Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Otta Wrote:

> Oh, and for the most part the buildings in

> Sydenham, Penge and Forest Hill are far superior

> to anything in East Dulwich.


Spot on. Especially for the old stock (pre 1930's). Some lovely houses Sydenham/Penge way. The better Victorian /Edwardian builds in East Dulwich are areas closer to the village on the Estate (Druce, Desenfans) but even then they are smaller than Sydenham's finest.

You?re too right Faser, it is about time for some REAL naming and shaming rather than plain scapegoating but unfortunately it may just be wishful thinking, I will dig deeper and try to find out some names though.


With regards the number of flats, I suppose the council was trying to throw everything, and the kitchen sink, at the enquiry in an attempt to have WGH demolished. Shows how much they actually care about housing and how much they care for personal vendettas! Especially when it was them who were deceptive when they sold it and them who gave planning permission for the mass and structure of WGH with full knowledge of its impact and position with regards the concrete house.


PS: I don?t think you?re at all far off with the lining pockets theory, Southwark council has it written all over them.

dwhite11:

"...I don?t think you?re at all far off with the lining pockets theory, Southwark council has it written all over them."


I'd hope this is untrue, but having protested against some illegal, unauthorised building work that happened in ED (for which retrospective planning applications have been refused), sometimes you have to ask yourself what exactly is going on here. Rules are breached, council point this out, planning applications are submited retrospectively, they are refused, structure still stands, neighbours all complain, freeholder in question makes an appeal., that is refused, building still stands. It can FEEL like Southwark have no spine or are on the take.

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

    • The minimum wage hikes on top of the NICs increases have also caused vast swathes of unemployment.
    • Exactly - a snap election will make things even worse. Jazzer - say you get a 'new' administration tomorrow, you're still left with the same treasury, the same civil servants, the same OBR, the same think-tanks and advisors (many labour advisors are cross-party, Gauke for eg). The options are the same, no matter who's in power. Labour hasn't even changed the Tories' fiscal rules - the parties are virtually economically aligned these days.  But Reeves made a mistake in trying too hard, too early to make some seismic changes in her first budget as a big 'we're here and we're going to fix this mess, Labour to the rescue' kind of thing . They shone such a big light on the black hole that their only option was to try to fix it overnight. It was a comms clusterfuck.  They'd perhaps have done better sticking to Sunak's quiet, cautious approach, but they knew the gullible public was expecting an 24-hour turnaround miracle.  The NIC hikes are a disaster, I think they'll be reversed soon and enough and they'll keep trying till they find something that sticks.   
    • Totally agree with you.  🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    • It took the Tories 14 years to dig that 20bn blackhole. It's taken Labour 14 months to double it.  You cant get rid of Reeves though because the next person will actually be totally incompetent. There are no MPs in Labour capable of performing better than the current shower.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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