LondonMix

Agree with DJ on this! DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it's a great idea. The car park is > underused as a car park anyway. Has been for > years, with people using the free parking in > Morrisons instead. The Copeland Industrial estate > has been a hub for artists and arts for years now, > so there's already an established arts circuit > with an established audience in Rye Lane anyway. > The recent production of Macbeth was a sell out > for example and I support anything that makes > theatre and art affordable and accessible. So it > has my thumbs up.

Anyone had underfloor heating installed in their kitchen? If you don't mind me asking, roughly how much does the wet-system cost and did you find it heats the room well (particularly if you have engineered wood floors vs tiles)?

This is probably tactless but I actually need a new gate and was wondering if any one here could recommend a local firm? Sorry to those of you who had the misfortune to targeted by these theives! Thanks, LM

You should negotiate that into your contract.

Landlords can't set rents to cover their mortgage. It works the other way around. Demand for housing is what drives rents. Enough people who own houses and have lost them to the bank can attest to that. Similarly, mortgage companies have put in covenants in their contracts for many buy to let deals that they can't rent to tenants on benefits (which is really just discrimination dressed up like business). I think the point Chillaxed is making which is a fair one is that if people hadn't been given the right to buy, they would still be in social housing so that in and of itself hasn't created a shortage. Demand for social housing has gone up for all the reasons you've mentioned so all things being equal more social housing is needed than before, but that would be the case whether certain people had bought their homes or not because those people are either now living in their homes or would still be renting from the council. The two issues aren't as closely related to each other as you make out in your post above. However, I agree that property ownership doesn't forever end the cycle.

I don't think naked breasts are automatically porn but Page 3 is definitely intentionally sexual.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And number two, we need the bedroom > tax abolished, or at least waived if a local > authority doesn't have suitable accomodation to > rehouse someone. There needs also be a grace > period of adjustment, so that only those who > genuinely have no desire to adjust, by turning > down reasonable offers of alternative > accomodation, are punished. Driving people out of > their homes of 18 years and longer without any > sensitivity or proper alternative is just nasty. I agree with the above entirely! I agree generally with the sentiment that everyone should be housed without over-crowding etc and this should be judged by need. However, I wonder if the money it would take to create all the housing demanded in London (including the infrastructure spending needed to keep up with the expanding population) wouldn?t be better spent on creating jobs elsewhere in the country. Maybe London will just turn into a super-metropolis, which is fine I guess but it seems like abandoning the rest of the country.. The right to buy scheme is a tough one as I?ve seen both sides of it. I know people who bought their homes that way, fell on hard times, had to sell them to someone else and burned through the profit the made. It didn?t lift them out of poverty at all and now they are being housed in private accommodation on housing benefit. On the other hand, one of my colleague's Irish-Catholic family was lifted out of poverty by it (according to him). If right to buy meant that the people who bought would never need social housing again (nor would their children) then it would be a good idea. Allowing people to own their own homes rather than rent them off the council is a good thing. But life isn?t as simple as all that!

I was alarmed by the distance mentioned above so contacted the school. Please see below the figures from the Charter admissions team for furthest offer made based on the distance criteria only (safest walking): Sep 2011 intake - 1,848 Metres Sep 2012 intake - 1.490 Metres Sep 2013 intake to date we are at 1.710 Metres

That's pretty self-righteous. Its a question in the survey and acknowledging that there is a trade off involved in these decisions doesn't mean that someone doesn't care about the poor, aren't civilised etc...

Great thread! Does anyone have a view on induction hobs vs range cookers? Also how do any of you with children find island seating with kids?

Agree totally that the inner London should definitely include poorer members of the community in the overall socio-economic mix. However, with housing a scare resource, what do you think DJ is the right percentage of London's housing stock that should be allocated to social housing. It can't be everything and for proper planning, there needs to be some target in mind. That's what I am struggling with. I think higher than the national average is okay as London offers more opportunities but I don't know what the right number is given the impact it has on the cost of private housing. DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I also am vehemently against the idea that poorer > communities should be farmed out to the suburbs > (as though they have no right to be part of a > capital inner city). Paris did that....and the > consequences are there for all to see. >

I definitely agree with point 2 but also recognise that this will be a challenge. The real pull would have to be jobs I think. Incentives for businesses to locate in major cities outside of London would definitely help. The stuff people value about London won't develop unless people who like to buzz of London and will patronise those types of activities can find work in industries that inspire them elsewhere. Infrastructure etc matters but jobs really are the biggest factor I think. London creates a lot of employment which is why its such a mecca for talented people. Point 1 is harder. Dense residential developments work well in newly developing areas. However, its difficult to plop a massive high rise in an area full of low rise structures. I think because London is so green (parks everywhere), living in apartments is actually easier here than in lots of cities. However, so much of London has already been developed as low rise homes its hard to know if there are enough suitable areas to make this a real solution. Too Good To Be True Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think any answer should involve: > > 1. Building up - there's no reason why we can't > have high quality high rise of the sort you see in > Singapore (large communal gardens, swimming pool, > well sound-proofed, decent-sized rooms etc). I > don't think the younger generation are as rigidly > anti-flat as their suburban-utopia parents. > > 2. Encouraging the expansion of a second UK > metropolis. Building radially from London just > encourages inequality. e.g. HS2/cross-rail will > just encourage more people to commute into London, > making London property more valuable and > increasing the benefits bill for those in social > housing. Why not start building radially from, > say, Manchester, until it reaches the population > density required to sustain all the great > amenities London has?

I agree that how socially housing is allocated geographically is important. The demand for social housing (due to internal migration from elsewhere in the UK) is virtually limitless. How concentrated social housing is in any given borough and how of London?s overall housing stock should be allocated to social housing are tough questions. If you think the answer is anything between 100% or 0% how you come up with a figure is difficult. Every house that is developed for social housing that could be developed for private ownership, exacerbates the shortage of private housing in London and vis-a-versa. Whatever is developed it helps one segment of the community at the expense of the other. As long as more people want to live in London than can afford to (private and social) these decision will remain zero-sum. London is turning into a city of extremes with a smaller and smaller middle income population. I say this not knowing what the answer is?

Well, the Village Infants school goes to the age where Hamlet picks up so perhaps that was the logic. The catchment for Dulwich Hamlet isn't nearly as tight as most of the schools in ED. For the last several years its been between 700m and 850m which is quite wide by local standards. minder Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > oimissus - I think the only state primary school > which has an entrance at age 7 is Dulwich Hamlet. > So unless you live right on their doorstep (pardon > the expression) then you would have to look at > Reception at age 4/5 at a state school near to > you. > > I've often wondered why Dulwich Hamlet has this > entrance at age 7 while every other state school > in Southwark and surrounding areas have the normal > Reception age entrance.

You are only on the waiting list for schools above the one you've gotten into. The wave starts with those who reject their offers for any reason (going private, Judith Kerr, home schooling, moving out of the area etc). The person who was number 1 on that waiting list will be offered a place. If that school is that persons first choice, they won't be on any more waiting lists. If its the parent's second choice, they will remain on the waiting list for their first choice but the school place they had been offered will become availbale. Then it ripples through the system I think.

That's only a rule of thumb. The legal basis for Right to Light is how much illumination the room gets and what's considered adequate varies from one area to the next. However, if you haven't breached this general guideline it?s unlikely that there will be an issue.

If anyone actually wants to work it, here are the guidelines: The Right to Light rule of thumb test is that a line drawn at a 45 degree angle from the bottom of your window shouldn't intersect the roof of the building next door for example. In creating this line, you are effectively creating a right-isosceles with its base starting the bottom of your window running parallel to the ground up to your neighbours wall. Because the triangle is an isosceles the base length will equal the height of the triangle. This basically means that you'll pass the 45 degree angle test if the gap between your window and your neighbours wall is greater than or equal to the height of the portion of their wall above the bottom of your window and ending at the eaves if its a sloped roof. For example, if the bottom of your window is 2.5ft off the ground, and the gap between your window and their wall is 7 feet, then the total height of their wall from the ground to the eaves could be 9.5 feet (7ft+2.5 ft).

How high was the single storey extension? That makes a big difference.

Sorry, I should have clarified that for an side return infill its very unlikely that planners will ask for a light survey if you aren't doing something very high.

T-e-d, this was a certificate of lawfulness but under the planning history in the Officer's report you can see that the successful appeal of Crawthew Grove was incorporated into the analysis. http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/278229_1.pdf I can't say if that's what swung it or not. Right to Light is a legal concept. If you have a Right to Light claim, you can sue and or get an injunction even if Planning Permission has been granted. A single storey extension in a terrace though with eaves at 2.2m and a sloping roof is very unlikely to breach Right to Light. Just as a rule of thumb the 45 degree angle rule is used by a lot of LA's though its actually more complicated than this to determine if there is a Right to Light issue. In a terrace, the neighbour you are not attached to at the back would have to extend into their side return. Your side return plus the boundary gap would need to be less than 4.5 feet if the eaves were at 2.2m with a sloping roof given the position of a typical low window (circa 2.5 feet above the ground). Anyway, I am not an apologist for bad extensions. I think they are inconsiderate too.

First Mate-- All of the details matter including the orientation of the house, the design of the roof (including materials) etc. Light surveys are quite complex and are done based on fixed BRE guidelines. If you google Daylight and Sunlight Assessment you'll get an idea of who specialises in this sort of thing. Also, light pollution is another issue they deal with which is the flip side. My best friend is a residential architect so its something that she deals with a lot and yes, I would say rarely does a single storey infill extension cause a real problem regarding loss of light. Most planning officers assume as standard that if an infill doesn't extend beyond the original bounary of the row of terraces and if the roof eaves are circa 2.2m there won't be loss of light. I have friends who are dealing with a big development close to their home and a light assessment needed to be done. To their surprise, there was no loss of light (and this is a significant project) but there was some light pollution so some changes needed to be made. I think we often suspect we'll lose more light than is actually the case. What does bother people is the loss of outlook which can be very depressing, particularly of the materials used are of poor quality. Loss of this type of ammenity though is a key consideration for getting planning approval. Its about balance.

Precedents do make it much more likely that something will be approved though nothing is ever guaranteed. Light studies would disagree with your other point regarding single storey side extensions that do not extend further out than the existing end of either terrace.

The comments section (surpringly nailed it). The person who said that the aspiration as diseease comment was a reflection of the "no your place" mentality in Britain was spot on. I've seen it first hand and its one of the only things I dislike about this (my adopted) country.

I have friends without kids and they don't mind kids in pubs if the balance is right. The Great Exhibition seems to have found that balance. The Herne though is impossible for people without children. It doesn't even feel like a pub. It feels like a childcare centre that serves booze. Redressing the balance though is risky. They might not appeal to either demographic anymore which is a real gamble.

Based on Stacey-lyn's link it appears they still want to attract families but just want to increase how many people they can serve in the pub. Losing the entire garden to a playground must decrease total potential turnover. I guess they hope parents won't abandon the pub in droves just because it does not have a playground anymore. Let's see.