Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Does anyone know what's going on with the Salvation Army's former HQ opposite Denmark Hill station. Is the college being converted into housing? Has King's taken it over? Why all the traffic-works?

I searched on here but couldn't find a thread relating to this huge endeavour.

There was a thread on this but I can't find it either. It is still the Salvation Army training college, it's not being converted into anything nor has it been taken over. Here's the planning apps: http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPSESSION= (Type William Booth into the address search.)

There's lots about it on the SA site and on Southwark planning - it is being retained by the SA and will remain a training and education facility. They are updating a lot of the existing accommodation (disabled access etc) and adding more.


I thought the existing traffic works on that bit of Denmark Hill were part of the long process of replacing water/gas/electricity services which have been ongoing in SE22 for what seems like forever? Haven't looked too closely however.


http://www1.salvationarmy.org.uk/uki/www_uki.nsf/vw-dynamic-index/646D93957B28B4068025754E0043547C?Opendocument


http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9530610

I work for The Salvation Army and can confirm that it is still The William Booth College of Training for Salvation Army Officers. It has over the years suffered immense subsidence and the inside has been in a bad state of repair. But because of the presevation order on it the updates and the finance for such a project has been on hold for many years. The project is due to be finished early 2012.


Inside the college will be bought upto the 21st Century inside unlike its Victorian and rundown appearence inside. The accommodation is also being bought upto scratch. The building is not being sold or being made into private flats as was rumoured or feared.


Any further questions I will do my best to answer them for you.


Thanks

In response to CitizenED


I don't know the correct answer to your question but I will endeavour to find out for you. But to reassure you no public money would have been used for this.


Social projects and things like that are kept totally separately.

Alan Dale Wrote:

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

> This thread is about Camberwell. Admin?!



"Discuss life in London's East Dulwich. Talk about local restaurants, pubs, shops, services, transport, planning, it's up to you." That's what Mr/Mrs/Ms Administrator have stated should be discussed in this section.

If traffic jams related to roadworks, which started originally outside Denmark Hill station and are now heading south down Dog Kennel Hill, is not an East Dulwich issue, I don't know what is. Mr Dale, would you say that a thread about Dulwich Cricket Club should not be in this section, because the club is actually situated in Herne Hill. With respect Mr Dale, I suggest you up the quality of your contribution. All the best TQ

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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