BrandNewGuy

But as mentioned, parents are unlilkelky to add to parking pressures, just the hassle of drop-off and pick-up. In Curmudgeon's case, a third of the staff drive to school, which is extraordinary given that "we promote public transport use". Nobody's expecting "all" staff to use public transport, but if schools can't come up with imaginative and compelling ways of actually doing something about reducing car use in crowded urban environments, the situation's unlikely to change. And the issue has got nothing to do with teachers having a "tough job".

Curmudgeon Wrote: > Yes it is, it's one of those PC statements we > allow to pass because public transport is so easy > (yeah right) It's not PC, it's a practical issue to do with the provision of parking when a major building (a school) gets placed in a largely resdiential area. Public transport is neither easy nor difficult ? you make your own priorities accordingly. > > That said ... People drive in London...just > because you don't or have different political > ideals it does not mean that you can dictate to > teachers and school staff. I'm not dictating, I'm just pointing out that for thousands of businesses in London there is no parking provision. > Young teachers are > hard enough to attract to the area, can they > afford to live in walking distance? Would they > want to live and work in the same area? Young teachers aren't being 'attracted' to the area at all, as far as I know. Walking distance is not an option for the vast majority of employees in London but we all get by OK. > Is our public transport really that good or reliable? Yeah, usually ? we have our moans and groans, but it's a big busy city. It's not 'PC' to suggest that car driving should not take priority over all other forms of transport in London.

Curmudgeon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > School staff do not tend to live within walking > distance of where they work, although a minority > do. There is always a demand for parking. So a > school of 400 with what? 30 or so staff, plus > catering staff and grounds staff? And no parking? > That is simply going to cause a strain on the > local roads. > I work in a school with insufficient staff parking > and no visitor parking ...it is extremely > difficult to manage. And I've seen this happen > with numerous flat developments too Is it too much to expect staff to use public transport? There might be problems from parents dropping off and picking up, but that doesn't impact parking ? those pressures can be relieved by a strong commitment from schools to encourage public transport use by their staff. When the 'research' came out for the proposed CPZ near the station a few years ago, it became clear just how many local school staff were parking in nearby roads. I work for a company of about 40 where not one employee uses a car to drive to work. Why should schools be so different?

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This thread is inspired by my son who recently > looked at a packet of red lentils and asked, why > are they orange? I was stumped for an answer. > > Feel free to answer if you know and/or ask your > own questions. It might not be the explanation, but until the 16th century, there was no word 'orange' in English. We'd have used ' 'red' for what we now call orange. Similarly, the ancient Greeks had no common word for 'blue'. They saw all blues as varieties of light or dark 'green'.

Tinchy Stryder and the Chuckle Brothers.

There's a spoon on the railway track on platform 1 at ED station. Around the second carriage stop. Womnder how it got there. I took a picture of it and put it on Facebook.

Surprisingly funky slice of The Rockets from 1968 ? the band that Neil Young broke up to form Crazy Horse. Tap those toes...

Bird in Hand, Forest Hill. Proper boozer. Not that I'd actually go in, you understand, but watching it from the safety of the Sylvan Post is very entertaining.

I'm happy we no longer have the absurd grandiosity and extravagance of Labour's ?55bn "Building Schools for the Future" scheme ? a boon to architects, building consortia and those raking in cash for decades to come courtesy of PFI.

A big paper Christmas bell decoration in the middle of the ceiling ? no-one could be arsed to take it down.

... despite a certain ex-Forum regular swearing blind the Ivy House would go bust in months because she knew best :-)

As I understand it, NHS Property has an obligation to seek out the best options for land disposal (subject to it not being required for health purposes). According to a National Audit Office report, the chair of NHS Property Services? Audit and Governance Committee, said: ?We are clear that it is our role to reduce the operating costs of the NHS estate and to release land for much-needed local housing wherever possible and practical and we look forward to getting on with that task.? http://www.property.nhs.uk/national-audit-office-report-shows-first-year-progress/ And if the land is worth far more because it can be sold for housing, then that benefits the public purse. Which might be unfortunate from the point of view of putting a school(s) on the site, but that's not NHS Property's business. Robbing DfE to pay NHS?

A straggly flock of sixteen magpies flying overhead at 8.45 this morning at the Grove Vale end of Melbourne Grove. "One for sorrow, two for joy... sixteen for 'you've got a plague of magpies...'"

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My concern is for the health centre which seems to > have become a secondary concern in the fight for > school space. Hear, hear. And from a health perspective, as well as simply a quality of life one, if there's a school there with outside space and/or sports space, can that be for the use of the community too? It's not just the private schools who have an obligation to their locality. As an old-ish hippie, I think schools should be more like a local learning resource hub, to be used by the community as a whole, and not just by an age-defined cohort at particular hours. But I'm probably asking for the moon...

Sennen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also, staying on it's existing site is just not an > option as this has been earmarked for property > development by the owners. And that's the nub of the problem. The club is only 'threatened' in fact by its current owners who insist on moving it. I agree that that's a conundrum, because the developer wouldn't have bailed out the club otherwise. But blaming the Council for not bowing to the demands of the developer seems a little harsh ? particuarly as the developer has been coy to the point of silence about the nature of the development on the current DHFC site. As I asked before, if Haldey don't lay their cards on the table, what is there to 'negotiate'?

Councils being 'schmoozed' by proerty developers: "For the past 25 years, this conference ? Mipim for short ? has been held in Cannes. It?s a jaunt so lavish as to be almost comic ? where big money developers invite town hall executives for secret discussions aboard private yachts, and whose regulars boast that they get through more champagne than all the liggers at the film festival. Suitably oiled-up, local officials open talks with multinational developers to sell council housing estates and other sites. All this networking is so lucrative for the builders that they even fly over council staff. Last year, Australia?s Lend Lease paid for Southwark?s boss, Peter John, to attend Cannes. This is the same Lend Lease to which Southwark sold the giant Heygate estate at a knockdown price: 1,100 council flats in inner London to be demolished and replaced with 2,500 units, of which only 79 will be for ?social rent?." http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/14/yacht-cannes-selling-homes-local-government-officials-mipim

Seasick Steve ? hobo shtick for hip twits

So it's footfall not wealth. And I'd agree ? look at LL during the week and the 'specialist' shops are very quiet. Only the ED weekenders never see that, though their nannies might ;-)

It's either home or Dulwich Tandoori curry buffet. Yesterday at home it was a delicious warming pot of ribollita (lots of beans and kale). The roast thing is a complete nuisance on what's supposed to be a day of rest.

As an irregular attendee at DHFC games, I do sympathise with the club, but there are two separate issues here: 1. Should the Council take not just a positive but also a proactive role in helping DHFC? In principle, I think it should. As someone who was active in the Football Supporters? Association, I?ve long argued that small clubs are harmed by them not being seen genuinely as ?community assets?. In Europe, by contrast, many clubs (even huge ones) play at stadiums built and maintained by the local authority. Here, they are regarded just like any other private business. This is regrettable, but Southwark have no obligation to act otherwise and few if any other councils are actively involved in the well-being of their local small clubs. 2. Should the Council stop DHFC from having a new ground? Well, as no concrete proposals have been put forward, apart from the desire to encroach onto MOL, there?s not much for them to discuss. Why don?t Hadley redevelop the ground for DHFC where it is? Oh yes, because they won?t make a massive return on their investment. They?re the latest to try and push the Council into encroaching onto MOL and if they succeed, the financial rewards are huge.

Here's a pdf of their 'proposals', with a big blank where the pitch/ground currently is. See particularly pages 5 and 6: http://static.squarespace.com/static/53cf6640e4b07de11ec6cceb/t/53d6287ee4b00410ab9bc735/1406544019708/2014-07%20-%20Dulwich%20Hamlet%20FC%20Boards%20PT%202.pdf

. (Edited: wrong thread]

But Hadley's plan depends on building all over the existing ground and moving DHFC onto MOL. And we don't know what they intend to build as they haven't revealed it. How can Southwark respond otherwise at the moment? What is there to discuss?

Pink Panther Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwich Hamlet FC played on the site of the > proposed new ground (i.e. the current astroturf > pitch) for around twenty years up to 1931, when > they moved to the vast ground that partly occupied > the site of the current ground. So there has > already been a fully functioning football ground > with a stand, ancillary buildings etc. on this > site. You can still see banking from the old > terracing to the north and west of the current > astroturf pitch, so it is factually incorrect to > say (as many people seem to be doing) that no part > of Greedales has ever been built on, or that the > current astroturf pitch and floodlights are the > only development ever to have taken place there. The history is not very relevant as it's now designated Metropolitan Open Land regardless. And Hadley's plans for redeveloping DHFC's ground laughably suggest that the pitch, stand and all the ancillary buildings, approaches etc for DHFC will fit onto the space that's now occupied by the knackered astroturf pitch. I've no objection to tarting that up, but to suggest that DHFC could move to just that footprint is crazy. To build even a metre beyond the current pitch would be to encroach on MOL, which the Council have said is a no-no. I sympathise with DHFC supportes who see Hadley as the saviour ? which thus far financially they have been ? but they should remember that Hadley's priority is not the long-term welfare of the football club but making tens of millions from building on the current DHFC site.