intexasatthe moment

" undue concern by Southwark officers to Harris-the-Carpet-King and his burgeoning private empire of dodgy 'academies'. "Not a single leaf in your grounds? Certainly sir, certainly!" " Unusually ( for me ) that aspect hadn't crossed my mind . But now that it's been raised .... odd that the one tree behind the Academy fence and on " their " ( given to them by Southwark on a long lease ) land is already dead .

Good post Lee. I understand from Robin C H that a madness similar to that which requires new dropped kerbs to have double yellow lines extending 2 metres across neighbouring properties ,also requires newly planted trees to have a metre square tree pit . So planting new trees is going to be tricky except where very wide pavements exist . Not East Dulwich but I'm very upset by the work ( carried out as seems usual in Southwark in summer when the trees were in full leaf } by the extreme pollarding to the trees in Highshore Rd which used to provide some softening of the view of acres of asphalt of the Academy playground .https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4711546,-0.0738415,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s6nqRVLBF2FpYSb5oODOaFg!2e0

There is some suggestion that staff are less than happy at Harris Boys http://antiacademies.org.uk/2014/02/nutnasuwt-issues-first-strike-notice-at-a-harris-academy-harris-boys-academy-east-dulwich/ http://www.harrisdulwichboys.org.uk/28/latest-news/article/117/nut-nasuwt-strike-action So I guess there may be a high turnover .

Kiera - I absolutely agree about Whateley Rd and Lordship lane and I too got the " I'm dealing with it " response from JB when I asked if the bins could be relocated . Yesterday while waiting to turn right at this junction the chap behind me ,impatient I assume at the delay ,overtook and roared out into LL causing on coming cars to swerve .( obviously more to do with his mental health than the poor visibilty I know )

Many ,many sympathies PB . Not sure what else to say . Worrying that the planning conditions are so easily flouted and that it's up to residents to police them .

The argument about whether the existing building is " incongruous " is a red herring isn't it ? Or is it just to pave the way to get a very incongrous design accepted ? And thinking about the existing property ,someone has pointed out to me that houses with 130 or less sq metres are not considered suitable in this area for subdivision . I wonder if that might be a factor here in wishing to demolish and replace with 2 units ? Regarding building in back gardens - can you give an example where this has happened ? Actually built in a back garden ,not on a garage court ,not on a site previously in use as a commercial property ( be it joinery/police station/garden centre/plant nursery )? While I agree that all applications are unique and that 30 Hindmans is unusual it is by no means true that long gardens are a rarity in East Dulwich .You've only to look at map to see the space behind Barry Rd ,Friern Rd ,Forest Hill Rd etc The Dulwich Supplemental Planning Document is described as This SPD will be part of our framework of planning documents. It will be a material planning consideration in deciding planning applications. It will help ensure that the council makes decisions transparently and provides clarity for members of the public and developers . and has more weight than you imply . And you do little for your credibilty by making wild statements like " the SPD is a very good and useful document but if always totally adhered to we would have no new flat developments in East Dulwich and the housing crisis would be further enlarged."

Thank you very much TG ,that's really helpful.

In the past I've taken my mother to a service organised by "The Dulwich Foundation " . Think it involved the local private schools cadet forces . Does anyone know what is happening this year ? Or have any details to similar local services ?

I agree Penguin . And firstmate . no one will be drumming up my support .

I think that's very fair of the architects to come on the forum . I'm still looking at the application and can see how much work has gone in to it - much more than some . I'll come back with specific questions if I have any .

Yes Slad , you're trying really hard not to divert the thread by getting sidetracked into one where people jump in to criticise others aren't you ?

SLad - horse . high . get off of .

And ( re 30 Hindmans ) spouts the same old tosh ( some of it seemingly lifted from the application for 21 Hindmans ) about existing examples of houses built on backland . 97 and 99 Crystal Palace Rd for example . Perhaps they're confusing garden centre for garden ,Police Station for garden ? That degree of spin makes me seriously doubt the accuracy /reliabilty of the rest of the application .

Bit harsh SLad . Minder seemed to me to be pointing out that in the Lewisham incident the police et al could have been a little more proactive in keeping the traffic moving .

messageRe: Petition re Dulwich Hospital site new Posted by samstopit Today, 12:17PM Tessa Jowell has tweeted a link to an update on the Harris web site which confirms that Harris Nunhead has been put back to 2016 subject to a site being found and consultation with local families. http://www.harrisfederation.org.uk/26/future-projects/20/harris-primary-academy-nunhead ( to save people having to scroll back )

There are 2 issues here - 1 whether the development is appropriate and should have been approved and 2 the impact of the building works on the neighbours . Nos 2 is worth complaining about . There is a planning condition that requires the builders to work in a certain way . By the sound of it the builders are not working in a considerate way . This is worth complaining about and it needs to be reported to planning enforcement .http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200500/planning_enforcement/3256/how_to_make_a_complaint Has this been done ?

Blimey ,I thought you did too meant that the man had crapped by the tree as well .

It's already illegal to park across a dropped kerb - as per Southwark's website even if there are no markings . I believe with skips on the road you have to purchase a special permit . FWIW apparently alongside the street policy relating to yellow lines for dropped kerbs a new protocol for planting trees has been introduced . It requires any new tree planted to have a tree pit one metre square . So that won't be possible as it will leave no pavement space for pedestrians . So no new trees can be provided on pavements . ( I'm generalising here ,no doubt the good burghers of Dulwich Village and surrounds will be ok if wider pavements exist there .) So I'm inclined to think the dropped kerb policy is more about incompetence /lack of thinking things through than a conspiracy to bring in CPZ's . But then I'm often naive in my thinking .

What everyone else has said . Special mention for The freeholder, Dulwich Estate, which owns 1,500 acres of property, roads, parks and probably air in the area

That's really well put Mark . Wonder how we can get that message over to the correct dept at Southwark ?

What have I done ? How do I undo it ? No ,don't tell me . I won't understand !

Bloody hell . Everything - all posts ,titles etc - is in italics now . Or is it just me ? Have I infected the thread ?

I was not paying attention and as you rightly identified was omitting the / . Sadly I don't know about HTML or overt HTML coding . Maybe I could swop neighbours and solve my parking and formatting problems in one move .

I guess we'll need a secret masonic type indicator to show which dropped kerbs are available for others to use .But it would have to work on parking wardens so that they didn't inadvertently issue tickets . thank you for the advice . Though I notice that using that method on my laptop now means that everything following also appears in italics . But I think this is particular to me as it's a problem I have if I copy and paste anything into an email . Following text then adopts the style of the copied stuff . But that's all off topic !

Mark - thanks for your post . Which as usual clarifies things for me . The TMO aren't very visible to people at the moment . By coincidence I had spotted a planning notice in Highshore Rd . But it was very high on the lamp post ( certainly too high for me to comfortably read as I'm short and wear varifocals ,so much tilting of head involved ) and included a whole list of orders . From looking at the TMO on Southwarks website I wasn't able to spot any specified length of yellow lines for dropped kerb applications . I suppose more info might be available if one scans the barcode ( forget it's name ) as invited . But I don't have a phone that's capable of that . So yes I totally agree that it would be helpful to treat dropped kerbs as planning applications .And that then the policy around them would be open to public consultation as would the granting of individual applications . And yes - street policies to dovetail with other planning policies . Seems obvious .