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

    • 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...