intexasatthe moment

"Have I missed a co-ed, non-faith, non-lottery school, within a mile of Charter2? " Academy @Peckham ? One and a half miles ,but closer than Kingsdale .

bonaome - I think that giving siblings priority over those with special medical and social needs it sends the wrong message . And I just think ( probably oversensitive ) that sentences like these " Attention will be given to those pupils who learn most quickly as well as the more able linguists who will also be able to study Mandarin. Talented musicians will be able to apply for a scholarship to support tuition in vocal/instrumental teaching " seem to outshine these "Those pupils whose abilities develop at a later stage will also be given appropriate attention. If for any reason a pupil arrives at our school without essential literacy or numeracy skills, we will support them with an entry-year nurture group, rapidly bringing those pupils to the standard expected to access the rest of the curriculum. Tailored support will also be available for students whose first language is not English. " but I think I'm being over sensitive .

Southwark's free bulky collection is fantastic and yes they take freezers ,fridges etc . You can arrange on line http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200084/recycling_and_waste/1667/bulky_waste_collection

Oh dear oh dear oh dear . Guess this is what happens when you do away with LA control of schools ,have no Southwark Admissions Forum ( yes I know ,no longer compulsary ) and have an education system which looks to competition to drive up standards . Having said that I agree with Harris Fed that Charter 2 could have been more imaginative in their offer of admissions policies .The zoned approach with inner and outer zones ( like but not the same as Bacon and Harris Crystal Palace ) . So decreasing impact on other close schools and still giving priority to local residents . Also agree about the seeming curriculum offer being to more academically gifted and low profile of SEN provision . I have sympathy because The Academy@Peckham is always undersubscribed and Charter 2 seems very popular with those who could apply to Peckham . But .... I don't buy the implication that Harris weren't aware of the consultation .Despite the omission from the formal consultation of SOME Harris schools it appears others were consulted . Speaks volumes of the lack of community involvement if the local schools all failed to be aware . And why can't Harris now meet with Charter until September unless their main concern is to delay the process and call foul . And Harris seem to forget that Free Schools are to offer choice ...people want an alternative to the Harris ethos . Dear dear dear .What a waste of money ,time and energy spent on fighting over who gets the pupils/best pupils . And an argument against this dreadful fragmented ,privatised education system .

" The one thing that jumped out at me though is that the Harris Federation seem to have decided to take on the role of pantomime baddie, lobbying to have the opening of the school delayed for at least two more years and the number of places available reduced, saying (p.43) 'we will challenge any decisions to proceed with all the means available to us'. I actually have a slight sympathy for Harris because clearly the new school will affect their intake, but this smacks of serious sour grapes. Some of their stated objections are laughable (i.e. it shouldn't open for two years because otherwise it'll have to have a temporary site - er, what about Harris East Dulwich Primary, still waiting for its own permanent site after two years?). I'm really shocked that Harris wants to take up arms against such strong local support (98% of an extraordinary 1173 responses) for the new school to open. I know Lord Harris has a lot of influence with the DfE but I very much hope in this case he has overreached himself ." Totally gobsmacked at this . Off to read report .

"I think some people's confusion is assuming that taking Jarvis Road as the nodal point means that the school entrance would be there" But Harris ED Girls are having an off site nodal point at j.of Shelbury and Colyton so presumably Charter 2 could have one slightly away from site boundary ?Or does the argument about that nodal point being equi distant between the girls and boys school justify that ? Though I can't see why ,2 different schools ,2 admissions policies .Or does Harris just get what it wants ? Charter 1 has their admissions criteria measured from an entrance some distance from the building doesn't it ? I suppose it might be possible to negotiate a footpath from Jessop Rd to school building if the parcel of land doesn't sit near this boundary ?

Agree - look for T marks ,they commonly indicate maintenance responsibilty . Our title deeds didn't show any but our neighbour's did so we knew on one side where the responsibilty lay .

Yes ,James please explain . How can the admissions policy be a planning consideration ? PS Noticed your wee small hours posts recently ,hope you're ok .

Celia Hammond always want old towels ,sheets etc . http://www.celiahammond.org/lewisham/

Do you think the ants nest in the black plastic bag of leaves I'm hoping will turn into compost is good ? Will it help the process along ?

Did you get a copy of the Title register as well as the plan ? Sometimes this has reference to boundaries and maintenance . Have you tried getting a copy of register and plan for your neighbour ,this might show their responsibilties for boundary maintenance ? Tricky all this I know .Wish you luck .

By why did 2 councillors abstain ? Surely they had a view on such a planning issue ?

Sorry to state the Bl**ding obvious but something very wrong in way planning applications considered ,if only that councillors abstain on such an important issue . But maybe I just don't understand .

Of course ,so sorry . Lots of conditions at least ? Amendments to design ? Understand if no one has heart to reply .

How did the meeting go ?

Wulfhund - everything's on a spectrum . And although there is currently a "storm" ( aka people trying to influence policy by accessing consultation )on here about a few planning issues, the effect on their outcome remains to be seen . And of course consultations are only spin ,they're not ballots where you vote for what you want .

Wulfhund I would be /am concerned that it would be in Sustrans ( and that of LA's and TFL ) interest to design a consultation that reaches very few people and that it delivers a predestined result rather than reflecting people's views .

Wulfhund - good to have the info I suppose but the fact that "That's how they're doing the whole programme " does nothing to alay concerns re bias and independence . And stating that " with what actually gets delivered being determined more by the consultation process than any overriding goals/standards." won't make it so .

I hope those opposing this dreadful planning application concentrate on planning considerations and not so much on the non relevant traffic disruption /danger to children . It's been said many times by more eloquent posters than me " Qwe June 23, 03:41PM Construction noise, traffic, disruption, danger, etc, are not relevant to the planning decision; these type of issues are not material considerations from a planning point of view - objections of this sort should be ignored by the planners. These objections may, however, raise the background noise level and may increase the chance that someone looks for another reason to reject. "Any development in a conservation area must conserve or enhance the conservation area - this development does neither, in my opinion. The original layout would enhance the conservation area, and it is possible that the committee, who make the decision, may agree. This is a positive message: development in keeping would be supported by local residents and there would be no reduction in the number of new units. There may be an angle under the Southwark Core Strategy 13 Environment. The basement is a totally unnecessary development and sets an undesirable precedent for other local developments. This would impact the ability of Southwark to meet their commitment to ensure that new build 'minimise' energy used in the development. The basement is a vanity addition to project, designed to increase profits for the developers, and results in additional, avoidable, cost to the environment - which would appear contrary to the adopted Southwark Core Strategy." "Re: Dulwich Estate - fit to run conservation? Posted by Penguin68 June 23, 09:07AM For those concerned about the enormous and unnecessary basement proposed on the SG Smith development site, and it's implications on child safety Just to make it clear, the basement per se has no implications on child safety - although fears (unsupported by actual facts) about its construction process and resulting vehicle traffic have been raised. All building work has safety implications, of course. Indeed, all life has dangers; one of the jobs of parenthood is to teach children about these dangers so they can act safely. We all have to compromise on our lives at times in order to avoid dangers - compromising around building works has the advantage that these are time limited, and construction dangers are thus relatively short term." "fazer71 June 23, 02:16PM The best way to deal with this huge OVERDEVELOPMENT is to use what was originally on this site (ie prior to the bomb damage the horrid SG Smith prefab Garage) as a yardstick to the overall size of any future development. [www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk] This is the line of attack we must use against this monstrosity of a proposal. A refusal from Southwark Conservation given the hundreds of objections is what we should expect.! There is no way the proposed development meets the requirement of this site, it is blatantly over sized above ground, the scale of any development should represent what was originally built on that site around the turn of the century." and so on

ianr thanks ,I'm aware of JB's attachment and also Sidhue's help - see my post yesterday "Ah ,could be in the the doc attached to JB's post ( July 06, 01:20PM ) . Despite Sidhue's best efforts ,I've not managed to open this ."

Doesn't seem to have worked . Oh well ,I'll just carry on being stupid and remaining ignorant . After all if I can't work out how to open the file I probably won't understand the content .

Sorry ianr for forgetting that . I've downloaded something ( Zamzar ) which I hope will enable me to open the files . Thanks for reminder .

Thanks James . Is there any data I could access that shows traffic levels in Southwark streets ? And would the TfL framework and Southwark's overview also be available ( to the likes of me ) somewhere ? sorry ,just noticed James's remark about exiting this discussion for the time being .Anyone else know if data is available ? Ah ,could be in the the doc attached to JB's post ( July 06, 01:20PM ) . Despite Sidhue's best efforts ,I've not managed to open this . Anyone read it ? Does it show traffic use of individual roads ?

" James ,you say " I believe I have answered questions posed " but I .and others ,seem to have missed this . Could you give a link/s to help us ? I've put them in bullet points below for clarity . 1 What exactly is the issue you're trying to solve ? 2 what is it that makes Melbourne grove a special case compared to many other road in ED ?" 3 Where is the ED traffic overview,? 4 how will all these different things impact the area as a whole? 5 Who is/has looked at that...anyone? "

James - these points from rahrahrah and first mate remain unanswered .Can you help us with them ? "What exactly is the issue you're trying to solve and what is it that makes Melbourne grove a special case compared to many other road in ED ?" "Seriously you cannot do studies on individual junctions/roads and use these as evidence to prop up funding requests. Where is the ED traffic overview, how will all these different things impact the area as a whole? Who is/has looked at that...anyone? "