Dogkennelhillbilly

"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.

Parking pressure comes from living in a dense urban agglomeration of 8.9 million people with 2.6 million cars that are parked 95% of the time...and the expectation that parking for private cars should be free.

If you click on the name of the bus stop, it tells you when the next buses are. If you click on P13, it will tell you when the next P13s will arrive.

If you want up to the minute online information about the current status of the P13 or want to know when the next bus arrives at your nearest bus stop, it's here: https://tfl.gov.uk/bus/route/p13/ Southwark doesn't run the P13. All a councillor could do is copy information from the TfL website - and as soon as they did so, it would be out of date.

Wish-powered equine transport sounds very sustainable.

Devastatingly beautiful, mononymous, pseudonymous, legendary schlager singer Michelle a couple of days ago, buying what looked like cream from Bora & Sons. Or maybe it was quark, I'm not sure.

As an update: Walter's has now closed permanently. The landlord (Dulwich Estate) has retaken possession of the premises. As the operators' note says, the burglaries must have been a huge blow, but there were other problems too. It's a shame as it was very well-reviewed by Jay Rayner. Also: initial reports indicate that a suspect in the shop burglaries in W Dulwich and Dulwich Village has been arrested, charged and even convicted and sentenced(?!?) in the last few days.

Tenuous.

Does any of what you have said relate to the issue in the OP or is it a generalised all-purpose rant about Sadiq Khan?

Which school? As an aside: parking on zigzags is an offence that csn be reported through Met Police online reporting. If you have photos and report within 9 days, the police DO enforce the law and fine drivers. It is dangerous and illegal and should be reported if possible. https://www.met.police.uk/ro/report/ocr/af/how-to-report-a-crime/report-a-road-traffic-incident/ Unfortunately it doesn't work for DYLs. Southwark is sending parking attendants to patrol outside schools at dropoff to penalise dangerous parking, but obvs they can't be everywhere.

It's a convenience store, not a supermarket. It's diagonally across the street from 2 other convenience stores and a hardware/dry goods store. What more convenience do you need? What kind of "game upping" do you want? Another 5p off energy drinks?

Oh jeez. Lordship Lane is lined with restaurants and cafes. But I'm not sure a chain convenience store is much better. Who knows any more?

Councillors don't run the buses and don't oversee TfL. The most accurate information will be on the TfL website or via the 24 hour helpline: 0343 222 1234. Maybe the millionaire owners of Abellio could offer their cars to passengers stranded by their refusal to pay bus drivers a decent wage? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/24/dutch-state-railway-to-sell-abellio-in-uk-management-buyout

Ronny Abraham, distinguished jurist and judge at the International Court of Justice, enjoying a half bottle of red wine at Le Cave de Bruno. Charlie Brookes (ex-EastEnders) filling a bright red, heavily modded Lambretta at Goose Green petrol station. Aviva CEO Amanda Blanc in the queue at Stephanie's one morning. I did not think it was a good idea to raise my scandalously high renewal notice with her, as neither of us had had our morning coffee.

Damn. 3 wasted young lives. Very sad.

They should do that. Asking the branch manager is unlikely to make them do that. I suspect only a bunch of fines from the police will focus their mind. But hopefully I'm wrong.

Obviously the reason for allowing the private concerts to take place is money. Council wouldn't even think about it otherwise. And obviously council needs money from wherever it can get it to fund its normal service provision. I'm begrudgingly okay with losing access to this section of the park, so long as the sum of money received is decent and so long as Gala actually cleans up/restores the location. In past years it doesn't seem like this has been properly done and checked. I don't believe any of Gala's sustainability bullshit when it leaves the site in a state. You seem to be blaming the council for your lack of awareness. Have you made the slightest effort to find out this information on the council's website? It's all there, in painful detail. As for your question about whether central govt has cut councils' income (central govt doesn't determine councils' budgets)...have you read a newspaper in the last 12 years? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme