BrandNewGuy

The Council has just published its statement to the Planning Appeal which makes it very clear that if it had been in a position to make a decision, it would have refused planning permission on five grounds: Impact on Metropolitan Open Land; Development on Other Open Space; Reduction in sports facilities; Height, scale and massing of the residential development; Affordable Housing. Here's a summary: Impact on Metropolitan Open Land 8.1 The Council will submit evidence to support its case that the development is inappropriate on land designated as MOL. If the Council had been able to determine the application, it would have refused permission for the following reason: ?The proposed football ground with its associated boundary treatment, terracing and floodlighting is an inappropriate development which would fail to preserve the openness of the Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) within which it would be located. Insufficient ?Very special circumstances? have been demonstrated by the application to justify inappropriate development on MOL. As such it is contrary to Policies 3.25 `Metropolitan Open Land' of the Saved Southwark Plan (2007), Strategic Policy 11 ?Open Spaces and Wildlife? of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policy 7.17 ?Metropolitan Open Land? of the London Plan (2016)?. Development on Other Open Space 8.5 ? If the Council had been able to determine the application, it would have refused permission for the following reason:?The residential blocks and stadium building would be located on land designated as Other Open Space (OOS). The development is not ancillary to the enjoyment of the OOS, is not small in scale, would detract from the prevailing openness of the site and fails to positively contribute to the setting and quality of the open space. Land of equivalent or better size and quality would not be secured and the development would therefore be contrary to policy 3.27 ?Other Open Space? of the saved Southwark Plan (2007), Strategic Policy 11 ?Open Spaces and Wildlife? of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policy 7.18 ?Protecting Open Space and Addressing Deficiency? of the London Plan (2016)?. Reduction in sports facilities 8.8? If the Council had been able to determine the application, it would have refused permission for the following reason:?The proposed development would involve a reduction in sports facilities across the site. As such, it would fail to contribute to the health and well-being of borough residents contrary to saved policies 2.1 ?Enhancement of community facilities? of the Southwark Plan 2007, Strategic policies 4 ?Places for learning, enjoyment and healthy lifestyles? and 11 ?Open spaces and wildlife? of the Core Strategy 2011, and Policy 3.19 ?Sports facilities? of the London Plan 2016.? Height, scale and massing of the residential development 8.11? If the Council had been able to determine the application, it would have refused permission for the following reason:?The proposed residential blocks, by reason of their height, scale and massing would result in an overly dominant and visually intrusive development which would be out of character with the prevailing built form of the locality. It would be overbearing when viewed from the adjacent open spaces and appear as an alien form within the local townscape. It would therefore be contrary to saved Policies 3.11 ?Efficient Use of Land?, 3.12 ?Quality in Design?, 3.13 ?Urban Design?, and 3.27 ?Other Open Space? of the Southwark Plan (2007), Strategic Policies 11 ?Open spaces and wildlife? and 12 ?Design and Conservation? of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policies 7.4 ?Local Character?, and 7.6 ?Architecture? of the London Plan (2016)?. Affordable Housing 8.14 This proposal would provide 16% affordable housing when measured by habitable rooms. This is significantly below the 35% expected under Core Strategy policy 6, and the mix of affordable homes does not include the social rented homes required by that policy? Therefore, if the Council had been able to determine the application, it would have refused planning permission for the following reason:- ?The development fails to contribute the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing to meet the needs of the Borough, London and the UK as a whole. The development has not demonstrated that it could not support the expected level of affordable housing whilst remaining viable. It is therefore contrary to Policy 4.4 ?Affordable Housing? of the saved Southwark Plan (2007), Strategic Policy 6 ?Homes for people on different Incomes? of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policies 3.12 ?Negotiating Affordable Housing on individual private residential private residential and mixed use schemes? and 3.13 ?Affordable Housing Thresholds? of the London Plan (2016)?. http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!7Q9%2fYBVUPYmwj4QPQ6%2fFxg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > turtle Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > JenWren > > thanks for posting and giving us the facts, > sorry > > you have had such a terrible time and I hope > the > > police catch this vile person who has caused so > > much hurt, with this disgusting tweet, to you > and > > animal lovers everywhere. > > > Sorry, but the "hurt" felt by animal lovers > everywhere as a result of this (as you quite > rightly put it) disgusting tweet, is not even > remotely comparable to the hurt and potential > damage faced by the business owners and their > staff. > > Yes the person that sent the tweet needs to be > dealt with (by the police), but all those that > jumped on the business owners without knowing the > facts, are idiots (funny that in Brulysses' case > they actually used that word to describe someone > else). And those that actually threatened them > should be dealt with (again by the police) more > harshly than the moron that actually sent the > tweet. > > So no apology from Brulysses, let alone editing > the OP to state that they were full of shit. What > a surprise. ^ ^ ^ Totally this

There are problems with the headline figure that 40,000 premature deaths are caused by air pollution (and that's all air pollution, indoor and out, and not just vehicle emissions) in that it really refers to loss of life expectancy rather than something as brutal as killing you. And that loss of life expectancy for many of that 40,0000 might only be a few days over a lifetime, which is regrettable but not quite the impact of "kills 40,000 people a year", which is what many people interpret the phrase to mean. I'm all for reducing air pollution as it's clearly been shown to be harmful, but I'm unhappy with being potentially misleading with the statistics just because it's for a perceived good reason. [This is not having a go at Rendel, but at how these figures get passed about by the media]

Yes, I don't know where he got that idea from. Their numbers are down, but they're not out...

The Green Party's candidate is Rashid Nix, who stood in the 2015 election. Here's what the Green Party says: Rashid, a filmmaker from Brixton, stood for Dulwich and West Norwood in 2015, coming fourth with 9.4% of the vote. More recently, he came third ahead of the Liberal Democrats as the Green Party?s candidate for the London Assembly constituency of Lambeth and Southwark. Rashid said: ?I?m delighted once again to have the opportunity to represent the Green Party as parliamentary candidate for Dulwich and West Norwood. ?The Greens are often counted out but last year we came within a whisker of beating Labour in Gipsy Hill, proving that the people are no longer going to accept this false choice between two flawed establishment parties. The Green revolution is coming.?

Had an enjoyable dawn chorus walk around Green Dale fields this morning. Many thanks to all who came and listened. We heard and/or saw robin, blackbird, wren, great tit, blue tit, goldfinch, chiffchaff, blackcap, song thrush, mistle thrush, carrion crow, herring gull, greenfinch, wood pigeon, dunnock, ring-necked parakeet, magpie, house sparrow and possibly more, though I'm rather tired...

Jenny1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Definite swift sighting. Five wheeling low over Mr > Liu Chinese Restaurant! I guess the cloud cover > brings them down. They ARE back. Will set the > official 'return of swifts to ED 2017' date as May > 6th - unless anyone can report an earlier > sighting. Yes indeed :-) Just heard their 'scream' near Dulwich Hospital. Here are the return dates as reported here for the last seven years: 2011 ? May 9 2012 ? May 1 2013 ? May 17 2014 ? May 8 2015 ? May 9 2016 ? May 4 2017 - May 6 I checked the weather for 2013 and it turns out there were persistent cold northerlies throughout the end of April and early May, which must have held them back. Not unlike the last couple of weeks this year, but it's great to have them back.

... And as it's Hedgehog Awareness Week (!) here are some tips about how you can help hedgehogs: http://www.britishhedgehogs.org.uk/hedgehog-awareness-week-2017/

They are much rarer than they used to be round here, but there are hedgehogs living and breeding on Green Dale fields (behind Sainsburys and DHFC).

And Southern have responded speedily by trimming back the greenery, I see ? although simply pulling up or cutting it would be better than spraying, but hey-ho. Also, the cracks leading down from platform 2 have been marked out, so hopefully some action there too.

From the South London Press: "Budget cut fears could see boss Gavin Rose leave Dulwich Hamlet" Gavin Rose is set for crunch talks over his Dulwich Hamlet future this week ? amid fears that a cut to his playing budget may see him walk away. The South Londoners missed out on promotion to the Vanarama National South after a 2-1 defeat to Bognor Regis Town in their Ryman League Premier Division play-off final yesterday. Rose is in his eighth season at Champion Hill, during which period they have not only won promotion and consistently challenged in their current division but also developed a number of talented youngsters who have made the jump into the Football League. ?My contract runs down in July and I haven?t signed a new one because the current owners basically want the budget cut,? Rose told the South London Press. ?If feels as if that would be pretty hard for us to get any success, because our budget is quite moderate as it is. ?If it gets cut further it would mean we wouldn?t have a chance of competing or getting the club. ?I?ve not committed at the moment because I don?t want to be a disservice to myself or the football club. ?I?ll have a chat with the club this week. I want to do the best job I can for the club. We have a moderate budget but get gates that are three times more than anybody else?s. ?For me to look myself in the eye I have to give myself and the club a good chance of being successful next season ? I don?t want to be going backwards from the work we have done so far. ?I?ve put my own personal security to the side because I felt I had a job to do. ?We are nowhere near some of the other budgets in this division. I don?t want to name other teams. ?Myself, Junior Kadi and Kevin James have put the club first ? we wouldn?t just spend money for the sake of it.? https://www.londonnewsonline.co.uk/23584/budget-cut-fears-see-boss-gavin-rose-leave-dulwich-hamlet/

... And there's going to be a dawn chorus walk on Green Dale fields on Sunday from 4.30am :-) I'll post full details in 'What's On...' tomorrow.

Kick-off delayed until 3.15 to let the crowds in. *Lots* of away fans!

Fantastic night ? trying to work out if I can do the day at the seaside on Monday...

Burbage Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Was the coalition worse than a minority > > conservative government? > > It was worse for the LibDems, who got a kicking > for everything the Tories did (tuition fees) and > not much credit for the few pledges they got > through (e.g. dropping income tax threshold, > creating a government-backed pension scheme, which > the Tories naturally nicked), despite having less > than 1/5th of the cabinet. > > All folk remember now is that the LibDems did the > tuition fee thing, and they went into secret talks > with the Tories to stitch up the coalition. But, > to be fair - they went into secret talks with > Labour, too - that's how coalitions happen. They > could have not had secret talks, and then we'd > have had to have another go at an election but, > given the fraught financial conditions of the > time, it was probably best we didn't. > > A minority Tory government simply wouldn't have > been possible. A government can't be formed with a > minority, and so Brown would have hung on as PM, > despite having resigned as Labour leader, until a > coalition had been brokered by Whitehall. That was > a prospect that nobody, with the possible > exception of Brown, much fancied. This. With knobs on. I sometimes feel that this country is too politically immature to deal with coalition politics ? which is essential in an ideologically fractured world.

Without a cap, you can end up like this chap in Finland :-) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1759791.stm

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > France respect intellectuals in general. Not sure how much this is true any more ? you hear quite a lot of sneaking regard for what the French see as Anglo-Saxon 'get up and go', in contrast to French stasis. And many French people think, rightly or wrongly, that the paternalistic and technocratic experts of the postwar French elite have got them into the mess they're in.

Thursday's big game against Enfield is not all ticket, but you'll save time getting through the turnstiles if you do buy a ticket in advance: http://www.seetickets.com/event/dulwich-hamlet-vs-enfield-town/champion-hill-stadium/1098181

... although Macron's stint as an investment banker for Rothschild won't have helped him in that regard. What this vote does have in common with Brexit and Trump is the marginalisation of the traditionally dominant parties.

Great spring walk on Green Dale and through Dog Kennel Hill Wood this morning, led by Daniel Greenwood of the London Wildlife Trust. The good news is that the whitethroats are back from Africa ? and even better news is that we heard a lesser whitethroat too. That's a first for me around here.

Comfortable 3-0 win today at Wingate and Finchley, so it's home vs Enfield in the playoff semi on Thursday. And I believe I'm right in saying this is Dulwich Hamlet's highest final position in the league for 37 years :-)

Very sad indeed. As an 'expat' Villa fan, I had the pleasure of meeting him on a couple of occasions. He was always a gentleman, which was reflected in the way he played ? always physical but always fair. One of the great Villa players of recent decades. RIP Ugo.

The Green Party is holding hustings on the 27th to decide its candidate.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You could say to cyclists - you already have > roads, so just get on them and ride! That would be > the same as saying to pedestrians - there are > loads of pavements, so just walk (or push your > wheelchair, etc). I would argue that the latter > example rings true, mostly. > My meaning is that there is always a way to > encourage anything. In this case, as I suggested, > a modest amount of ?? spent on ensuring even > pavements, safe crossings, clear signage and > pleasant environments (inlcuding trees and plants) > would help pedestrians know that their interests > are being taken care of in a specific way, not > just letting them think that once there is a > pavement, then that's all they get. Exactly. For the record, I am all for promoting cycling at the expense of the motor car, but the Townley Rd / E Dulwich Grove junction episode showed how much a lobby that brings in cash can skew completely the best use of resources ? in that case, ?200,000 was p*ssed away just because there was a pot of Boris's money to be spent. For every well-meaning activist, there's someone else eager to get their hands on Other People's Money.

Walking's fine for my commute ? four miles and an hour and ten minutes door-to-door (ED to London Bridge) with a pleasant enough walk through the back streets of Cmaberwell and Walworth via three parks. I jump on the train if it's wet or too cold or too hot. I wish the pedestrian lobby was as vociferous as the cycling lobby, but I guess there's not so much cash in it ? perhaps shoe leather manufacturers could take up the cause.* * Unnecessary cynicism