Dogkennelhillbilly

Southwark is brain dead because Thames Water's 100 year old cast iron pipes keep bursting? Cuckoo! Cuckoo! 🤣 #SouthwarkDerangementSyndrome

Still time for you to lead the charge, Dave. It's obviously something you're passionate about.

Seems weird the council doesn't just shake the magic money tree.

tbf, those chippies are all either awful or 15 mins' walk away.

I'm interested to hear if CPR Dave is organising anything for Crystal Palace Rd or anywhere else. Aside from abdication, it is pretty much a once in a generation event by definition...

More Southwark conspiracy theory.

Councillors aren't involved in the management or supervision of the P13 bus. The diversion must be very inconvenient for those who rely on it. Were notices applied to the bus stops? Are these emergency works on Bellenden Rd that caused the diversion?

https://tfl.gov.uk/bus/status/?input=P13&lineIds=p13&direction=outbound

you brought up an entirely different number of your own recollection, and the sought to debunk it. The excess deaths number you are "discrediting" does not appear in the article.

"An overwhelming majority [67%] of people in London support the banning of wood burners, which are the single biggest source of tiny air pollution particles in Britain...emissions of toxic pollution particles from wood-burning in UK homes [have] more than doubled in the past decade...Dirty air causes 26,000 to 38,000 early deaths a year in England, with the particles linked to many health problems, including heart and lung disease as well as dementia and depression... About only 8% of people in the UK burn solid fuels indoors, meaning a small minority are responsible for significant amounts of pollution. Two-thirds of these people live in urban areas, where the impact of air pollution is worst, and virtually all of them have other sources of heating." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/20/wood-burners-urban-air-pollution-londoners-support-ban The whole thing is completely nuts. It's a tiny number of townies pumping out a stupid amount of the most lethal pollution.

Angry mobs don't carry flaming torches any more: their PM2.5 emissions are terrible.

I admit this may be more notable than famous IYSWIM but: Nobel prize winner for economics Angus Deaton, drinking coffee outside Romeo Jones. Also this week: Strictly host and singer Alesha Dixon, buying Pom Bears at the cafe in Dulwich Park.

Yes. Yes.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/development-plan/supplementary-planning-documents-spd/spd-by-planning-topic?chapter=3 The 'affordability' levels quoted, as regards what will be affordable in 2-3 years time when the Berkeley Homes development is built and goes on the market therefore will be irrelevant... You really need to read into the subject of fhe affordability requirement if it bothers you this much. Your suggestions that there is no definition of affordability or that affordability criteria can't take account of the timeframe for completion are simply wrongheaded. What does "in keeping with the area" mean? More postwar lowrise rubbish? Or more Victorian and Edwardian lowrise terraces in various states of repair? Either way we won't get much new housing added.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/development-plan/supplementary-planning-documents-spd/spd-by-planning-topic?chapter=3

🤣🤣🤣 1) yes, any kind of housing ("luxury" or not) would be better than a multistorey car park. 2) no-one believes or suggests that Berkeley Homes has the slightest interest in helping poor people. They're not doing 35% affordable because they want to. They're doing it because otherwise they won't get permission for the project. That much is obvious - and fine.

"Concern trolling" about housing affordability to oppose dense housing construction is simply silly. 1) 35% of the development is reserved for affordable housing. The remaining 65% will be market rate (ie unaffordable) housing. 2) the developer has to maintain as much retail space as there already is. Any other development is in addition to that. 3) The land is already privately-owned. It has a crappy shopping centre, a massive car park, a bus interchange, and a petrol station. This is a terrible use of land. The quicker it can be better used, the better. 4) London desperately needs housing. We need to maximise density, especially when it's close to public transport. The site is constrained and there's only one way to go: up. Building low-rise would be silly. If not here, then where in London? 5) Right now, the site is housing precisely no-one. 35% of something is better than 100% of nothing. The developer will pay for it all. There is no money in local government for building housing and no interest at central government. This land is never, ever ever going to be compulsorily acquired by any level of government and see 100% affordable or social housing. https://southwarknews.co.uk/news/regeneration/peckham-braces-for-the-next-chapter-in-aylesham-centre-redevelopment/ lol - https://www.change.org/p/we-say-yes-to-berkeley-homes-plan-for-peckham https://www.ayleshamcommunityaction.co.uk/post/701927998906089472/online-community-public-meeting

Thanks for posting, that sounds like good news!

Not the most compelling argument...

Surprised you haven't mentioned the World Economic Forum, flouride and decimalisation.

This Times column about Poundland made me realise how downmarket Dulwich has gone in recent years. I mean, there used to be a time you could go down Lordship Lane without worrying you'd bump into one of Murdoch's vile cabal.

The real crime is the mustard corduroys and ugly stripey sweater combination

To be fair, discussion on this board doesn't reflect real life accurately. A few members of the Motorists' Liberation Front might continue to wage the keyboard war, but most people in Dulwich dont have cars, most car drivers don't drive every day, most drivers aren't continuing to complain about minor street closures 2 years ago...

No more bureaucrats telling us what to do, cut the red tape, etc etc

...about what? "The market" produces a lot of toss. It will produce whatever is good for capitalism. It won't necessarily produce what's good for people.