Penguin68

Another way of trying to determine value is to identify the potential yield if you were able to rent the place out, for example if the place can be rented for ?1000 a month and is on the market for 250k the yield would be 4.8% (1k x 12 months/price) Doesn't quite work like that, I think. A rentier 'earns' from a house in 2 ways - changes in house value together with rental income. The return on rental income is based not on the absolute value of the house, but on the rentier's capital invested. So if I buy a flat valued at ?350k - and put in ?50k of my own capital than the ROCE is based on that ?50k and not the purchase price of the property. I will be paying back the loan (the interest element of which is allowable against tax) and if the property doubles in value I will now have an investment worth ?400k (made up of ?50k deposit and ?350k capital increase). Obviously house prices can go down as well as up. But estimating the 'value' of a house by assuming a ROCE of 4.5% (not unreasonable) and scaling up from the gross rental paid to estimate the property value doesn't I think work. Rentals are based on market forces - not underlying investment. After all, the rent for a particular property would be the same, one assumes, regardless of what the owner's investment was in it. In an economy where all property was rented, and in the same way, then you might be able to work this sort of sum, but not in a mixed economy.

11 months to fully clear the site for building works (if it does have an underlying asbestos or other contamination problem) and build a working school is pushing it somewhat, even assuming all permissions had been granted, which they haven't. Unless they are planning to open in portacabins this is not, as has been stated above, achievable. If they do plan to open in portacabins, with what justification? With so much on the site there would be a real need to have a fully integrated plan, showing how each establishment (primary, secondary, health centre) would work with each other. Those take time to agree. This has all the feel of a Tesco style land grab by Harris - tieing up as much land as they can in SE London either for posible future use or to keep competitors out. It's not Nunhead, nor is it conveniant for Nunhead, particularly with issues of access for Primary children; it's not needed (as regards primary school places) at least as far as current forecasts apparently have it and it will place unneccessary pressures on co-sited establishments (there is, I believe, an issue regarding secondary places locally). The arguments about the name are spurious - the justifciation for it (so far as there is one) is predicated on Nunhead need - whatever they call it, it is justified (and I use that word quite wrongly) as a primary for Nunhead.

the NHS Property people are reported to have a quote to remove asbestos from thos central buildings alone of ?1M. There is no need, or even requirement, to remove asbestos. Asbestos must be marked and a proper record kept, (and any staff exposure to asbestos dust properly recorded and the records kept for a long time) but it is entirely safe if undisturbed (and there are treatments to stabilise surfaces). It is only when a building with asbestos is being torn down (or significantly altered) that asbestos is an issue - then of course it must be worked with (or removed) with great care. When already in place (and not being disturbed/ drilled etc.) then asbestos is a very effective substance - a good fire retardant and insulator.

Harris are not the only fruit - or maybe, for some, they are. A cursory reading of threads on this forum would suggest that issues to do with high quality local Health Care provision are very much non-trivial in ED, with surgeries inadequate, bad or closing. The saga of Harris not being able to build their Primary on the police station site in time for the start of a school year (what schools open up for business in January?) do not give a warm feeling. If you look at the full range of primary and secondary education places available, or already planned and agreed in and around Dulwich (East & West and Village) - crossing both private and state etc, provision, we will become educational central for SE London - do we necessarily want this at the expense of other things, particularly with the much argued absence of open recreation areas for the state provided schools and academies? How does Dulwich place provision actually compare with Dulwich needs?

Renata has been diligent in trying to bottom this one out and, for the record, is not the elected representative I had in mind. Thanks, Renata, for pursuing this.

The 'man at Southwark' clearly has a hatred of cars and people who own and park them and a very low opinion of people's ability to judge and avoid hazards. If this is a 'real' Southwark policy it is effectively new, has not been debated or discussed (or put in front of electors as a party policy) and (because it deals only with new applications and effectively creates a worse situation for existing dropped kerbs - which will be the vast majority in the borough for the forseeable future)is entirely mad and perverse. I had assumed 'unintended consequences' - but this seems clearly a new policy being crept in under the radar - one which is clearly anti-car ownership (every new application will heavily penalise at least one, if not two, additional parkers - indeed in some streets if applied universally it could yellow line the whole street) - I wonder if our elected officals (one of whom, a regular on this forum, seems strangely and unusualy silent/ disengaged on the subject) actually knew of this new, draconian, policy? Just how many accidents (associated with private parking) have been caused to make this in any way pressing or necessary?

As regards the initial discussion on 'yellow lining' all new dropped kerb applications; and if you set aside conspiracy theories, then I think the logic of the situation is this:- 1. Where dropped kerbs are required, these may be either for public or private benefit. 2. There is general legislation forbidding parking over dropped kerbs. 3. Where (particularly) for public benefit ? you may anticipate reasonable levels of ?traffic? using them, it may be appropriate to additionally ?defend? them with mandatory parking restrictions (yellow lines 2 metres on each side of the drop) to give a wider visibility to those using them, and to make planning rules to allow this. 4. Where ?private use? kerbs exist, there is no further need to defend these with white lines (a cost to the roads department) which are anyway only ?advisory?. Existing legislation about parking over dropped kerbs will suffice. 5. Additionally, for private use kerbs, such enforcement will only be applied where the owner of the property served by the dropped kerb requests, to allow permitted parkers (friends, family, trades people) to park on the property owner?s authority. What has happened, I think, is that the specific position in (3) has been extended (I would guess not as part of any legislative intention) by some officials to cover all new dropped kerbs, and not just a specific sub-set of these ? on the basis that this obviates the need for thought or decision. This (I suspect) is a good example of ?unintended consequences?.

I have lived in ED for the last 26 years - in that time I have not noticed any great changes in numbers or frequency of planes, sometimes there are more, sometimes less in the sky. They do not bother me, nor do they have any particular impact on my life - such as disturbing sleep, interfering with normal conversations etc. I live under what used to be the Concorde 6.00pm flight path. That didn't worry me either (the noise well compensated for by the beauty) I am sorry for anyone who (clearly) suffers from some level of hyper-sensitivity to plane noise - but I see no call to change the world on the back of that. I have suggested here before that there are psychological remedies which might allow those suffering to alleviate their distress (which I am not suggesting is not a real distress). Sometimes it is more effective to change yourself than to change the world (and often easier as well).

As regards dropped kerbs and yellow lines and (implied) draconian enforcement - there is clearly an agenda here - it may be about reduction of available parking space (which dropped kerbs on their own with minimal white lines don't really do, but an additional 4 metre exclusion zone would) - therefore as a Trojan Horse for parking zones (in which case, don't expect a rushed response on this thread) - or it may be that officials have been give confusing and contradictory requirements and are demonstrating the madness of these. Either which way, requiring yellow lines on new build dropped kerbs and (in effect) no lines on existing ones (as white lines won't be replaced) is clearly both mad and perverse. (Which is not to say that yellow lines on dropped kerbs around crossing points etc. or on corners are unreasonable ? these would contribute to safety.)

Buying houses near the best state schools isn't really that different to sending your kids private in my view Yes it is - at the end of one you have a tradeable asset, at the end of the other you have an empty bank balance and no tradeable asset based on your 'education expenditure' - you may have to pay slightly more for your home in scenario one, but you do (can) get your money back (and then some) at the end.

Purely as an investment I would strongly recommend moving house to an area very well served by state schools - your house will of course cost more, but at the end of your children's education you can sell your house, probably at a decent profit, to the next desparate middle-class parent in the queue for the school. The alternative, paying for a private education, is all sunk cost, with no better return (as regards your children's future) as a good state school (and there are increasing numbers of these, including and especially in London - but without the benefit of an appreciating (housing) asset. Of course, this type of presure does mean that (especially London) private schools cannot but afford to up their delivery to their customers, in terms of teaching skills, extra-curricular activities etc. - hence constantly raising the bar of what 'good' in terms of schooling means. At any time some private schools will be delivering more than state schools, as others work to catch up the best state school delivery around them. This area of SE London seems increasingly well served in both public and private sectors (oh, god, there go the house prices!)

Why should JKPS lose its only playing field to housing to fund Alleyns, JAGS and Dulwich College I'm sorry - how does this work - if the two are separate charities, the actions of one do not impede on the other? By 'its', do you mean 'someone else's'? ALSO - Bursaries and scholarships are entirely different types of funding - bursaries are normally determined by need, scholarships by ability. So you are right to say that a school's scholars are indeed chosen based on a higher 'bar' if you want to put it that way, but children on bursaries are not. The selection criteria for entry are the same as for any child. Also schools additionally offer specialist scholarships (i.e. for music) where the criteria are academic competence similar to any entry requirement accompanied by a specific additional skill. Private schools do take pupils with some types of learning difficulty, and indeed other disabilities, but generally only when (with support) these children may be expected to perform at similar levels to others. I'm not sure how many disabilities I would expect to see in a photograph anyway. But yes, most private schools (other than some specialist ones) will not be expecting to make SEN provisions as a major part of their offer (dyslexia etc. apart).

I have now been told there is a leak in Forest Hill (but that might be Forest Hill Road - who knows?) - mains water turned off just after 3.00 - so my trickle on Underhill is now an empty space. There appear to be leaks all over - I passed one being 'dealt with' (men standing round a gusher) on the corner of College Road and the A205. The Thames Water 'live' map shows none of this - their recorded messages say there are no known problems in SE22 - I have asked them to correct this as it is just wasting their operatives time as each person who finds problems reports them - with no other evidence that any fault is known about. They can't, or won't, now give any estimate of repair times - but suggest (so far) that it won't be 'days'. I think that the repair guys are getting on with things - but their front office support (nice people that they are) is hopeless - they seem to have no access to information - but have to go away and ask someone each time.

But Penguin you are presumably not claiming to be a chairity for local schoolchildren so your comment is completely irrelevant. Neither is Alleyn's - they are, certainly, a charity which delivers education - and being a day school at least to some little extent locally, although pupils do travel far further than local authority catchement areas, but there is no obligation on the Trust to deliver only, exclusively or at all to 'local' children. Indeed other parts of the trust (being a bording school) very much do not meet specifically local demands. As regards the delivery of any services to publically funded bodies they, like me, have no obligation, moral or legal - hence I was suggesting that to ask them to give up their ground to a local school was no different than asking me to - particularly as part of the argument put forward was that they didn't make much use of it ('are hardly used at all').

There is a known problem - reported initially as effecting (at least) Underhill Road (the part parallel to Wood Vale) - Thames is suggesting that it will take minimum 2 hours to restore service - they said that they had engineers on the site of the leak.

Cook Shop puddings are OK - indeed some are good - particularly if puddings aren't your thing, but you're having to cater for others.

If this link to FB works, you may be interested in this group (Peckham Rye Park Run) - some of its members also applied for Marathon places https://www.facebook.com/peckhamryeparkrun?fref=nf

No problems bawdy-nan - just wanted to clarify for posterity...

The fields on the left hand side of the road if you are coming from LL are very hardly used at all. Neither is my garden, in winter, but I don't feel any obligation to give it up to a third party. Please also remember that using land has a cost - I suspect that if a local school had to take over the expense of land management, and indeed the necessity of regular upkeep if the land was being extensively used, cost of groundsmen etc. etc. (together possibly with the costs of risk associated with that use) then the 'benefit' might not be affordable - and if the Trust took on those costs bro-bono for the school then it might be in breach of its own duties re expenditure on its own stated aims. If the grounds are not used very much, then the costs associated with them are undoubtedly going to be lower - high use leads to high cost. I recall the local furore when it was suggested the Rye could be used as sports fields for local schools - that is a public amenity to be used by state schools - that was strongly resisted (I'm not saying it shouldn't have been) - but diverting use of private amenity to a state school is apparently be be applauded - as are plans to build more state schools (i.e. that in the old ED police station site) without any access to outside field areas. Or should access to local gardens now be demanded for this school?

bawdy-nan wrote:- > Penguin68 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- There seems to be a > weird presumption that certain charities should > curtail their own activities for the benefit of > separate groups. Would this be expected of other > charities or is it just that private schools are > considered to be a fair target? > Actually, the quote attributed to me was a comment by EDLove to a comment of mine - not that I would necessarily distance myself from it, but it wasn't actually my expressed view.

so that they could build houses that will be used to subsidise local private school more. Interesting to see a local councillor not wanting more housing locally - the Estates job as far as administering the charitable donation is to fund their (not other people's) education delivery - including offering bursaries to allow a wider range of chidren to benefit (so not quite the spirit implied by 'local private school') - you don't like private education - that's your (political) right of course, but to suggest that the Trust isn't acting properly because they aren't following your political prejudices is unhelpful - it's like being a Wee Free and complaining (and suggesting they are acting unethically) because the local Catholic Church isn't giving land for your church to be built on.

The DE are subsidising private education locally at the expense of state school kids No, they are choosing not to subsidise or provide subsidised facilities to state funded schools but not 'at the expense' of these schools, since it is their own facilities/ grounds that they are not sharing - to do so would be at the expense of their intended (chartered) charitable aims. It is only at 'the expense of' if you consider that state schools have a right to other people's property which they should be able to compel them to give up. At the moment, such compulsory purchase or acquisition on behalf of state schools is not lawful. All those people living around state schools are also, presumably, in your philosopy, subsidising their accommodation 'at the expense' of those schools to which they are adjacent, rather than giving up their property free and gratis to those schools. They choose to allocate their funds for 'educational purposes' in the way they, rather than you, would wish it - but that's what a free society should be about. Edward Alleyn did not set up his charity to fund what would normally be funded by taxation, but to fund that which isn't funded by taxation. Which private schools aren't (at least directly).

Very many European countries offer city dwellers mainly apartment living - meaning that private gardens are unusual - the garden suburb is a very British institution - even where there are private houses in cities they very often are built around courtyards - so gardens again are unusual (in our sense). British style gardens associated with domestic houses tend to be a countryside phenomenon, where they exist at all. Very often, where there are gardens with city housing, these are very small and mainly paved and ornamental - and would not be suitable for further building

I actually prefer living in a CPZ (I park right outside my house every time), but it does have drawbacks... Very evidently

Is there residents' parking in ED/ How did that one slip through?