Dogkennelhillbilly

This isn't true either. In the year up to June 2025, the UK had 898,000 immigrants and 693,000 emigrants. Net migration was therefore +204,000 into the UK. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/longterminternationalmigrationprovisional/yearendingjune2025

So much nonsense in a single post! 1) this vaguely xenophobic stuff is based on a belief that London is full of houses owned by foreigners that are kept empty and out of the hands of native buyers and renters. This is unmitigated bullshit. "England has the lowest rate of empty homes in the OECD, and Greater London has about one-tenth the level of Paris, just 0.7% of properties being empty compared to 6.5%...the effect on the general housing crisis is minuscule. London, Oxford, Cambridge, Brighton and other cities have eye-wateringly expensive housing because of high demand and low supply. That’s the obvious and boring answer." https://www.edwest.co.uk/p/the-myth-of-londons-empty-homes 2) where do you get this idea that infill sites have to be small? Southwark and the GLA planning documents explicitly recognise that industrial sites can be infill sites. 3) It is simply factually untrue and misleading that taller buildings are out of character for the area of the development. The neighbouring school has taller blocks, Hambledon Court on the other side of the tracks is a taller building, the Dog Kennel Hill estate on the other side of the station consists of taller buildings. 4) if that is the lesson you have taken away, then is your opposition to this new housing in East Dulwich part of a Lib Dem policy to "deny, baby, deny"? Let's be real for a second: there is no way out of the housing crisis that doesn't involve building lots of new housing. If we can't build on top of a disused builder's yard above a railway station, where are we going to build in this neighbourhood? 5) This is also nonsense. The student accommodation was initially closed because of systemic fire risks that made the buildings unsafe. KCL is now halfway through totally renovating the blocks and expanding capacity. KCL gets twice as many applications for student accommodation as it can fulfil. KCL just opened another 452 student rooms in Battersea - so clearly they don't have a concern about a cataclysmic decline in student numbers. https://www.rlb.com/europe/projects/kcl-champion-hill/ https://roarnews.co.uk/2024/kcl-accommodation-still-empty-four-years-after-evacuation/ https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2025/03/03/watkin-jones-wins-30m-student-digs-campus-upgrade/ It is really disappointing that someone involving themselves in planning matters is relying on (and spreading) prejudices, misconceptions and misinformation like this.

Central and local government are going to have to do multiple things at once (as opposed to the James Barber approach of "there are other things that need to be done by other people elsewhere, so we shouldn't approve building new housing here"). £200m across multiple councils across the whole of England and Wales is not going to crowd out opportunities to build more social housing and to approve other housing built at private expense.

1 and 3: rent is determined by supply and demand, not input costs. 2: foreign landlords are subject to UK tax for UK property rentals. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-resident-landord-guidance-notes-for-letting-agents-and-tenants-non-resident-landlords-scheme-guidance-notes/what-the-non-resident-landlords-scheme-is 4: paying squalid hotels to house asylum seekers short term is fantastically expensive. This £200m is a relatively small amount (compared to the housing market as a whole) and will lead to a small increase in the amount of short term housing stock owned by councils. 5 and 6: because that's where the money is. You didn't mention the other "solution" proposed by various NIMBYs: oppose infill housing projects like the one discussed here and attempt to reduce their size wherever possible based on disingenuous arguments.

OK, so now we have all agreed the area of the development isn't all "2/3 storeys suburban", and there are in fact similar scale buildings very close to the proposed development that bother no-one, are you still opposed to the development?

I think the Brixton Pound lives on, so there must be some kind of appetite for it, but I'm afraid I doubt it would be very useful for me.

You're being a little disingenuous here. It is simply not true that "the area should remain suburban 2/3 storeys maximum" because: -> the area the development is in isn't 2/3 storeys maximum today - as evidenced by the school on the lot adjoining the development to the south, as well as the similarly-sized buildings to the north and east. -> the SPG doesn't preclude this type of development anyway. This "genie in a bottle" stuff is desperate barrel-scraping. Now you're raising the spectre of a 9 storey building on the Gibbs & Dandy site (the chance would be a fine thing) but also arguing Southwark is too slow to approve things and opposed to development more than 2-3 storeys!

This is simply untrue. The area is not 2/3 storeys maximum. Hambledon Court is on the other side of tracks from the Jewson site on Burrow Rd, is 8 storeys, and is barely known (let alone bothersome) to most people in East Dulwich. Felbridge House, Petworth House etc on the opposite side of the station from the new development are all 5 storeys tall. East Dulwich Charter (which neighbours the new development) is itself 4-5 storeys (depending on which block you're talking about). What's more, Hambledon Court was finished in about 1978 iirc and no-one has built anything similar around here since then - so the "slippery slope" "genie in the bottle" argument doesn't work either. You can't simultaneously argue that Southwark is too slow in approving new construction but also suggest this will lead to a flood of new high-rise housing! At current rates of approval, we can expect our next 8 storey building to arrive in...2072!

Just as a little follow up: Grace Dent called this place opposite Brockwell Park one of her best restaurants of the year. Quite an achievement - and it looked pretty busy when I passed by last week. Well done to them! https://www.theguardian.com/food/2025/dec/28/many-over-hyped-london-restaurants-grace-dent-best-restaurants-of-2025-review

In answer to the original question, the position of a teacher who worked at Dulwich College and raised concerns about Farage at the time, seems to be "yes - Dulwich College did tolerate bigotry and racism, and it was at the direction of the headteacher". "I had previously taught in a large, culturally-diverse comprehensive school in Brent, with many Jewish colleagues and other staff of colour. It would have been unthinkable for such behaviours to have been tolerated there, or to have gone unpunished." https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2025/dec/28/of-course-he-abused-pupils-ex-dulwich-teacher-speaks-out-about-farage-racism-claims

I can't answer your question. But on them generally: it's changed hands in the last year or so, I think. I paid £35 for interior and exterior and they did a crap job. I'll go to the one on Herne Hill (or just do it myself if health allows) next time.

Someone had a worse day than you. Be grateful not to be involved.

Eh?!?!

To be honest, pal, it's not good being a fan of a local business and then not go there. One on hand, the barber shop literally next door to Romeo Jones started serving coffee. The Crown and Greyhound and Rocca serve coffee. Redemption Coffee opened up not far away, and then also Megan's next door to that. DVillage was serving coffee (but wasn't very popular), as was Au Ciel (which is). Maybe also Heritage Cheese, I don't know. There's also Flotsam and Jetsam doing coffee and sandwiches at Dulwich Picture Gallery in the other direction. The whole of Dulwich Village serves coffee. And yet on the other hand, there are enough punters to support all good coffee shops. With the exception of Rocca and Megan's (which are both big spaces) and C&G (which does coffee like everything else - slow and with bad service), all these places regularly get queues out the door. Gail's often has big queues and yet very few people crossed the street to Romeo Jones (which was much better)... Half the staff at Gail's are perfectly fine and efficient. The other half are pretty offhand and rude. It's certainly not welcoming or friendly service. But they're certainly hard working, and no doubt raking the money in for Luke Johnson...

I haven't used them myself but I noticed recently that "Snoots" in Forest Hill is going unlimited primary care for £33/month, so basically a subscription. Easy access on the 176 from East Dulwich. I have no idea what it includes so read the contract! It's a chain but only 5 branches so not a mega corporate. 🤷‍♂️ https://www.snootsvet.com/find-us