The Lounge
The place to relax and chat about anything.
22,568 topics in this forum
-
- 0 replies
- 803 views
-
- 5 replies
- 849 views
-
- 4 replies
- 5.6k views
-
- 28 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 46 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 10 replies
- 728 views
-
- 10 replies
- 803 views
-
- 28 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 12 replies
- 964 views
-
- 121 replies
- 5.5k views
-
- 6 replies
- 892 views
-
- 4 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 5 replies
- 897 views
-
- 115 replies
- 5.8k views
-
- 16 replies
- 922 views
-
- 9 replies
- 950 views
-
- 13 replies
- 1k views
-
- 5 replies
- 851 views
-
- 23 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 18 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 37 replies
- 2k views
-
- 111 replies
- 4.8k views
-
- 3 replies
- 736 views
-
- 20 replies
- 949 views
-
- 27 replies
- 1.4k views
-
-
Latest Discussions
-
But the bulk of the build is for student accommodation, with just 'some' affordable housing which will, if history is anything to go by, become much less once the scheme is started. Southwark has, I believe, quite a number of empty properties which are not in use. The number of people on Southwark's waiting list is frankly irrelevant to this scheme, which won't touch the surface. This isn't 'new housing' which is visible, but commercially profitable student bedsits (at least, the developers hope it will be commercially profitable). -
-
Does anyone know if Tommy Rooney is away? I have a boiler emergency and he isn't responding to messages. I don't really want to use someone I don't know, and I know Tommy is excellent! -
By Dogkennelhillbilly · Posted
Sounds like Southwark needs to build some social housing and the Dulwich Society needs to stop objecting because new housing is "visible". But if people were really concerned about housing costs, they'd be in favour of increasing the supply of housing to a growing population. "In favour of development so long as it's low volume social housing paid for by the private sector" is really just austerity NIMBYism with a mask on.
-