Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Agree re. all the psuedo military vehicles. My road looks like helmand province. We used to laugh at the Americans all driving ludicrous oversized tanks.


tallulah71 Wrote:

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

> What SJ and Ron70 said.

>

> Lots of young families moving here, breeding, and

> needing education and that. I can't think of a

> better use of space.

>

> What we really don't need are those idiots who

> drive 4x4 cars so no-one can ever pass them.

> Please buy smaller cars and get over yourselves -

> We know you're rich, but you really do block most

> of East Dulwich. And the world. ;)

>

> And east dulwich is fairly flat. You're not having

> an "adventure" in your 4x4. You are just causing

> traffic.

Hi bob,

Sadly they did reject it.

They said the Localism Act 2011 didnt allow it.

But we've found so far three other English local councils that interpreted the law and DID list police station as local community assets!

So I've asked for a review and complained as it's a really important principle ot save other such police bases across Southwark. Doesn't help East Dulwich but still it needs to be done.

Hi SJ,

At one point it looked like the Police station was going to be sold for flats and a supermarket instead of sold to host a new school.

We are desperately short of school places and the Police station represented one of the few pieces of lcoal land a school could be built on.


Hi Louisa,

The land owner would have been told of the application, they will have seen other police station around England being so listed, so it may have tipped the balance with all the other pressure we applied to get it sold for a school. Equally it may have made no difference!

Hi SJ,

It didn't help make this happen - and it was on a knife edge which way it went. With Community Listing I suspect even just the process helped. But rejecting it wrongly coudl easilly have resulted in a higher non school bid winning. Their decision also places at risk other Police stations until they agree they got it wrong. The community listing reduces the incentive to try selling Police stations.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> They said the Localism Act 2011 didnt allow it.

> But we've found so far three other English local

> councils that interpreted the law and DID list

> police station as local community assets!



Were these other Police Stations open active stations (thus community assets), or empty shells?

Yes LondonMix. Department of Health so painful (excuse the uninended pun) that we've had to find alternative sites.

First permanent one found, just need to find second permanent site.


Saying that I still hope the temporory Primary school site will be the Dulwich Hospital.

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Second site for what? Is Harris opening 2

> secondary schools in the area? Did they get

> enough support from parents for this? Or are you

> looking for a site for another free school?


See EastDulwichSE22 post of 31 January which I think is lifted from James' website.

Hi LondonMix,

Harris are not opening any new secondary schools in the area.

We're talking about the primary school places crisis. They have support for tw oprimary schools towards the 3-4 we need locally.


Hi noelewilson,

Head of Terms is part of the contract of sale of the site. It should be a detail once the principles of sales have been agreed which they have been.

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

    • These statements were in the Consultation Findings report published (later than promised) just before the licence was granted:  "The site hire fee goes directly to supporting the delivery of the council’s Events service, which supports the delivery of up to 100 free-to-attend community events per year – please refer to section 1 (Licensing and income)" I've drafted an email to request some more details of these "free-to-attend" events, as "up to" is a fairly meaningless description - could be 100, could be none? - and therefore doesn't help anyone to decide whether it is actually a benefit to the community or not. Even if it is 100, I'm not sure I could name even one of them? "The site hire fee goes directly to supporting the provision of a grants fund – the Cultural Celebrations programme - please refer to section 1 (Licensing and income)" A similarly meaningless statement in terms of gauging whether, or how much, this is a benefit to the local community. What is it, what does it do, how much of the fee goes to it? And how can the fee go "directly" to two different things? Surely, "directly" means without deviation, straight to, without being changed or reduced?? Again, I'll be asking all these questions to the events dept. I find it outrageous & insulting that a public body can try to justify such an intrusive & disruptive event with such flimsy and opaque "benefits", with zero figures or details to quantify them. They may as well not bother with a consultation, just say "Look, we can't be arsed to justify our decision, it's happening so just deal with it".  
    • Thanks so much. Yes I have. Really appreciate your kindness in replying. Thank you.
    • Have you posted on Nextdoor? There's a big cat community on there. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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