Peckham native

Jimbo - the cat has made it quite clear that it will not tolerate being raffled - it has its image to think of. It will however, if found a nice E Dulwich home, agree to be the E Dulwich forum mascot. It is a very E Dulwich type of cat - likes its food & very vocal. Seriously I hope I can find a good home for it. It's a lovely cat & deserves better than becoming a tatty stray. I'd take it in myself but my own 2 cats would not agree!

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1620/996800/1855403/252974250.jpg This cat has taken up residence in my front garden. Has been around for over 5 weeks. Very friendly, would guess fairly young - bright eyes, seems in very good condition. A very loud miaow! Have asked around and no owners come forward. Anyone recognise it/offer it a home?

Tried looking at some old maps (which I love) to see if a stream was marked. Seems to be a field edge in the 1869 map. Also possible to waste many hours looking at how East Dulwich used to be!http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1620/996800/16459547/252788422.jpg[/img]

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bawdy I just get rather angry with the way people > seem to have lost the ability to think about > others and just selfishly act without thinking. > The number of times I have seen parents who just > completely ignore people in and around ED, almost > as if they dont actually exist! I have even > stepped aside once or twice to be nice to these > people, and these two yummy types were walking > along talking to one another in that rather > annoying home counties way, and they completely > ignored the fact I had stopped to let them pass... > They even saw me and looked directly at me.. Now > this sort of thing seems to happen more often than > not to me, and I just find it really bloody rude.. I have to agree with Louisa here. I have no problem with Mums with kids or Dads with kids or even Mums & Dads with kids. BUT I have noticed a particular type of parent with child in the E Dulwich area that seem to have a total disdain for all other pavement users. They either motor up Lordship Lane at full speed and expect everyone to get out of their way or they stop & talk to their friends and block all routes. I actually had to ask more than once for a particular group having a Sunday morning chat to slightly move one of their buggies so that I could pass. They looked at me as though I was being terribly rude for intruding into their conversation. I thought it was only me that had encountered this attitude but when I mentioned it to other friends they had similar experiences.

Found this document on Southwark's website dated December 2005 for a compulsory purchase order. 549 Lordship Lane SE22 (excluding house recently constructed in the grounds) 3 storey detached grade II listed period house with approx. ? acre garden. Victorian built 1870 Condition - Very poor. The house has been partially boarded up, although recent surveys suggest it is still structurally sound. Needs extensive refurbishment. The property has been empty to the EHO for at least 15 years. The property represents a possible health problem for adjoining owners and is continually flytipped and has a vermin problem and has an outstanding section 4 notice Prevention of damage by pests Act 1949 served by Public protection. A notification of dangerous structure was served on the owner in Dec 1997 under the London Building Acts 1939 The EHO, Building Control and Conservation teams have used all reasonable endeavours to contact the registered owner of the property (a Mr B Chandra Esq.), but have been unable to establish communications. The owner?s agent has applied for planning approval to demolish the property and new build, which was subsequently rejected on appeal to the planning inspector.

Not sure how up to date this is English Heritage I do believe that the owner tried to 'secretly' demolish the building by removing much of the internal structure a couple of years ago leaving the building even more unsafe than it already was. The council sealed the site off.

I had a Saturday job in Jones & Higgins shoe department. Once got a 50p tip (only got paid ?4 for the day) from a very nice American lady - it was the talk of the store! In the 60's and early 70's Rye Lane had all the shops you needed. Don't think my Mum ever needed to go further afield for food, clothes, gifts etc etc. Plenty of independent shops, a good market in Choumert Road plus M&S, BHS, 2 C&As, large Co Op and several supermarkets. Started to go downhill when the shopping centre opened in Lewisham.

I would assume that Cafe Nero are going to appeal the refusal and they probably have a very good chance of winning. The planning officer's report stated that the mix of shops/restaurants would not fall below the percentage set out in the UDP and recommended acceptance. I believe enforcement notices were in place re the change of use and the fans at the back of the building. Obviously the change of use enforcement is on hold until the result of the appeal. The planning officer's report is available on the Southwark website, if a bit hard to find, and will be good evidence for Cafe Nero!

My mum remembers the Rye being ploughed and used to grow crops fairly unsucessfully during the war and the huts up near the park entrance housed Italian POWs. Although they weren't really prisoners as they were allowed out and about during the day. Its only fairly recently that the old concrete bomb shelters were filled in on the corner of Peckham Rye and East Dulwich Road. I still call that junction the Kings Arms although the pub is long gone.

Off your rocker I'm afraid. While Peckham Rye Common is in SE15 and Peckham Rye Park is in SE22 I think you'll find that the area surrounding the park has always been called Peckham Rye:) Peckham and Dulwich were around as villages before East Dulwich. When developments spread we got East Dulwich West Dulwich etc. Perhaps we sould rename East Dulwich South Peckham!! Growing up in Peckham we used to 'go up the park' or 'go down the swings' at least twice a week and the park was a busy place and you didn't dare upset the park keepers. Glad to see it have its recent makeover but it was a bit of a shock when we first went back recently to see parents allowing their kids to run through the flower beds.

The old Friern School - as I will always call it being an old Honor Oak girl - is I believe the proposed site for the Harris' Boys Academy East Dulwich. It did have an opening date of 2007 but as no work seems to have started I think that might have slipped a bit!

Interesting that the Council officer involved recommended this for approval. An extract from the report from Southwark's website:- "The use of the premises for combined A1/A3 use would result in the partial loss of retail floorspace. Although the site is located within a protected shopping frontage, the proposal which involves a combination of both A1 and A3 uses would not undermine the shopping objectives of the area as it would not result in a reduction of retail uses below 50% of the shopping frontage in compliance with Policy 1.10 of the Southwark UDP 2007. Furthermore the proposed use compliments the retail function of the parade with no adverse effects on the vitality or viability of the shopping frontage. " Successful appeal for Nero looks more & more likely.

Totally agree swiders. In regard costs I wasn't only thinking of costs sought by the applicant but more the cost of officer hours at Southwark preparing for the appeal etc.

In answer to fractionater what will happen now is Caffe Nero will probably appeal. If the decision made last night by the Council is in anyway shown to be unsound Caffe Nero will win and there will be a high cost to the Council (council tax payers). If Caffe Nero lose they will not be able to operate on that site as a cafe/restaurant and no other business will be able to use that premises or any other retail space in Lordship Lane as a cafe/restaurant. If Caffe Nero wanted to stay in Lordship Lane they would have to buy out an existing restaurant. By the way Southwark have recently lost appeals possibly by being swayed by local pressure groups and not making sound planning judgements. Some councillors very scared of any critisism from the residents.