dc

The East Dulwich Action Group was created in the early 1990?s as an informal group made up of traders, residents, Councillors and the local MP. It initially came together in response to a proposal to tighten parking restrictions on Lordship Lane to aid the passage of buses at a time when local traders were under a perceived threat from the newly opened Sainsburys. It was also involved in trying to rejuvenate the North Cross Road market, campaigned for Christmas lights and took a view on various traffic schemes - including one where an option was to remove the roundabout at the end of Lordship Lane (or at least reduce its size significantly). I?ve no idea if this is the same organisation involving some of the same people but, if it is, they have certainly done useful work in the past.

Fair enough but I was thinking primarily in terms of the construction of the station which, theoretically at least, would allow access from both the north and south sides - as is the case at Forest Hill (albeit more east and west there). Of course there are many other differences - Forest Hill has two million fewer passengers and only two platforms for a start.

drewd Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have just checked out the map linked above. The > wards beginning with the word Dulwich plus the > Peckham Rye ward all have electorates of less that > 8000 compared with the majority of other wards in > the borough that seem to be around 11000. The Local Government Boundary Commission has gone back to a position where there is a mix of two and three member wards - as was the case before the previous review which resulted in 21 wards, all with three members. With the new boundaries there will be 17 three member wards and 6 two member wards. The number of Councillors will remain the same at 63. All except one of the two member wards are in the south of the borough. The idea, as always, is that each Councillor represents a similar number of electors across the borough (in this case taking into account population projections for 2021). More details can be found here: https://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/greater-london/southwark The ?Summary of the Report? is a good place to start.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Surely we could do what other stations have and > have a gate open on windsor walk, but just have a > oyster touch pad there, and accept the risk a tiny > number of people may not pay? This would make an > immediate difference. My understanding is that TfL require ?proper? ticket barriers at any stations where their services operate - even if they do not manage the station itself. So I don?t think an ?open? station entrance, as at East Dulwich, is a realistic option. The obvious comparison with Denmark Hill is Forest Hill where there is a smaller entrance/exit with ticket barriers onto Perry Vale on the east side. It would be much more congested at times there if everyone had to access or exit the down platform via the footbridge. Forest Hill is managed by TfL and I?m sure things would improve Denmark Hill if it was managed by TfL too. At the moment however, TfL are both part of the problem and a potential source for a solution.

The ?problem? - if that is the right word - is that passenger access at DH has doubled in just a few years. That would be fine in many circumstances but going from 3 million+ to 7 million+ is a scale of things that even the most optimistic supporter of the ELLX (a major driver of the increase I am sure) would never even have tried to pretend was realistic. The original campaign that resulted in works at the station was in relation to accessibility per se - particularly given the fact that so many people with physical impairments (permanent or temporary) use the station to access KCH. The newer problem - at key peak periods at least - is about passenger safety. The physical safety of passengers is an oft stated absolute priority, so I?m surprised that the responsible authorities - both TOCs and DfT - are (reportedly) not being more responsive.

EDOldie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwich Hill is the old name for Denmark Hill and > that sort of area. I.e. between Dulwich and > Camberwell. So the new Dulwich Hill seems to be > Barry Road area which doesn't seem right > historically or geographically, or anything > really. Lordship or Barry would be better. > > Village Ward used to be called Ruskin I'm sure. > Can't remember the others. What they really need > to get on with is changing the Parliamentary > boundaries. They?re doing that too. In the latest (final consultation now closed) iteration ?south Southwark? is lumped in with parts of Lewisham. I don?t think it makes any sense and the new system means - in theory at least - that we get new boundaries at every single General Election. The latest legislation results in a jigsaw puzzle that will fit constituencies around the numbers rather than any attempt to achieve local representation based on established communities. Anyway the wards in the old Dulwich seat were: The Lane Bellenden Waverley Lyndhurst Alleyn Rye Ruskin College ...and Barset in Nunhead which was removed to Peckham from the 1983 election onwards. The new Goose Green ward is not a million miles away from the old Bellenden ward in that it traverses East Dulwich Road. It would have been wrong to have retained the East Dulwich name as the ward encompasses parts of SE15 as well as SE22.

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1895791 Not convinced it?s gone myself as you?ll see on that thread.

Not sure it is closing down. ?New Year, New Floor, New Ceiling, New beginnings? doesn?t have the ring of a closing down notice to me. Personally I?ve always found Bonnie?s to be excellent and I hope, therefore, that my surmise is correct. Platform 1 has gone though, apparently.

All valid points I?m sure, but I sincerely doubt that there is anything in planning guidance - national, regional (the London Plan) or local (the Southwark Plan - currently being updated) - about either ?not wanting to be like Lewisham? or any requirement to ?protect the view from Franks or the Bussey building?. So those are not grounds, per se, on which an application can be refused.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My issue with pricing people out of driving > is that, as with everything, it is the most > vulnerable and poorest in genuine need that are > hit hardest. I seriously doubt that we?re getting remotely close to the ?most vulnerable and poorest? in this scenario. In Southwark the last census (2011) showed that 58% of households didn't have access to a car. Just in case you think that figure is out of date and things might have changed, the previous census (2001) showed that 51% of households were in the same position. So we appear to be looking at a declining trend of car ownership across the borough.

There?s a tower (Witcombe Point) about 150m away with 20+ storeys. I?m not arguing the rights and wrongs here, but if people are seeking to oppose this on planning grounds by suggesting that it is totally out of keeping in the local context that, in itself, surely makes the argument a non-starter?

kford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've heard it's going to be flats You ?heard? wrong.

This is a pretty useful site: http://www.recenttraintimes.co.uk

dc Wrote: ---------------------------------------------------- > Clifton Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > Dulwich's next home game is against Leiston onthe > > 23rd, by which time the table will be a bitmore > > meaningful as each of Billericay and Folkestone > > will have used up two of their games in hand. > > True of Folkestone, but Billericay will only have > made up one game, as they play in the FA Trophy on > 16/12. Could be none if the Trophy match goes to a > replay... So, Folkestone lost one of their games in hand on Tuesday, to bottom club Worthing. Ricay?s game on Tuesday was postponed so they won?t make up any games in hand before Christmas (assuming all remaining games go ahead of course). Useful page here for latest fixtures, table updates and more: https://www.footballwebpages.co.uk/isthmian-football-league-premier-division

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also heard via someone who worked there that > they were hoping to open again soon. Me too - about 5 mins ago - and he should know what he?s talking about.

Clifton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwich's next home game is against Leiston on the > 23rd, by which time the table will be a bit more > meaningful as each of Billericay and Folkestone > will have used up two of their games in hand. True of Folkestone, but Billericay will only have made up one game, as they play in the FA Trophy on 16/12. Could be none if the Trophy match goes to a replay...

If you?re going to the game, there will be a collection point for donations to the Southwark Foodbank at the Dulwich Hamlet FC match at Champion Hill Stadium tomorrow afternoon. Details on the link below: http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/dulwichhamlet/news/please-bring-some-shopping-on-saturday-2105478.html

AGW3 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No good can come of something being signed under > duress. Well the match, Foodbank collection and Supporters? Trust Christmas Party will now be going ahead. All of which are pretty good in my book. I do take your point however.

NewWave Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > is it because of boring neighbours complaining > about noise? No, that was resolved very quickly. Would be surprised if it was closed for long.

Link at the end of this post that gives some background. There are further links within the page that list pubs and the level of protection they will be afforded: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/article-4-directions?chapter=5&utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shite. Never been a regular but always enjoyed it > when I've dropped in when passing. Another block > of flats no doubt... Would seriously doubt that. Southwark has recently adopted Article 4 directions to specifically protect local pubs and The Gowlett is amongst those with the highest level of protection. Edited (for typo)

It was Thurrock?s highest gate of the season, except for their game against Billericay - which is just down the road - and that match was on the August Bank Holiday. Anyway, the Bovril was good and Reise Allassani scored his 5th in 5 to take us 6 points clear at the top.

I don?t think Franklin?s do their wood-fired chickens any more and haven't for a little while. Maybe that is the aspect of Deliveroo?s model to which Seabag was referring? On further inspection, there are rotisserie chickens available from ?Deliveroo Editions? which, when you look up the details of the ?restaurant? turns out to be based on Valmar Road in Camberwell (see SNews article linked to above). They are also priced way above what Franklin?s Farm Shop used to charge.

Indeed. It?s orthography and, given that the language is English, we surely must retain some right to influence that?

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Robert Poste's Child Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Use a piece of loo paper to open the door and > > chuck it into the loo as the door swings shut > > behind you. Or use your sleeve. > > I've read it takes 27 layers to stop germs Sorry, but I think you either read wrong or read rubbish.