BrandNewGuy

I've always been fond of Orwell's perfect (and therefore non-existent) pub, The Moon Under Water, as described in this essay more than 70 years ago: http://theorwellprize.co.uk/george-orwell/by-orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-moon-under-water/ Much as I lament the demise of the 'old school' boozer, I'd prefer Orwell's pub ? with the perhaps surprising inclusion of the provision of lunches and a garden at the back for kids to play in. Perhaps many of Orwell's generation lamented the loss of their own 'old school' boozers in the 70s and 80s. In reality, it's the closure of pubs that is the real tragedy, but as long as they survive, they can change - for better or worse.

Clarkshaws moved because the rent was considerably cheaper for their railway arch in Loughborough Junction than for their former unit on Tyrrell Trading Estate. The small brewery model in London seems to be closeley tied in with using relatively cheap railway arch premises ? something ED is lacking. So unless there's cheap rent, it's not going to happen, unfortunately.

Well, if you go there and drink enough bottles of Manns they won't be tempted ;-)

It is indeed.

... OK, 'yuppies' then :-) As I say, the pubco would be turning the screw even if the area wasn't gentrifying. It's what they're doing nearly everyhwere.

Maybe not, but the suggestion from some has been that the b**w-ins can't wait to get another tarted-up boozer and the pubcos respond accordingly. As Otta says, the area doesn't appear to be crying out for it. It's greedy pubcos who sre to blame who want to make as much as possible from every boozer, tarted-up or old school.

So it's the pubco that's the fault. It's not really fair to blame the b**w-ins. As I mentioned on the other thread, wet-led pubs are under threat all over London and elsewhere - and certainly not just in areas of 'gentrification'.

It?s appalling how pubcos treat the people who make them their money, but ?wet-led? pubs are struggling and shutting all over the place, not just in ED and the like. To put an optimistic gloss on this, as has been suggested above, the White Horse looks promising as a compromise between the old and the new which could be replicated elsewhere. We had a fine Friday night pint or three there the other week. And it?s not quite fair to tar all the pubs of East Diulwich with the ?boring homogenised? brush either. We're fond of the EDT and *whisper it softly* it?s home to quite a few old-style clientele who are more than happy to make it their local. Bet Louisa's bursting to join this thread ;-)

There's an ad for our new leisure centre overlords, Sports and Leisure Management (SLM Ltd.), in this week's Southwark News - saying "Coming Soon". No details yet, but you can register your interest here for a chance to win six months' free membership: https://www.everyoneactive.com/southwark-register/

I'm waiting for the light and bitter to make a comeback. My summertime drink in the 80s. Nowadays it would come pre-mixed in an artisanal bottle, which would spoil the main advantage of a light and bitter ? there's always more than a half of bitter in the pint glass, so over the evening you gain at least another pint. If you have enough of them, that is...

It's usually OK as I catch it from Heber Road, so there's still lots of space, but on train cancellation days it's heaving. A book and an iPod are some consolation, however.

08.10 and 08.20 cancelled from ED this morning. Grateful for the National Rail app but not happy about getting a slowly crawling crowded 40 bus again.

And the council have promised to extend their free gym and swim offer to all residents in July ? there's currently a pilot for those under 18 and over 60. Has anyone used this? According to the Southwark site, Dulwich Leisure Centre's free swim hours for the over-60s are 3-4pm Tue and Thu, with gym 8-10am Mon.

Well, British Rail was profitable in the 50s and again in the 80s. Nothing wrong with profits, as long as they're not excessive.

One major problem is that no journalist ever properly investigates such disagreements, they just parrot the lines given to them from both sides. The union says that Southern is understaffed, so even just a few absences cause problems. The management says there's a sicknote culture. How does Southern compare with other rail operators in terms of numbers, shifts etc? And what is the absentee rate through sickness elsewhere? Until questions like this are asked and answered, then the poor old commuter will carry on suffering.

1985 Volvo 360 hatchback. Piece of crap that my father gifted me when he bought himself a proper car. It did have a sunroof, though ? until a troop of monkeys at West Midlands Safari Park painstakingly stripped it and the windscreen of all of its rubber seals.

Well, if they can't work out how to get a postal or proxy vote, then maybe writing a cross in a box might also prove too demanding.

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know very little of that case, so thanks: that's > interesting. Interesting that the SofS took into > account the situation facing the club. Nothing I > have heard suggests DH are in anything less of a > parlous situation if this doesn't go ahead. > Hadley pulled them about of a financial abyss a > few years ago of course. There are other parallels > there too. Greendale has been developed over the > years: the astro-turf pitch, the tennis courts, > the current and previous stadium on its flank, > which alters the openness. Indeed the banking on > Greendale is the remnants of the pre-1930s DH > stadium. The Tooting stadium is pretty large, way > more intrusive than what's planned for DH. I think > the elements of the Dulwich Hamlet stadium to be > built on MOL are 250cm high. But any bits of history are irrelevant in terms of its current level of 'development', which is a long way away from those cases you cited. There may well have been a huge Tudor palace there (there wasn't) but that's of no current concern to the planning committee. And if I was a cynical planning committee member (which I'm not), I would ask whether or not DHFC was still in a 'do or die' situation with regard to this application, given that HPG have indeed pulled them from the abyss. Unless of course HPG were to pull the rug from under them if the application failed... and they wouldn't do that, would they?? And don't forget we were told exactly the same thing when the Homebase planning application was made ? and refused. > It will be for Southwark to balance the > various arguments. All signs are at present > they'll reject. Peter John seemed implacably > opposed even when the proposal was nascent. Peter John is an astute politician, but there are plenty of other pressures at play within the Council. We will see.

But you'll recall with Tooting and Mitcham, for instance, that there was already significant development there, unlike on Green Dale. From the planning committee's report: "7.6 The development that has been undertaken on the land has already significantly altered its open character, which, despite its continued status as Metropolitan Land, has taken on a far more ?urbanized? character than was previously the case." So why was it eventually approved by the Secretary of State? "7.4 The Secretary of State approved the existing use and built development in 1997 subject to conditions and a Section 106 Obligation (ref 96/P0574). In reaching this decision, the Secretary of State placed considerable weight on the fact that if the development did not proceed the club was likely to close, which would be a significant loss to the community. It was considered that the provision of the stadium went well beyond what was essential to outdoor sport or recreation and accordingly could not reasonably be considered as an appropriate use within MOL. Despite this it was decided that the benefits that were gained by the development in this instance outweighed the harm to the MOL." Which is precisely why Hadley and DHFC are concentrating entirely on the completely unproved idea that DHFC would go under unless the application goes ahead. And that is what we were told with the 2003 Homebase application too, incidentally.

But there is a proposal to build on Green Dale.

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well "MOL is MOL" is an impressive addition to the > armoury. Doesn't quite top "3G pitches cause > cancer" or Hadley arranging the Stonewall and FC > Assyria games for PR purposes though. With regards to MOL, you can try to point out dereliction and rubbish (both of which have occurred under DHFC's ownership), but that doesn't weaken the designation. And I've never suggested either of the other things.

No. I'm happy to use my own arguments, thank you. There have been exaggerations and misleading comments from those both for and against, but I'm not sure I'd grace them with the word 'tactics'.

No it isn't taper. We have had no evidence that this is the only possible option for a secure future for the club. It's about building 155 flats on land which currently has a covenant binding it for sport and recreational use. And MOL is MOL whether you like it or not.

Revised Dulwich Community Hospital plans are to be consulted on next month: Attend our planning consultation event: Date: Wednesday 8 June 2016 Time: 4.00pm - 7.30pm Venue: United Reformed Church, East Dulwich Grove View and comment online. The proposals and survey will be available at: http://tinyurl.com/CharterSchoolED from 8 to 15 June 2016 View proposals at Dulwich Community Hospital from 8 to 15 June 2016

It was ? until last Friday when it went back again, to June 12th. It's bizarre and annoying how this date has changed at least half a dozen times ? the earliest date given was, I believe May 11th. It seems even more odd given that the process for such a large development seems to be the same as it would be for someone applying to build an extension. No public meetings or other proactive ways of engaging with local people.