first mate

James, I don't think demonising NHS Property services is helpful, they are obliged to get the highest price fir the land, that is their remit. The Coalition have been largely responsible for turning the NHS inside out, I feel pretty sure that if they were so utterly scandalised by what NHS Property is doing the govt could have intervened. Instead it is much easier to play the blame game. Perhaps central govt would be wise to consider the needs and wishes of the local community before offering up jewels in the crown, in this case ED Hospital Land, to one if its favoured suppliers.

Otta, apologies, I realised after I posted. Explain more about what makes no sense re Old POlice Station site?

James, aside from the back and forth on alleged need in ED for a second primary, notwithstanding how we define ED, the key point seems to be whether the hospital site has room for a decent secondary as well as a primary. It seems everyone, other than Harris themselves and a few supporters of this particular application, think not. So, as it stands, Harris'seeming intransigence may jeopardise the secondary school. BTW I do hope the trees in front of the Old Police Station are safe. It is rumoured his L'dship does not take kindly to trees on or near his property; the application has a number of references to trees which are suggestive of get out clauses should 'accidental' damage occur.

Otta, If I have it right, Harris, once given the go ahead by Southwark planning are definitely building on the Police station site to create Harris ED primary 1, however they also want to build a second primary school on the Dulwich Hospital site and have had their application okayed by the EFA (I think). I don't think the hospital site land has even been sold yet so we are some way off from planning details. The second Harris primary school is contentious because, according to most, it is not needed or wanted in ED and was actually submitted on the basis of need in Nunhead (this 'need' is now also disputed). Additionally, the application for ED Harris 2 may affect the viability of a much needed secondary school also being touted for the hospital site. Most argue that a good secondary school will need the space currently allocated for the unwanted Harris 2. The case is being fought by secondary school suppporters, disinterested residents in ED and a variety of MP's. A few councillors, however, continue to support Harris 2, for reasons that are not especially clear.

An odd move when you consider that forthcoming building work on the new Harris is likely to increase pressure on parking around that area. I too hope to hear what is going on.

I remember the way Northcross Rd suddenly got trendy. First the Arterie, then Mel at the Blue Mountain, and finally Rose At Grace and Favour, she opened virtually same day Blair became PM. Used to love G&F, she did really good cakes in the early days, when she was just a cafe with a few bits for sale.

Hi James, Interested to know which Park Friends organisation was offered a million pounds from the Council off the back of developers, if that is what you meant? What was the money being offered for and what was the quid pro quo? When was this offer made and was it accepted or rejected? Who was the developer? More info please.

The entrenched behaviour issue is a component of many types of anti-social behaviour. Perhaps other penalties should be considered for proven, unreformed serial offenders. The problem with this is policing and catching people doing wrong, and then it also becomes about best use of resources. The poo is a pain, we all hate it, but I just wanted to make the point again that just one bloody-minded and irresponsible individual can create the illusion that an area has an epidemic of bad dog owners.

This one comes around on a regular basis and might create the impression that ED is full of irresponsible dog owners. In fact it just takes just one bad owner in a population of 100's to have an impact. Dogs go twice a say, so within one week you can have a sizeable problem on the route frequented by one dog and bad owner. The solution is, in my view, twofold. Stiff fines for those caught red-handed followed by compulsory training in responsible ownership. Enforce compulsory use of leads. Dogs walking ahead or behind owners offlead are more likely to defecate without the owner 'noticing'. However, it is most likely that the problem us caused by a few and does not involve the majority of ED dog owners.

My point is more that there seems to be an overwhelming view that what ED needs is a good secondary school with adequate space. It is felt that inclusion of another, primary school will compromise the quality of the secondary. The arguments in favour of the Harris Primary seem to be that they were first out of the traps and built their case on the basis of need in Nunhead, not ED, but without access to a suitable site in the catchment area they used to make their case. Casting around for a suitable site they alighted on DCH land and with the apparent support of the EFA staked their claim. Therefore a school may be built on a prime site in East Dulwich to provide schooling for an alleged shortfall of primary places in Nunhead while compromising/jeopardising the future of a desperately needed secondary school in East Dulwich itself. This is madness surely?

So just to be clear, are you saying that a primary school needs to be built on DCH site to serve Nunhead and further afield?

A good letter and the last comment about Harris' lack of contact with Southwark re DHC site really does give a sense of the cosy relationship between Harris and the Coalition. I also wonder about their seeming intactability on the it's either the hospital site or MOL land. If the need is North of the borough then why not look in that direction?

Yes but that need was for Nunhead (since cancelled out by the expansion of Ivydale) not for ED. It looks like process is being cynically manipulated so that Harris can hold onto its 'right' to a parcel of land for a school that nobody wants- not in East Dulwich.

P68, Exactly. The message is that come what may Harris must have a site because that is what the process has decided. Quite apart from the fact that process can often be reversed (if enough effort is made)it does all seem to be about looking first at the requirements/needs of Harris and the community second- bizarre. I would also add that isn't there an issue about the Homestall Road site and MOL land? If that is the case I would not wnat to see a precedent set for Harris acquiring and using MOL land, not when it is right next to Peckham Rye. However, might have misunderstood this.

Other posters are right, an intact tom is going to be more of a risk and it sounds like this cat is also very assertive and territorial, not all cats are. Generally, a less territorial and pushy cat makes a better pet. In addition, this cat is of a breed and type that tends to be bigger and stronger than average, overall not suitable pet material where cars are forced to live cheek by whisker and where a strong instinct to claim territory causes nasty fights and stress all round. This cat needs a bigger territory and fewer competitors. Late neutering may help a bit but his behaviour us now learned and established.

I may be wrong but I suspect there are a quite a few objectors with no vested interest at all. There is a sense that a Harris Primary is being imposed on the community whether we like it or not. So what is the motivation for this imposition, if it is not being driven by local need? It feels wrong and it feels undemocratic. It is also upsetting to find that a locally elected representative for the community appears unwilling, and for reasons that are not clear, to represent the wishes of the community.

Louisa, I agree and once you have a few it sets a planning precedent.

Otta, I genuinely believe that any other Councillor or local politician that comes onto the forum will be asked to nail their colours to the mast on this issue. James has wriggled around in this one.

James, it does look pretty shoddy. Voters have made it very clear that we want a secondary school and do not want the Harris primary. Instead of hiding behind process as though there is absolutely nothing that can be done to change matters, why not support what your voters want and resist the primary? It really does seem like Harris have some hold over you.

Think offering opportunity to win a cash raffle prize if you sign up and participate is a bit rum.

What a mess. At another, hitherto excellent surgery the advice is to book two weeks ahead. However, when, as for many, there is no crystal ball with which to predict acute episodes of illness it seems one must first ring to make an appt to speak to a Doctor, having spoken to the Doctor there is every chance you will then be referred on to the Lister Centre. The local Doctor's surgery has become a kind of medical call centre with Doctor's making decisions on the 'phone (what a waste of all that training). This whole process can take 2-3 hours, no wonder many will give up and simply go to A&E. Something is desperately wrong with the health service and the way it is being re-modelled. Aside from the likes of Concordia (who, in former years, with city boys at the helm, chose to pilot this brave new face of healthcare)many local surgeries were offering a decent, reliable service. What has gone wrong in the last 4 years?

Woodwarde, Many thanks. This lack of transparency is concerning. James Barber are you aware of plans for the Southwark Spine? What comments do you have about Woodwarde's observations and concerns?

Bengals are known to be capable of being much more territorial and aggressive than many other cat breeds, especially if left intact...how utterly irresponsible of the owner. I would recommend rehoming the Bengal to somewhere that he has a large enough range to satisfy his territorial instincts, as well as neutering him immediately.

I have also reported poor/dangerous pavement areas and absolutely nothing done. However, plenty of money available to make the junction of Nx rd and LL look less 'unsightly'. What an odd sense of priorities our Council folk have.

Healey, I posted in response to your dismissive reply to edhistory's cautionary observation about the sewage system - 'something to moan about'. Given the rate of development in the Capital, together with Thames Water's own warnings about overloading the system, I think his comment is worth some thought. I'm not clear that anyone has said these houses should not be built...have they?