Dogkennelhillbilly

Some of that is embarrassing to read e.g. "How can you appeal effectively when the appeal is in another country and you can?t go there?" Well...yeah, that's how visa applications from overseas work!

Castleton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's a precedent for that, the building at the > elephant. Can't remember the nickname but it has 3 > turbines at the top that have never worked? > > Only the lower floors were for social housing No, that's different. You're talking about Strata House, which was a private development on private land. A condition of planning permission was that a certain proportion of flats were designated as "affordable". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strata_SE1 The proposed building is a Southwark development on land owned by Southwark.

Sydney Carton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark says half the development will be social > housing, presumably the bottom half, the lower > floors with no park views. So the upper parts will > be very desirable apartments, which will go for > top dollar. I don't think that's what is being proposed It, at least going by what is said here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ru5ioQ17lVcEQD1yGfdlQCOuQ4y2ZoVm/view It says that half of the flats will prioritised for (existing) local tenants in housing need (of which there are about 40 on the Lordship Lane Estate). It doesn't say the others will be sold or rented at market (ie high) rate. Neither does it say anything about top half or bottom half. Where are you getting your information that the top flats will be sold on the private market? Is there other info from the council that says that?

Sydney Carton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark says half the development will be social > housing, presumably the bottom half, the lower > floors with no park views. So the upper parts will > be very desirable apartments, which will go for > top dollar. I don't think that's what the information says. It says that half of the flats will

Your second sentence explains why the first sentence won't happen.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the council seems to be doing nothing to > encourage the electrification of cars More untruths. The council is giving a 75% discount for residents parking permits for electric vehicles and had for years subsidised the installation of on-steeet charging points for those who can't charge at home. They've also bought a bunch of EVs for use in their own fleet where it's practical to do so. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-projects/electric-cars?chapter=3 https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2017/nov/southwark-council-supports-switch-to-electric-vehicles Southwark council doesn't control VED, ULEZ, main roads, fuel duty, VAT or any of the other major levers for electric vehicle takeup. There's not much else they can do to encourage EVs - apart from perhaps to exclude vehicles fuelled by petrol or diesel from certain streets or areas. But I suspect that might give some of our more "fervent" members an apoplectic fit and they don't actually want that despite their concern trolling. "Gosh, I'm just SO WORRIED the council isn't doing enough to support EVs and cycling, and that's why I oppose reducing car usage..." Naturally electric vehicles will do nothing to solve congestion - but they will at least make it quieter and less /locally/ polluting.

Rockets Wrote: ----------------------------------------------Southwark have previously > said they want to reduce car usage by 50% across > the borough. And that's completely different from saying "Southwark Labour Party [has an] avowed objective to drive (sic) private car ownership out of Southwark?", which is simply unhinged nonsense.

Oh that's good news.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Penguin68 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > the Southwark Labour > Party's avowed objective to drive (sic) private > car ownership out of Southwark? Another idea you've invented.

The Fox and even the one in Forest Hill have fairly okay punters (except when I am in), but the Spoons opposite Sainsbury's at the top of Gipsy Hill is a classic Spoons hellhole. The price of my objection to the owner's politics is speedy service and low cost. If they can't do that, my principals surface again!

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > The idea that we all > become locked into our own locales, traveling no > more than we can walk or cycle...which 70 years and more of real > life have told me is not something to be wished > for. You are criticising an idea that you yourself have invented and that no-one (Swedish or otherwise) is proposing.

hammerman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > any crime > activity on the Denmark Hill Estate should be made > known to people living in the area surely? They did - they issued a press release that was picked up by the Standard and other local papers. https://news.met.police.uk/news/two-men-charged-with-firearms-offence-437741 https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/19722569.woolwich-man-charged-submachine-gun-seized-police/

> The Wetherspoons in Denmark Hill and Forest Hill > are the cheapest pubs round here, also the Bird In > Hand in Forest Hill is pretty cheap. Fox on the Hill had huge problems with service in summer - you couldn't get to the bar to be served and you couldn't get served through the app. People were leaving after 45 min waits. It was a shambles. The garden is nice but the owner is awful. Alleyns Head is pretty reasonable and homely without being scabby. Dulwich Brewing Co never really hit ita stride somehow...

A softly-spoken, velvet-clad Russ Abbot buying a nice bottle of Spanish red in Dulwich Wines.

And obviously you're taking your life into your hands if you skip the queue at the polenta and hummus bar of the Palmerston...

holloway Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pool table in the Castle is unlikely to come back, > was the source of a lot of trouble apparently. I read a criminological study 20 years ago that identifies that bars with pool tables have 60% more fights, and 60% of those fights statt within 2 feet of the pool table. (I'm making up the figures but that was the general idea). I think they're also quite expensive to fix.

Mystic Meg buying Wensleydale in Mons cheesemonger. I did not see her runes.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Castle is the last > unreconstructed pub, and whist not a usual > Guinness drinker it seems right (and reasonable > value) there. > I used to go in the Castle quite a bit but stopped because of the terrible smell from the toilets. Has that been fixed now?

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > didn't spoil views of Dulwich > Park for residents. I'm not a resident on the estate so feel free to discount this as YIYBYism, but surely we can't refuse to build housing just because it partially obstructs a view of the park for some residents...? Doesn't everyone's house spoil someone else's view to some extent?

Well that's next term's Design & Technology syllabus sorted...

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ab29 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > How about a six storey block on Court Lane > > instead? Or several? > > > Why the fixation on court lane? It's part of the "Southwark is being ruined by a cabal of Court Lane-residing plutocrats and Bolshevik civil servants" conspiracy theory.

Angelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I paid ?5 for a glass of coke in the pub in > Dulwich Village - which is enough to make you turn > to alcohol and buy a pint instead Luckily the Crown and Greyhound has procedures in place to discourage alcoholism eg ensuring that no-one gets served within half an hour of approaching the bar

It's all getting a bit personal on here. Let's discuss the issues, not each other.

Where's the cheapest pint [of lager, on draft] on Lordship Lane, then?

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mmmmh that's the point the nursery has a 'no drive > policy' in the same way JAGs and Alleyn's has a > 'no drive policy' - in that neither has Pretty vapid point when JAGS and Alleyns don't have "no drive policies", and neither does the new nursery. Reading the document would clear up your (evident) confusion.