Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Some people have only joined this post to nit pick. Majority of the local area are disappointed, end of. As for funding with the old dulwich hospital grounds, I heard this directly from robin. Those children are now adults and have no use for this as it was promised so long ago and never put into action.


The small fences ontop of existing walls are a great idea, but it doesn't stop people from leaving gates open. These were not an issue, the issue is the park area and the 10ft railings installed to prevent access!

does "nit picking" mean "not agreeing with me"?


you started a thread


your first line was:


"Is it just me or has this place become a prison?"


which is an open question. People are responding. If you only want to (and are maybe used to?) hear people who think the same as you it might be a shock to hear what the rest of the world thinks, but don't get mad at them

Staferjack move on please. The thread was created as a topic of discussion not for people to try and put holes in 1 opinion. Like I have said, the councillors haven't gone the right way about it, it had left mixed opinions. Maybe they might take the into consideration with future investments = making a change. Thanks for your time

This is turning into one of the more unusual threads on the forum.


The facts:

The gates were raised way back after some work by then Village ward councillor Michelle Pearce. She wasnt re elected back in 2006.

The more recent fence raising is via Cleaner, Greener, Safer funding. The applicants were the local Village ward Safer Neighbourhood Team as part of their professional crime prevention work and of the three Village ward councillors who get to allocate these funds - two voted for this scheme - Cllr Toby Eckersley and Cllr Michael Mitchell.

Jkartel Wrote:

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

> At the end of the day, i came here to express an

> opinion and have discussions with others that have

> the same views.....


To be fair to the OP, she/he did make it clear that differing views were not welcome!

I've met RCH through our tenants and residents association. I've only ever found her to be helpful, polite and completely on the ball. No hidden agenda that I could see.

Suggest anyone with a complaint about anything this local gets themselves along to their own residents association meetings, become a councillor, write to their own MP or local councillor and change things that way.

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

    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
    • Hey, I am on the first floor and I am directly impacted if roof leaks. We got a roofing company to do repair work which was supposed to be guaranteed. However, when it started leaking again, we were informed that the guarantee is just for a new roof and not repair work. Each time the company that did the repair work came out again over the next few years, we had to pay additional amounts. The roof continues to leak, so I have just organised another company to fix the roof instead, as the guarantee doesn't mean anything. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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