external elements of the building as per V511's post. Therefore I don't understand your concern about sneaking through an extension when permission hasn't been granted for that via this approval. Is your underlying concern that they will take the equipment off the terraces and use them for leisure? If the terraces don't have leisure use already, then this application as it stands wouldn't automatically give them that right. If the terraces already can be used for leisure and simply haven't been, then I am not really sure you can object as the legal right to use the balconies for leisure would have always existed. It might be worth speaking to someone at the council to understand what use the external terraces already have (industrial only or leisure / industrial) and how this application impacts that if at all.

Worldwiser, why do you think the areas will be converted to terraces? Where would all the technical equipment be relocated? Is this just your fear or are the concrete plans to do this that you are aware of?

James are you saying the EFA selects sites for school without their consultation / sign off? Is the reason Southwark won't grant permission for the school on the existing ED Harris site because they prefer to expand Ivydale or are both the new Harris Nunhead and the permanent expansion of Ivydale required?

I think you are right that it will free up spaces throughout the area ideally and might make St John's catchments spread into Nunhead (Goodrich might be too far given the distance criteria would take the park into account). Still, that is very different to what local parents must have been expecting when they supported the creation of new local Harris Primary. You don't get a new Harris school but just a better shot at going to St. Johns! Part of getting your application approved should be identifying a genuinely local site that could feasibly be acquired and sticking to that plan- at least at primary level in London where catchments for schools tend to be very local. intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > " now that Harris have secured the police site, > is that really the best use of the hospital land > now? " No ,not at all . > > Might there possibly be some sort of domino knock > on effect - places freed up at Goose Green ,places > freed up at Heber ,places freed up at Goodrich - > which might mean Nunhead families able to get > places at Goodrich ???? > > Just brainstorming here - clearly what's needed is > more provision in Nunhead . Poor Nunhead families > indeed .

Fuschia-- Harris have already got a new primary opening in East Dulwich on the police site so I think they already have a leg in without pushing for the hospital site. That is part of what makes this entire thing so illogical. We already have and ED Harris Primary opening up soon. Intex, you are right, I forgot there was supposed to be room for both a primary school and a secondary school on the hospital site. However, now that Harris have secured the police site, is that really the best use of the hospital land now? James understanding why you think the NHS are behind this and what the financial benefit is for the NHS having Harris take a portion of the site would be helpful. More importantly, it seems really unfair to nunhead parents that their support for a new primary would be located in ED. Given Harris already have control of the ED Girls site, if that trully is feasible why do they need to consult with anyone over using the site for the Nunhead primary they have been asked to create.

Ah, okay, thanks

Earlier in the thread, someone involved in the process states the architects plans make no external changes to the building. I imagine that fact is why no consultation is needed on the design rather than the fact that it is a change of use. Please see V511's first post.

I think she means the one near the intersection with Heber Road on Lordship Lane. I'm not aware if a day centre nearby.

I have been trying to keep an open mind about the free school system as flawed as it is but the behaviour of Harris and Charter have convinced me it's totally unworkable in its current format. The request a few pages earlier to support both Charter and Habs and the let the DofE decide clearly is designed to stop the petty fighting for support. However, this is totally anathema to the ideology of free schools which is parents should be deciding and the DofE simply approving that choice is in line with national guidelines. Behaving Central govt choose schools for local parents is crazy and people should be supporting the school they want not just every school that hopes to make an application. Harris's behaviour in this strikes me as really underhand and reprehensible. That they would try to get there hands on a site that was in active discussion for use as a secondary school for the area by local representatives shows a total lack of consideration for local needs and desires. Locating the Nunhead school that far west into East Dulwich is clearly not ideal for addressing the Nunhead shortage. The fact this may prevent a local asset with local support from being created by the community is really appalling and I have zero doubt that Harris were fully aware of the plans local parents had for the sure when making their approach. We are very luck to have such involved councillors and parents in this area and if even with all of that in our favour, the I system cannot work, then to me it's fundamentally flawed. The schools involved (excluding Habs who I can't say have behaved badly) are all too self interested rather than considering the needs and desires of the community.

James this really appalling. Given how closely you've worked with Harris the fact that they did this without you or any other councillors being aware is quite disturbing. While a new primary in Numhead might be needed, locating in that part of East Dulwich is nonsensical. Furthermore, given the site is needed more acutely for secondary provision, that must play its part. Given the behaviour to date, I believe a formal petition is required and getting the ball rolling on those parents who signed up for a Nunhead primary formally withdrawing support if the school is situated on the hospital site should be started. Also why on earth would the NHS prefer a primary school to a secondary school? Are dimply saying Harris has outbid an existing offer on the table? If there is no place near Nunhead for the Harris school to be located surely expanding existing schools is the only realistic option.

The house was used to host the street art event in 2013 and was decorated ahead of being demolished as a temporary exhibit. At the time of its painting all the artists understood it was going to be demolished and that was part of the appeal. Also, I don't think any of the artists ever lived there. The owners kindly allowed the Dulwich Festival to host a major event there but the plot will be used for new residential housing in the area.

The 37 goes directly from East Dulwich to Brixton in circa 20 minutes. I don't really think Brixton is loads more accessible from West Dulwich than East Dulwich.

Thanks James. Has Haberdashers confirmed 100% that they are prepared to move forward? I believe they were awaiting the outcome of the assessment of one of the federation schools before confirming. Also, does the recent announcements regarding the size of the needed health facility on the Dulwich Hospital Site mean that the school will definitely be housed there or is there still some uncertainty in that regards?