Andrew1011

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The building itself is still under the ownership > of the C of E, no? They just rent it out. > > Louisa. No. No Church of England ownership or involvement at all now, and therefore no vicar. Google is your friend: http://southwark.anglican.org/downloads/lostchurches/DUL01.pdf

If you are recyclling more every week than your blue bin will hold then you're probably not compactng cardboard and plastic bottles, etc. If you compact your recycling and still have more than your blue bin will contain then request a second blue bin. As has been said, the blue recycling and green general waste bins bins have been emptied from houses and most street flats every two weeks since we have had three wheelie bins.

Apparently there's been a spate of burglaries recently in Playfield Crescent (SE22).

My recollection is that Sainsbury's bought the site from King's College and, in order to sweeten the planning process and satisfy local objectors, they replaced the previous very old and run down DHFC stadium with what is there now and also provided St Francis Park. I may be wrong.

Thanks for posting the St Mungo's number. Elsewhere in Southwark I'm trying to help a 21yo rough sleeper with mental health issues (he's not considered to be vulnerable enough though) and I've been getting nowhere. Street Link were absolutely useless. I hope this woman gets help if she needs and wants it.

I wondered what that was as I passed just now.

rabbitears Wrote: > Yeah...well...be careful what you wish for! It's a > big patch of valuable real estate. KO a school > (which are generally awesome to live next to) and > you could end up with a much worse development. Don't worry, it's already been earmarked for the school (apart from the area for the new medical centre) with the full support of the council based on assessed and evidenced future educational need. Not much could stop it now and the big local issues will be almost certainly be about style, access, parking, etc.

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You really don't like JB do you ? Like quite a few others here, I don't like his politics, his flip flopping, his habit of claiming credit for almost everything, or the fact that he's labelling the medical centre development a 'PFI' when he was clearly told at the last DCC that it isn't. Plus I am perfectly at liberty to express my views here, just like you frequently do. > And as forslating what I presume is the Abbotswood Road > estate, I not sure the residents would be so > enamored with your description: "We'd probably > have ended up with a horrible housing development > of poor architectural poor quality, like the one > next to Dulwich Hamlet FC." My comment was about the estate's architecture/design not the people who live there. I considered buying one of the houses there in 1996 because of the position of the estate. I didn't because I wasn't 'enamoured' by the features I mentioned. No, I wouldn't like or have liked the style to proliferate in the area and I'm perfectly entitled to that opinion about an an architectural and design style, and to express it here, without attempts at nannying censure from you. Yes, with the benefit of hindsight, I'm very glad that no development took place on the hospital site in the last 23 years and that JB's idiotic push for a primary school on the site wasn't accepted. And yes, I would like the unlisted landmark hospital replaced by two new landmark public developments of high architectural quality, rather than by a mock 1970's housing style mostly found in a Midlands dormitory town. I also don't want the development of the whole site to be rushed and I don't get JB's incredulity at the projected timescale, especially as it's very probably an extremely cautious one in order to manage expectations.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi ed_pete, > No. NHS Property and its predecessors between them > have been planning to replace Dulwich Hospital for > 23 years now and announced it will be another 4 > before they complete. Even glacial would be > quicker. James' confusing post where he talks about 23 years reads as though he was a bit 'tired and emotional' when writing it. There was no rush and just imagine if this site had actually been developed 23 years ago when the area's needs were very different to what's required now. There was no need then for a new secondary school of course, and Kings wouldn't have been able to temporarily re-site its services at Dulwich Hospital during its rebuilding in mid-90s to the early 2000s. We'd probably have ended up with a horrible housing development of poor architectural quality, like the one next to Dulwich Hamlet FC. > Hi Sunglasses, > We're not clear on about playing fields yet. I > doubt if they did it would be grass. They will > have sufficient land for sufficient outdoor space. > modern astroturf would be good. They're also > hoping to keep the central chateau which would be > great but adding a large amount of building behind > and joined to it. But more room for grassed open space than if someone's idiotic campaign for a Nunhead primary school on the site had succeeded, eh? Also, please try to stop yourself pre-empting the pre-planning consultation with your own preconceived ideas about what would and wouldn't be good here. You can feed into this consultation like anyone else and, in this case, the amount of land available for open space is very much in spite of you. For your information, residents of the northern end of Melbourne Grove are organising a response to the issue of the temporary school on this road, but I suspect you already knew that before your 'Johnny come lately' post on the 24th. So also hold off on taking it to Southwark News as a front page Barber scoop.

Dun Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Could we please have better lighting along > Champion Hill and the Champion Hill estate walking > down towards Sainsburys? Lots of us walk from > Denmark Hill Station down towards ED, cutting > through the estate and the lighting is really poor > when it is dark! That is in South Camberwell ward and therefore falls under Camberwell Community Council. Email Cllr Sarah King on [email protected] and she will advise you about this.

Mynamehere, that us utter rubbish. The cemeteries suffered a period of mismanagement by the council and the grounds were not properly tended. Now they will be. I agree with your point about global warming, the loss of open wild space (of which this is not one) and the loss of trees (Southwark plants hundreds of new ones) and the destruction of the seas (nothing to do with these cemeteries). However, this is not a global warming issue. "Dead oak tree", like any natural material remains in the ground for as long as it takes for it to decompose in the ground. However, the most recent burials I have been to have involved environmentally friendly weaved willow coffins. Cemeteries are not insane, they provide priceless records of history, are evolving to be greener and the ancient burial grounds being discovered and excavated now provide insights into our history, and are valuable for that in itself.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also believe burials on top of other previous > burials is also not allowed by some faiths. > > The council plans are to spend multi million > pounds - circa ?5m in phase 1 to remove trees etc. > Effectively the council will be grossly > subsidising every burial there. It could use a > commercial cemetery a couple of miles away, reduce > the costs to families dramatically, and avoid this > huge capital outlay. Cllr James Barber, as usual promulgating misinformation and, in true Lib Dem fashion, promoting the privatisation of the burial of the dead. James, have you tried encouraging the existing occupants of the cemetery to start a petition?

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I still cannot understand why someone didn't > obtain the Committee Secretary's version of what > had happened. She after all was taking the > minutes. > > I was a Monitoring Officer until the late 1990s. > The suggestion that a Councillor, or indeed any > member of the public, would not have then been > able to obtain chapter and verse of a > controversial Committee decision would have been > beyond belief. That includes our favourite EDF using councillor. You know, the one who was pushing and reinforcing - and possibly the source of - the misinformation being promulgated by Melbourne Grove Traffic Action.

rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Even though this statement virtually contradicts > the engineers' June 24 briefing which we finally > accessed, we had no other channel of > communication... none of the other councillors > apparently corrected the belief that the funding > was to study a road closure and neither did the > chair of the DCC when I emailed him. > > So, by mid-August, we felt that we had no choice > but to launch an anti-barrier campaign in order to > give the "silent majority" a voice. Agreed. And that's been my response to any suggestion to the contrary, or of 'hysteria'.

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What I cannot understand is why the wording of the > 24 June decision wasn't available until early > September. Surely at the very least a Council > member could have insisted on this, particularly > in the light of the controversial nature of the > decision, even if the minutes hadn't been > formally approved. If they couldn't have done this > (which I very much doubt), local government has > certainly changed since I worked in it. The political side of local government has always virtually closed down during August. There was a communication vacuum which Cllr Barber (and others) decided to fill by disseminating misinformation, spread via the front page of a local newspaper.