Penguin68

I am not sure how long we can all hold out for 19th century suburban values in a 21st century populated London. The skill would be to encourage good high(er) density housing, rather than simply nodding through any old rubbish. And it would be also good to recognise that whilst S London is to be forever deprived of high quality mass transit systems (such as tubes etc.), pretending that we can also thus live without cars is a complete madness - environments have to be designed with cars in mind, not futilely trying to design cars out of the environment. Bicycles as well as, not instead of, cars.

Taking Lordship lane, and a block either side from East Dulwich Station to the old police station by Whately Road, I count 36 appeals recorded. Taking no account of the nature of the application, I find only 9 of those were upheld for the applicant plus 1 partly upheld. Three of those 9 were for the same site address. All others - nearly 75% - are marked "Appeal Dismissed" However I do think you need to take into account re-submitted applications, where only minor or cosmetic changes have been made (if you haven't). I wonder how many, as it were 'overall' applications to make significant changes have, in the end, not got through. I believe some developers apply initially for something they feel has little chance of success, believing that a subsequent, slightly 'scaled back' application will be more readily acceded to.

Has anyone noticed that there seem to be a very fine collection of berries/ rose hips etc. this year in and around Dulwich? Driving recently I passed brilliant displays down road after road in front gardens. Old wives tales suggest that if the berries are 'better' than usual, this portends a hard winter (with the idea, I think, that nature is thus providing for wild life in hard times, though how that would work beats me). Anyhow - it will be interesting to see if the old wives are right!

it was a community thing and the important bit was the safety of those women in the area - nah, just votes. That is most unfair - if James had diverted monies intended to be spent in his ward to someone in another ward he would have been acting improperly. If you want your ward to spend money on such items, you need to get the representatives in your ward to apply for money for that purpose (rather than any other purpose).

This is the perennial problem of Southwark electoral wards not being wholly contiguous with communities of interest - the ED ward and ED are not the same thing. And at times we are a 'community' with the wider 'Dulwich' - perhaps an area 'of mind' bounded by West Dulwich, North Dulwich, Denmark Hill and Forest Hill Stations.

I think, outwith linking your own, frankly, in the grand scheme of things (in which I include the Syrian civil war and the rise of ISIS), somewhat petty problems with aircraft noise to the holocaust being over-egged and distasteful - the point many, including me, have been making is not that the aircraft noise doesn't exist, of course it does, but that it doesn't disturb us in the way it disturbs you. So we are not denying anything, not even that you are clearly very disturbed by the noise. We just don't share your level of angst. So your accusation of 'being like' holocaust deniers doesn't even make sense. We are denying nothing, just not sharing your levels of pain. The noise is there, it really doesn't bother me. If anything, what you are implying is thus that not being bothered by the aircraft noise is the equivalent of not being bothered by the holocaust. And if you think that...

To suggest that people who are not themselves as concerned as you are about local noise from aircraft - NOBODY, is denying that aircraft fly overhead nor that they make noise when they do so - are equivalent in any way to people who deny that an intentional mass slaughter of 6 million people ever took place is an obscenity. There are things that I get worked up about as well, but I would feel deeply ashamed if I ever allowed myself to equate people who disagreed with me as 'equivalent to holocaust deniers'. Your fixation with aircraft noise appears to be coming pathological - as are the levels of insult you are happy to offer those who have the temerity either to disagree with you, or to be concerned about your tone of voice to those who disagree with you. It is a simple truth that, for many of us, the noise locally of aircraft does not pose us a problem - we are not disturbed by it, we are not kept awake or awakened by it, in the normal course of events we hardly notice it. When we do, it does not upset or anger us. That doesn't mean that you aren't impacted by it, nor that your 'pain', for you, isn't unbearable. But your feelings are not universal, they are not shared by everyone else in Dulwich, and to say we don't share your fears and discomfort is not to deny or denigrate it, as it impacts you. I get hay fever, grass pollens make me sneeze uncontrollably without anti-histamine drugs to suppress it. Other people don't get hay fever. I wouldn't call those who don't share my suffering 'deniers' - (I might call them lucky). Not sharing your pain is not to deny it (for you). Your aggression towards those who don't share your pain (even when they are not denying that you have a problem) should concern you. It certainly does me.

Whilst you may disagree with their political stances - and dislike some of the causes they support - most local councilors will listen to 'personal' cases and will advise fairly whether they will support you or not. If they say they will support you, then they probably will. Of course many do carry heavy case loads, they are unpaid for the case work they do, and they only have a finite capacity. However, do remember that paid-for advocates (such as solicitors) may be more useful to you, in the end. Also do not forget that you can get free advice from various agencies other than that offered by councilors - for instance regarding debt and issues of law (tenancy agreements etc.) from Citizen's Advice etc.

unless it gets them a vote. which is why nimbi's rule . Actually, unless the 'back-yard' is seen as very big (normally it isn't) then councilors can happily ignore nimby-ies as, on any one issue, they are in a very small minority. Once the 'back yard' is seem to be as large as, e.g. a whole ward (as it was on the CPZ issue) then politicians have to take notice - but then that amount of shared disquiet is what democratic accountability is actually all about. I am sure your cynicism is correct about some career councilors/ politicians - my experience is that many (within their own political positions) act as best as they can to the general interests of their constituents. Of course, they have political biases, which they exercise - but that is why they often are elected in the first place, their political views being their manifestos. Mr Barber likes cyclists and dislikes cars in the city, but this is hardly a secret. I may not chime with him on that, but I don't believe he has taken this stance 'to get a vote'. Indeed I suspect it has lost him some, as may have his equivocations over the CPZ issue.

Councils should be ensuring that local needs for housing are being met without compromising on basic minimum standards, of build quality and of amenity. Accommodation also needs 'assets' (schools, transport, power, water and comms infrastructure, doctors etc.) New build and modified buildings need to offer basic minimum standards of e.g. space etc. so that we are not just building future slums. It is where councils also use their powers to implement social engineering that problems can arise, as those of a different political bias can object. One thing councils try to do is to preserve the 'look and feel' of an area (i.e. through urban density standards, building heights, policies about building on gardens etc.) - but here the long view might suggest that simply withstanding change is not, in the end, acceptable. Whichever way they jump on this, the council cannot do it 'right' for everyone. Maybe a long term (20-50 year) strategy is required - one which can be bought in to by most interest groups, even accepting that individual consequences will cause ructions. But then, long term forecasts to support such a strategy will inevitably be wrong. Councils and councilors are really between a rock and a hard place here. Any judgement can be challenged, and most will probably, over a sufficiently long term, be seen as an error. Or not.

Changing an internal layout of rooms does not require council planning permission - there will be building regs issues when/ if load bearing walls are removed. However I suspect that a landlord could require restoration on any unauthorised changes to a rented flat. If your flat is leasehold (i.e. you own it, but someone else holds the property freehold) - then I think it would depend on what the lease says about work on the flat. Clearly a freeholder has an interest in alterations which might impact the structural integrity of the property - and I suppose if the lease is short then in the value of the property per se - a 2 bed property may have a higher value than a one large bed property, for instance. If it is a leasehold property and the lease is silent about internal re-organsiation (outwith structural issues) then I think one could argue that a 10 year old change (with a new lease given on the changed property) would give a good case to resist the freeholder. Indeed one could argue that the lease being renewed on the altered property immediately validates the alteration. But your best recourse is to get qualified advice from a solicitor - this will cost money initially but may save your more money and grief down the line.

The fact it takes 2 hours to get 5 odd miles 10 Miles according to Google maps

I am entirely happy that local elected councilors should live in a real world, with real demands, rather than being professional politicians. It is the professional political class that has also helped ruin Westminster. But the Southwark apparat does now appear to have lost any real contact with the needs and desires of those living in this southern tip of the borough - not entirely helped by some of those for whom some of us may have misguidedly voted. Media manipulation and spin (be it in the ED forum or of the local press) has become the main toolkit of some of those wishing to see change and alteration - getting down and talking face-to-face with people can be belittled and the people doing it ignored or patronised, whilst secret cabals and their spin doctors rule, OK?. At times we do seem to be suffering a democratic deficit locally.

that an 8-year-old on a bicycle must be able to get through safely I'd like to think that your putative 8 year-old would be able to ride his/ her bike one-handed (either hand) so that he/ she could signal turns properly - as I was required to be able to demonstrate by my parents before they allowed me to cycle on public streets (and that was in the 1950s, when streets were much quieter). But since I find hardly any cyclist being prepared (whether able or not) to signal turning intentions I am sure that this wouldn't be an imposition on your 8 year old either. And yes, confusing a novice cyclist with a train does suggest that Mr Logic is taking his holidays.

Yes eventually. - Within about 20 years, if left alone. I too more frequently visit the Old Cemetery, which is closer to where I live, and certainly do not know cemetery topologies by their grid numbers. If the Old Cemetery were to be ceased as a burial place and turned into a wooded park I am sure that this would enhance my property values - but I am happy for a local cemetery to continue to be used for burials. Where there is a plethora of local natural space amenity, as there is in ED and environs, preserving bits of serendipitous 'wilding' doesn't seem necessary, when other, intended, uses can be made of it. For many people (I'm actually not one of them, but I can sympathise with those who are) being able to bury bodies or ashes of loved ones locally and close, rather than having to trek out to somewhere less easy to visit is a blessing, and allows grieving and remembrance. To selfishly want burials at Kemnal Park - nearly 2 hours away by public transport so that you can enjoy your 'wood' amenity (and no doubt the rise in your property value) sticks somewhat in my craw.

If you want woods locally, real woods try here:- https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Dulwich+Woods&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:%7Breferrer:source%7D&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CCwQsARqFQoTCNOhu_LGgMgCFcVWGgod8eUAfg&biw=1496&bih=834 These are real (secondary) growth - actually through an old railway line (the tunnels you can see in some of the pictures) - but they are within easy walking distance and trump (by a long way) any aesthetic pleasures to be had from the cemetery growth, in my opinion. They may not be exactly on your door step, as an extended garden for you, but they are no more than 15 minutes slow amble from the old cemetery.

If you don't see the beauty in it, then sorry - I do not understand your value system at all - it is completely alien to me. As, apparently, is logical thought. If you had ever been (clearly you haven't) in real woodland, which isn't growing through open Victorian graves, isn't full of weedy secondary growth - isn't an 'over grown' anything - you might consider what is growing wild (in the sense that, quite scandalously it was neglected by the council) in the cemetery to be really very disappointing. Yes, naturally growing stuff can be seen to be beautiful, as can sculptures, buildings, paintings, music - one 'beauty' doesn't trump all others, and, frankly, in the natural growth scheme of things the cemetery scrubland is pretty poor, as natural beauty goes. I find a well tended cemetery to be aesthetically pleasing - but I wouldn't want a cemetery in Peckham Rye or Dulwich Park to replace what is already there, just as I don't want a cemetery turned over to neglect. Enjoy the real parks and real, intended woods we have a great local abundance of (when you consider we are an inner city borough) - stop trying to impose additional 'woods' on those who see a better (and more traditional) use for a cemetery. And don't pray in aid your own aesthetic sensibilities as some sort of justification to over-ride those of others.

And this isn't the Netherlands, it's London - which is based around a medieval street layout. Or, in Dulwich's case, farm tracks. And, somewhat unlike the Netherlands, is really rather hilly - the fact that almost all our local stations (East, West and North Dulwich don't, of course) have 'Hill' in the name is rather a clue here, I feel.

Sorry I really can't see how people can say they are not wild woods. People can say it who have any knowledge of what a wild wood actually is. This is all very recent growth, mainly secondary, mainly scrubby, in an area which was previously pastureland. Any untended area in the UK will, over really very short time frames, start to 'wood up' - that is the function of living in a temperate climate in an area which already has a very large number and range of trees which can readily seed in untended ground. My own garden has 3 'wild' oaks, two cypresses, two clumps of mahonia, a sycamore and a rowan, all self (or squirrel) seeded. Some of the trees are now 25-30 ft. Many more have tried to grow, where I didn't want them, and have been uprooted. Mine is a tended garden, not a 'wild wood' - but the cause, and effects, are the same. Anyone who has lived in London for a decent time will have seen precisely the same effects in bomb sites (including that near St Paul's, the former Chief Telegraph Office and now BT Headquarters, which remained a bombsite till the late 80s) which often remained uncleared for 20-30 years - these were also 'wooded'. But they weren't (and neither is the cemetery) wild woods.

As House Spiders live in houses they will (also, and at this time) be looking for mates - but houses are their habitat. Put them out (however kindly) and they will come straight back in again when they can. Other than putting them in someone else's house (or a garage or shed) I'm afraid that if you can't live with them, execution is your only option. Don't follow the links if you can't take spiders. http://wiki.britishspiders.org.uk/index.php5?title=Tegenaria_gigantea_saeva; http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/national/13760830.Large_house_spiders_predicted_as_males_hunt_for_a_mate/; http://www.arkive.org/house-spider/tegenaria-domestica/

Trap them with a glass and a bit of card then put them out of the door. The very biggest spiders you will find (size of a baby's hand in terms of spread, not overall bulk) are Oxford House Spiders (they came to London up the railway line). As the name suggests, they are house spiders (and hunters, not web spinners) - so if you put them out they will aim to get back. On the other hand, they do keep the house more insect free, and aren't themselves bad things, though when the scuttle across the floor at night they can give one a bit of a turn. Warning, they do jump (often slightly sideways) to avoid capture. However, they are not marked - so you may be finding the False Widow - which is more common in the North, but may be spreading south - news reports suggest a prevalence at the moment http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/warning-over-venomous-false-widow-spiders-after-mild-end-to-summer-1-7465612 http://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2015-09-13/homes-could-get-invaded-by-false-widow-spiders/ - you should avoid these as they do bite and carry a little venom.

It is noteworthy to see the incredible speed at which this work is going ahead, compared with say Nx or Townley. Anyone would think the developers had some deadline they were trying to beat? Or perhaps the site owners have simply signed a proper contract, with timing and penalty clauses. Or perhaps the builders are not in some sort of cosy, 'we'll always get the work anyway so we don't really have to bother' call-off contract relationship with their employer, or perhaps the employer has not specified impossible to source materials still on a slow boat from China. Who can tell why and how the commercial world differs from that of local government gravy trains?

I think some of the things I have found have blown in from the street (clearly they shouldn't have been dumped there either, but it's less directly aggressive) - and some things (boxes with chicken wing bones) may have been brought in by foxes to eat discretely - but I agree, it's clear that cans and bottles could only have arrived through human agency, and it's inexcusable.

In fact, I don't believe that there is such a (legal) entity as historic woodland - 'ancient woodland' is a legal concept In the United Kingdom, an ancient woodland is a woodland that has existed continuously since 1600 or before in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (or 1750 in Scotland).[1][2] Before those dates, planting of new woodland was uncommon, so a wood present in 1600 was likely to have developed naturally.[3] The analogous American term is "old-growth forest". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_woodland All the (internet accessed) sources I can find don't suggest that 'natural' woodland is the equivalent of wild growth within a pre-termined area - such as a bomb site or as here a poorly maintained cemetery. Anything (even the detritus in a student fridge) can be seen as 'historic' - but in general something less than 40 years old normally isn't. Nor would growth (really) in only the last century or so - and One Tree Hill was used as an ack-ack site during the last war, I believe, when surrounding trees (if any) would have been felled to give clear lines of fire. Edited to add - one must not confuse the existence of some old trees within a landscape as necessarily meaning that the landscape is wooded, in any real sense of the word. Trees often marked field etc. boundaries - or were planted as decorations in e.g. cemeteries. Many of us have old trees in our gardens, this doesn't mean they are woods.

How about spending it on some traffic surveys?