ED_moots

Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built.

In case it hasn't been mentioned. Southwark planning committee voted to Approve the scheme. None of the concerns were properly addressed. The myopic view of the panel was 'this gets us 31 social and 22 affordable properties' including our own Councillor Mccash who spoke broadly in favour of the scheme on this basis. Very disappointing for those objecting.

Highly recommend John. Has done a few jobs for me. Communicates well, always on time, finishes on schedule, very experienced and is meticulous in doing a really great job for a fair price. Loves dogs. John's number - +44 7905 044912

I'm in SE22. I need some new skirting installed, whole room, roughly 16m with a bay window and alcoves. Plus replacement window sills for the bay. Please dm me if you're an experienced carpenter and available soon. Thanks

Hambledon Court is not student accommodation. It's for key workers and NHS staff. It's also less than 1/3 size of The Sidings proposal and, as you say, not as high.

The application has now been notified and the local community have only 14 days to respond to the proposal consisting of over 100 documents. Almost impossible to digest the proposal and fairly assess its impact. PBSA should have separation from residential homes, this does not. As many have pointed out, there's no demand for student housing round ED. Also, it's huge. Will tower over the school and surrounding area. There seems to be no direct link or partnership with any university so this looks to be a giant investors HMO. More decent homes would be a much better use. If you want to comment or review the docs the link is here. https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=SHWOSNKBJXR00

I can recommend the Pilot Centre at Denham. Bit of a drive from here but they've been going for years and run a good school. A flight experience will take you out over Buckinghamshire with plenty to see. You could also try Biggin Hill, more historic and equally picturesque over the Kent countryside.

Recommend qured.com it's a video call service where you do the test at home in front of a tester on the call. It's quick and efficient. One tip though, space out your appointments if you have a big family or younger children and don't have lots of PCs/screens. The appointments can over run and it's time critical to submit your results back to them which can be a bit frantic if someone else is using the computer for their test

Hi Doug. No that's nonsense. The Halloween decorations on Melbourne Grove pre date LTNs by a couple of years. both LTN supporters and detractors partake as do some businesses. There was no victimisation of the businesses. There wasn't a party but if some councillors saw some sort of PR opportunity then who's to stop them.

The Head teacher at ED Charter has already stated the Jarvis Road entrance will not close and refert to EDG even when the old hospital building is made fit to use. Even if LTN on MG North is removed its likely to be replaced with school Street so not 24/7 closure. Not trying to argue here HB, just pointing out the switch in intent for the main school entrance. The nodal point is also on Jarvis but that's another story

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ED_moots Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I'll > > try to forget you clamouring for your own LTN > on > > CPR. > > > oooooOOOOOooooohhhh! 👜👜👜 LoL. "Of course, it also means that for one day only children will be unable to play in the street." Also lol. Has anyone actually seen this?

CPR Dave Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If the residents of Malbourne Grove don't want > this market then I will vote in favour of it. > > Let's see how they like having their street ruined > by people who live elsewhere. Thanks Dave. You've summed up how divisive these decisions are. Try not to forget not all residents on MG supported CPZ or LTN but here we are. I'll try to forget you clamouring for your own LTN on CPR.

If it is a consultation James why doesn't southwark ask whether people want it or not? How many of the 6 remaining businesses on Melbourne Grove support the market? When did anyone at southwark last speak to them? Middle of last year wasn't it? How many of the other ideas that these businesses suggested will southwark be consulting on or enacting? These businesses have been kneecapped by CPZ and throttled by LTN - neither of which southwark saw fit to speak to them about before they came in. I thought arrogance and hubris was a tory trait. Best of luck on May, comrade.

Waseley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Then fill in question 8 on any other comments and > say you don't want the market. The form seems > acceptable to me. If there is no demand businesses > will not flock to join. I don't see this as a > conspiracy. Thanks Waseley I managed to work that out myself. Pointless though, this isn't a consultation, southwark just want feedback; they might call it a consultation later though, depends what the responses say. The decision was made a while back and they didn't feel it warranted a consultation. Concerns and objections were raised at the online council meeting where Charlie Smith waffled on about putting up wrought iron gates and water fountains on NCR while Lordship Lane businesses were asking for serious solutions to the drop in trade due to Covid, CPZ and LTNs. No conspiracy, just Southwark doing their thing, backing up their ill formed decisions with misrepresentations and not much else.