macroban

It's a truly frightening place after dusk with bad lighting and blind corners. Young people might feel a little more safe there. The smell of stale urine can be lessened by holding your nose as you walk down the stairs. I wonder how much it would cost to compensate all the retail and commericial businesses and buy the buildings in front of the station? It would be a very large "investment" to create a small square.

I last used this shop 30-odd years ago. It stocked bulk supplies of cleaning materials in large packages. It was mainly a trade-counter operation, but would supply retail customers with individual packs of a gallon or so. Must have ceased trading about 15-20 years ago?

No glasses! I mis-read that as BLT purchasers. Not all risks taken for profit work out. Perhaps there will be some distress sales.

Is there not a West Dulwich Forum?

By how much would prices have to drop before a significant number of young people would have negative equity?

If West Dulwich is SE21 West of the railway line it's the sort of place you drive through and don't bother to stop.

There are people in their 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and more who enjoy living in East Dulwich.

I'm losing track now. "Yummy" has a new meaning? I thought it meant something that tasted nice and you would like to eat.

I like this partial definition better than "elderly primae gravidae": "mum's [who] are granny age (40+) when they have their first kid", but would change the age to 35+. Guess I'm a "wrinklie" though.

Going al fresco. It's good to see a local business observing the planning regulations.

An extra metre or so over fifty years won't make much difference.

These folk need a new home. Any suitable vacant properties in East Dulwich?

Nice little mystery here. So which site is closing? Could it be the Woolwich are temporarily in Barclays while the Woolwich is being refurbished and then Barclays will be vacated?. Why would La'pec buy a site they can't redevelop? 68-70 Lordship Lane would be a large wine bar!

As the Woolwich and Barclays are within 300m of each other one of them was due to close. The Land Registry doesn't yet have the price paid for 68-70 Lordship Lane. It's an interesting site as it's the first suitable site in Lordship Lane (is it?) to have been sold since the change in the planning zone criteria which means it can be redeveloped as a four storey building.

> What is the reason for the 6th form being on the boys site (is it a financial issue?) - there seems far more room at the girls site. Slippery slope scenario points 9 and 11?

Does anyone know the background to La'pec Properties (Bridgend) Ltd buying the Barclays Bank site?

> "GV15" (by the station) The Toilet Block?

If "any" means "all", I'm sorry to read that, Sean.

I was using the medical term "elderly primae gravidae". For men who don't know, these are women who are after a certain age when they have their first pregnancy. I have noticed some age-slippage in the definition over the years though. [i can't see any definition from Sean.]

Several times, smith. Thanks for another reinforcement of the correct meaning.

There is a much higher proportion of elderly primae gravidae in East Dulwich these days. Is this an element of the definition?

This still has zero bids.

News of our local benefactor.

Thank you to whoever uploaded the complete set of planing documentation. The Cundall document is interesting in the way it aggregates data for both the Girls' and Boys' Academies in the submission for the Boys' Academy only. Disaggregation would be more appropriate and might produce different results. Also of note is the Eastward bias in the selection of residental streets for the "consultation". Ivydale Road is affected by the Peckham Rye site? In my view, the presentation of distorted data invalidates this document for planning application purposes. Also of interest is the explicit mapping of the catchment area which includes SE23. The Colin Buchanan document has the "Magical Wednesday" effect. Were less "useful" surveys done on other weekdays? The matter of school coaches has also been omitted (unless I missed it). I have previously posted an URL referencing the planning considerations that are likely to be applied to this site. These considerations are largely subjective matters of opinion. It seems that Southwark has already formed its opinion. There has even been an allegation of a "done deal" that will pre-empt the decision. In my opinion, only an objection based on fact and not opinion will cause the school to be scaled down to a reasonable number of pupils for the site. A planning decision that ignores, or makes the decision in absence of, an objective fact can be challenged. At present I can only think of one such potential objective fact.

Not that I know much about IT, but it looks like the read/unread flags on a couple of Ant's posts won't flip and need to be re-set manually.