Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Some Local authorities were looking at it for homeless accommodation. The price was too high for the one I work for, but the idea was to buy the footprint and build a bigger hostel on it for homeless families. However, I have no idea if this is what went through.

The ED hotel will be coverted to private houses then sold for a few hundred grand profit for the developer.


Ratty - you're right about this. My missus bought her old ex council flat in Wapping in 2005 from a council tenant who had bought it under Thatchers right to buy. Last month she received a letter from Tower Hamlets Council about their "Buy back' scheme for ex-council properties. At tippy market rates and with a quick sale. There are so many absurdities to this....

Councils are offering to buy, not compulsory purchases. Thousands of families are homeless thanks to govt policy. It's a crisis of terrifying proportions. Some inner London schools are full of kids in temporary accommodation. It's all very messy and sad.


Shame Jeremy does not believe it innit?

Southwark seem very busy selling land they own to private developers (including some locally). So yes, I do not believe that they would buy a property on the open market, only to pull it down and build something there!


Nice to hear that some councils are attempting to claw back some of their housing stock.

Not thought because these properties are being used for non permanent housing. Therefore no right to buy.


Jeremy, I am not sure if Southwark are doing it. Not heard that they are. Other boroughs and some charities most definitely are. Pal of mine is on commission for Westminster persuading leaseholders to do it.

The rooms in the ED Hotel are said to be very small. A builder friend was asked many years ago to do some work in this place ( prior to it opening as a hotel)by the now deceased owner. He refused to do work as he felt that the property was not suitable - ie owner wanted to put a couple of bunks in the equivalent of a single room.

Pugwash Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The rooms in the ED Hotel are said to be very small.


Wouldn't be surprised if the current/previous owner partitioned it up. It is just a converted Victorian terrace, right? Rooms were probably a pretty normal size originally.

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It just so happens that the Right To Buy was first

> in the 1959 General Election Manifesto of the

> LABOUR Party (Labour lost though)- which only goes

> to prove that the fascist left LIE and LIE...


Jeez Unclglen, your constant fury and obsession with 'the left' is almost pathological. Have a cup of tea and a nice sit down.

  • 3 months later...

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It just so happens that the Right To Buy was first

> in the 1959 General Election Manifesto of the

> LABOUR Party (Labour lost though)- which only goes

> to prove that the fascist left LIE and LIE...


uncleglen, you're entitled to your opinions, but describing any mainstream political party in Britain as fascist is a shameful thing to do. You're showing utter disrespect to the millions who died from real fascism. Stop it.

craigyboy71 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is anything happening with the East Dulwich Hotel?

> The sold sign seems to have disappeared and it's

> still a "hotel".



Last I heard its squatters in there now delaying things but that was a while ago

Wow


The three story design is well out of keeping with the local area (excluding the monstrosity they built at the old police station!


Hopefully the council will tell them 2 stories only...


Time to put an objection in however anything is better then what is there now...

craigyboy71 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The proposal is now on the planning site of

> Southwark Council:

>

> http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-appl

> ications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=externalD

> ocuments&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9568047



What a weird looking building!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
    • I guess its the thing these days to demonstrate an attitude, in this instance seemingly of the negative kind, instead of taking pride in your work and have standards then 🤷‍♀️
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...