chazzle

The new damage is further up the road and has torn off a narrow strip of the metal cladding. Problem is it's unlikely they'll catch the person who did it. So maybe it goes on the service charge. This was designed in - they encroached across the road as far as they possibly could get away with.

derwentgrove - One concern I have is that much of the parking at the station end of Melbourne Grove is paid parking bays. This is also by the edge of the zone, so residents can't park on the other side of the tracks in e.g. St Francis. This will push a lot of residential parking onto Derwent Grove.

Up by the station, the North end of Melbourne Grove is mostly paid parking bays, increasing distance to a parking spot. Other side of the bridge would be OK, but different CPZ.

With these CPZs, is the permit specific to one CPZ? So, if you live on the border between two, you can only use one side? This could be a real pain.

Still the same damage from before - they appeared to be fixing it this morning. How could you shut Melbourne Tyres on H&S grounds, when it's been trading there safely for 30 years?

For the latest impact (the fifth) the lorry turned in at speed and drive about one metre onto the pavement. Just bad driving. A bollard should help.

Well done on getting the new library in 18-22 Grove Vale. The property investor was delighted that it meant he didn't have to make any provision for social housing. (I hope that wasn't your idea!)

There is a link with Soloman's passage: http://www.staidansgroup.com/projects.html

The flats by the station are built out of concrete, so pretty durable. I wouldn't fancy sitting on that corner balcony (with a glass screen) though.

Just spoken to Thames Water. They are aware of a broad SE22 issue and are looking to re-charge the supply by 13:40 this afternoon.

No water here - by ED station That site for reporting problems doesn't include 'no water'. The site for that is https://www.thameswater.co.uk/Help-and-Advice/No-Water-or-low-pressure/What-to-do, but it directs to call a number that I've been hanging on for over twenty minutes.

Northridge Capital have put in a proposal (17/AP/2178) to further increase the size of the new block at 18-22 Grove Vale (the former garden centre.) This involves extending the penthouse on the fourth level ("third floor") forwards on three sides by around a metre. Although apparently minor, I think it will further increase the dominance of the block as a four storey building with oversight over local roads and residences.

My daughter had her reception at the Herne (http://thehernetavern.co.uk/) in April. Brilliant day.

And finally - the third appeal is dismissed http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/appealDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPPEAL_1697 So, two and a half years later, it could be that this is an end of this attempt to turn these homes into a (more) lucrative investment. Well, hope so!

Northridge Capital now own the site. It appears that St Aidan's have now 'moved' to the Isle of Man. They started in the City, moved to the Channel Islands (Jersey, IIRC), now there's a new one registered to IoM https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/5jbca9eICEp5sgD4Azz4n-np5sg/appointments. Each time the previous company is dissolved.

We'll be running the midsummer relays again this year: 3 x 1 mile. (You're right pidgelet - it's hard to ask people to pay for a 5k when the parkruns are free.) http://dulwichrunners.org.uk/

Old Kent Road refuse facility. Probably worth it if you have loads

Third and, hopefully, final application refused. One appeal in progress but light at the end of the tunnel! http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=details&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9569314

Thanks Jenny - very well put!

Comments on the third application for planning permission on the cottages at Railway Rise are scheduled to close on Wednesday (sorry - this has rather snuck up on me.) As history - this follows on from an initial plan to completely demolish 2&3 and build a four-storey block. That was rejected by the council and on appeal. A second plan followed for a three storey rear extension. That was rejected but has now gone to appeal. They have put in a third application, which extends the cottages back and builds a dormer roof to take then up to three storeys. I assume that the developer assumes everyone will gradually be worn down into submission. If you wish to make a comment look at: http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/, using the reference number 16/AP/4028. See attached picture for an indication of the scale of this (but note this is only one perspective which doesn't show how far back this goes).

Nigello - The empty half of the station building (the former waiting room) which formed part of the Garden Centre will be knocked down. rahrahrah - There's a picture - here: http://www.northridgecapital.co.uk/portfolio.php?p=east_dulwich , & - here: http://www.staidansgroup.com/projects.html The plans are on the Southwark Planning website - look for 18-22 Grove Vale, SE22 8EF

James - Because I said it appeared they were encroaching on Railway Rise and you said that they own it. I took that to mean that because they own it they could do what they like. Glad I was wrong. I think that St Aidans still owns the road and 2&3. Of course it may be that St Aidans and Northridge Capital are related.

Update: Got a reply from the Council saying that there has been a minor revision to the boundary, but not as substantial as the new markings suggest. (They also said that Railway Rise is now owned by the Garden Centre Developers [Northridge Capital] but I'm not sure that's true.)

James, Are you saying it's OK for them to change the footprint without planning permission because they have the permission of the road owner? That can't be true - it's why we have to get planning permission! The road is owned by the developer who used to own the Garden Centre site but failed to deliver on the development. He's now in a strong position as he can pretty much name his price for that. However, he is obliged to observe rights of access.