Aristide

sorry i missed the nt off should,

the two sites to the south of goodrich were market gardens, others in the area were for farriers, light industrial etc. I just cant see why it should be housing, as long as planning policies on light, overlooking are complied with.

I must say i quite like it, not sure what the use for that land would be otherwise.

Pugwash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > SE22 Andrew Brock in Shawberry Road second that

I'd be more upset at that ugly tree obscuring the view of all those lovely buildings

thank you

Tarot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rackmans. have arrived.Who exactly is giving > permission for the planning. > Why isnt there a local resident comitee overseeing > these deals (oops sorry i meant permissions). > In a short time from now this area will look like > a ghetto slum,there are people already looking to > move out.7 Calm down dear!! I think you need to look at what Rachman actually did, i havent read of any bully boys scaring off tenants and neighbour with billy clubs. The problem with only asking local residents is that nothing will ever change. We need a professional and educated Planning department with which in Southwark, we are generally quite lucky, just be grateful that we dont live in the train crash that is Lambeth.

I have looked at the design and they look pretty good, personal preference admittedly. I do think its a shame that there is a general objection to any new development, there's tons of ordinary Victorian houses and most of them aren't going anywhere soon. I think the best way for our time to leave anything behind is these small interventions, certainly better than the wholesale destruction that we are now seeing around Elephant and Castle

Oh, it should really be '' rather than "" as I wasn't actually saying it, but thanks anyway!

englanders and brexit should probably have been capitalised, capitalised should probably have had a Z but hey, its a forum little Miga (caps ok?) ok ok or should it have been OK or Okay? I suppose it depends upon whether they are being beaten to death on not. i hope you can unblow, (suck) your mind before the weekend, would be a shame not to.

> > Part of me wonders why on earth she'd choose such > a contentious and wrongheaded policy position at > the start of her tenure. takes your mind off Brexit though doesnt it? Especially to the majority of little englanders that voted brexit to prevent immigration, there not going to get that, but they might get their grammars back. Smoke and mirrors

phew, what a stinker, maybe they should have got an Architect, but then again look at the new Harris Primary!

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't non-grammar schools in Grammar school > counties also out perform comprehensives on > average too? or is that propoganda? genuine > question but I saw it somewhere I don't think so, look at the secondary moderns in Kent they have some of the worst results in the whole country.

seeing as only 25% of kids get 'selected' can we not call Grammar as an exclusive system for the 75% that get excluded.

There's middle class and middle class. Charter School parents are predominantly seen as middle class but not many of them find themselves hoovering up a large proportion of top acting jobs or cabinet posts, the middle class of another esteemed school on the other hand.... However thanks to good management and more importantly high levels of investment schools like the charter are sending more and more kids to top universities, the grammar schools debate is a distraction from the poor levels of funding that the schools in the rest of the country are getting, much like the 7 day a week care debate is for NHS funding.