Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The large house on Grove Park that has been squatted on and off for the last couple of years is currently being cleared. Started about 8.30 this morning. About 50 ballifs and private security and another 30 or 40 police and community support officers. Seemed pretty disproportionate to me. Grove Park itself closed to traffic. Given the general shortage of visible policing in Camberwell and Peckham it seemed a bit galling that so many are able to turn up to oversee the needs of a private landlord. I know they are there to monitor the ballifs too but it seemed like a lot. By the property owner's admission the squatters only occupied the property when his maintenance team left the place unlocked. That huge area of mature woodland behind the house will, I guess, shortly be cleared for more 'luxury' housing.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/245903-grove-park-squat-being-cleared/
Share on other sites

That's a real shame. I know a couple of people who've lived there ? the squatters are mostly artists and musicians and I know they've maintained the place well and been good neighbours. A haven for impoverished creative folk who have precious few places to live in London these days.

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> That's a real shame. I know a couple of people

> who've lived there ? the squatters are mostly

> artists and musicians and I know they've

> maintained the place well and been good

> neighbours. A haven for impoverished creative folk

> who have precious few places to live in London

> these days.



According to another thread, there are unoccupied houses on Dunstans Road.


Just saying :)

I heard from a neighbour who knows owners that the property was completely trashed inside which is a shame, that a lot of the original features had been damaged and was not maintained at all. all the ivy growing in the garden had destroyed the trees that they said they were protecting. such a shame really as such a beautiful property. I walk past regularly and always wondered about it.


I cant imagine the building was left unlocked, squatters will do anything to get into properties these day, including lie unfortunately, which it sounds like they have done to some of the respondents here. would be mindful of it.

That is complete rubbbish, they did not 'trash' the place, and were under no obligation to do the 'gardening'. You say that the features were 'damaged' and it was not 'maintained', that is the fault of the owners who obviously just sat on the place for years and let it fall into disrepair. People are very quick to blame squatters for everything, when in fact alot of the time they are doing the owners a favour.

its not about gardening, they say they were protesting for the trees not being cut down, but the trees were actually suffering because of the ivy and being overgrown so that seems hypocritical to me. I looked on southwark website at tree survey for that planning application. it doesn't look like so many trees are being removed and certainly not old ones - as well as lots of new trees being replanted? so this is misinformation. wish people could better inform themselves.


the neighbour showed me some photos from inside that were sent to her -it did indeed look trashed. according to her the owner of the property never abandoned the property ?! it had property guardians inside looking after it and used to be in much better condition.

This is apparently the second time the owner has had to remove squatters. The fact that anyone defends the squatters or feels sorry for them is astounding to me. It's not their property, nor is it anyone elses but the property owner and as such, the owner can do with it as they wish - it is THEIRS - not the communities to demand what to have done with it - not the squatters to feel some sort of justification for living there - period.
well maybe the owners should actually do something with the property rather than sit on it and let it slowly rot. London has a massive deficit of affordable housing and many properties where the owners do nothing for years and years, it's just simple maths really...there was a time back in the 70's and 80's where alot of the properties in the area were lived in by squatters, especially along Camberwell Grove, so I say, as long as they are respectful and don't break the law then they should be allowed to squat empty properties where the landlord/owners seem to want to do nothing with it.

Hi Brulysses, you really seem to think that the property was abandoned? Where did you get this information from? I know for a fact that the property has never been abandoned under its current ownership. They have always had guardians in the property which was housing around 12-15 people at affordable rental.


I completely understand your point about properties being left abandoned - that's shameful when the housing crisis is such a considerable issue. But this was not the case here.


I have evidence that the squatters in this particular property did not look after it, sadly.

seenbeen Wrote:

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

> Problem is -EVERYONE wants to live in London.



I'm sure that's not quite true


There's a lady way up North called Nicola who I'm pretty convinced doesn't want anything to do with London. 😂

How exactly had the ivy "destroyed" the trees?


Whilst ivy does not take nourishment from trees (it isn't, in that way, a parasite) it can damage trees in two ways - (1) it can compete with the tree's own leaves for sunlight - hence reducing nourishment and long-term tree health and (2) it can over-weigh trees such that they become unstable and may be brought down or damaged by winds. For deciduous trees, which might otherwise weather winter storms, such a weight of evergreen leaves may be sufficient to topple them entirely.


Ivy just on the stems (trunks) of trees and cut away from the branches (and kept away) isn't a problem. The ivy flowers and berries are a useful source of food for insects and birds.

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> How exactly had the ivy "destroyed" the trees?

>

> Whilst ivy does not take nourishment from trees

> (it isn't, in that way, a parasite) it can damage

> trees in two ways - (1) it can compete with the

> tree's own leaves for sunlight - hence reducing

> nourishment and long-term tree health and (2) it

> can over-weigh trees such that they become

> unstable and may be brought down or damaged by

> winds. For deciduous trees, which might otherwise

> weather winter storms, such a weight of evergreen

> leaves may be sufficient to topple them entirely.

>

> Ivy just on the stems (trunks) of trees and cut

> away from the branches (and kept away) isn't a

> problem. The ivy flowers and berries are a useful

> source of food for insects and birds.



I accept all that.


I'm just wondering how these particular trees had been "destroyed".

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> seenbeen Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Problem is -EVERYONE wants to live in London.

>

>

> I'm sure that's not quite true

>

> There's a lady way up North called Nicola who I'm

> pretty convinced doesn't want anything to do with

> London. 😂


200,000 of her compatriots are here! ( I didn't know the gorgeous Gerrard Butler was a Scot)

https://www.londonstranger.com/multi-cultural-london/scottish-in-london

As always it's never a binary situation... empty properties in London are a real problem, and in some circumstances squatting does reflect a genuine need for housing.


But at the same time, the "woke" middle class liberal narrative on squatters tend to be rather naive. Struggling creatives, victims of a dysfunctional housing market, passionate about respecting and maintaining period properties...

fishbiscuits Wrote:

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

>

> But at the same time, the "woke" middle class

> liberal narrative on squatters tend to be rather

> naive. Struggling creatives, victims of a

> dysfunctional housing market, passionate about

> respecting and maintaining period properties...



Surely, as with everything (or most things) you can't lump everybody together.


Some squatters will look after the property. Some won't. Some would otherwise be homeless. Some won't. Some will be "creatives" (terrible word), struggling or otherwise. Some won't.


You can't lump all "'woke' middle class liberals" together, either :)

Sue Wrote:

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

> Surely, as with everything (or most things) you

> can't lump everybody together.


My personal hunch is that while squatting can of course be morally justifiable, it's also often a lifestyle choice.. and the numbers are probably skewed towards the latter. I have no evidence - so don't ask for it!


And of course while some will respect the property more than others, the way some people talk, you'd think that they were all budding Sarah Beenys.

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

    • What "stricter" consequences could there be for shoplifting (or any other crime) than being put into jail, do you think? Though our prisons are of course full enough already, without more people being shoehorned  into them.
    • Returning to the original question, I had my jabs at Tessa Jowell yesterday. I was early and I was  seen on time, and it was a lovely pharmacist who did them, but the admin beforehand (not by her) was a bit iffy. I was given forms to fill in but not told what to do with them afterwards, so I  presumed I had to take them into the consulting room, as the rest was supposed to be filled in by a clinician, but no! After some time had elapsed and I had found a seat (there was no information on where to sit either, so people were sitting in two separate areas, neither of which had many seats) my name was called and  the forms were taken behind the counter. Be aware if you don't have an appointment - even in the relatively short time I was there, three people turned up without appointments having been sent there by a GP (I presume) or having  previously been  asked by the pharmacy to come  back at a different time, and they were all sent away again because the pharmacy didn't have enough flu vaccine until the following day. I have no idea if this was due to a misunderstanding on the people's side, their GP's or the pharmacy's, but none of them were very happy, and one lady said she "couldn't keep coming back" 😭  At least one of them didn't seem to understand what he was being told, possibly due to a language issue. I felt quite sorry for the pharmacist, who was giving jabs all day on top of her usual workload but still managing to stay cheerful! Though she wasn't the one dealing with the unhappy people! I have a sore arm from the Covid jab (I chose to have the jabs in different arms), but no other ill effects so far, touch wood. 
    • Line speed and the strength of your Wi-Fi signal are two separate things.  The first is determined by the type of connection (fibre/copper etc) to the outside world and the second is the connection between the device (printer/TV/laptop/tablet etc) and the router. If you are connecting a device to the router using cables (as Alec1 is) then this is will give the best possible connection but isn't practical for many without a degree of upheaval and even then not all devices (tablets for example) will allow a wired connection. So you relying on the quality of the Wi-Fi signal from the router to the device and this will depend on the quality of the router, the type of Wi-Fi connection (the frequency), line of sight etc - many different things.  This is why some people opt for a "mesh" type setup which is supposed to give a solid quality of Wi-Fi signal around the house with little or no blackspots.  It's expensive though and still requires the devices that send and receive the signal (like the plug-ins you have) to be wired to the router.
    • We have had a few cat flaps over the years but none have been electronic. They just have a small clip that you turn to lock or open.  Some come with a magnet and a matching magnet that the cat wears on its collar  This prevents other cats entering.  I've not used these as I don't like the idea of a cat wearing a collar. Cats do like to be out at night and you need to encourage yours to return after a late evening sortie. Calling,rustling treat wrappers worked for ours but he seems to have now got into the habit of coming back about 9pm. without this.        
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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