Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Has anyone checked out the brochure and planning guidance document on the sale of ED Police Station?


http://search.knightfrank.co.uk/krd131892


Brochure: http://www.inst.knightfrank.com/public/fetch/5490


http://www.inst.knightfrank.com/view/east

Password: dulwich


http://www.inst.knightfrank.com/public/private_view/318


Planning Guidance: http://www.inst.knightfrank.com/public/fetch/5699


Apparently the deadline for bids was 25th Oct and bids are now being considered by the MPS. Looks like housing is the preferred option but I hope Waitrose made a bid!

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/39464-east-dulwich-police-station/
Share on other sites

steveo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Flats. End of.



You're probably right. Although they might go for a mixed-development, new homes and retail (jobs) would seem like a winner. Not sure how residents of LL would feel though. A bit like this this one in Guildford? http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2012/11/08/waitrose-store-and-flats-plan-in-guildford-approved/

The site should be used for community use - as it was when a police station. Certainly in planning terms their would be a presumption for any piurchaser choosing to apply for planning permission for a non community use to prove no community use needs exists.

IF it were to be sold for non community use, and I'm anticipating it wont be, then we would have ample proof of real community use needs and planning permission I hope would be refused on this basis.

One of the most likely sites for one of the two new Harris free primary schools for East Dulwich emerged to be the East Dulwich Police Station.

This site is owned by the GLA/MOPAC and negotiations to purchase it have been very ongoing shall we say.


To encourage things along The Dulwich Society has very kindly agreed today to apply to Southwark Council for the site to be listed as a community asset under the 2011 Localism Act and we be allowed to buy it for community use.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • He's always been clear he'd rather be elsewhere than Westminster: https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2024/06/18/starmer-davos-interview/ "Westminster is too constrained. It’s closed and we’re not having meaning. Once you get out of Westminster whether it’s Davos or anywhere else, you actually engage with people that you can see working with in the future. Westminster is just a tribal shouting place."   That's who he is.
    • These are the times he used the word "fight", in context. And Rudy [Giuliani], you did a great job. He’s got guts. You know what? He’s got guts, unlike a lot of people in the Republican Party. He’s got guts. He fights. He fights, and I’ll tell you.   ... For years, Democrats have gotten away with election fraud and weak Republicans, and that’s what they are. There’s so many weak Republicans. We have great ones, Jim Jordan, and some of these guys. They’re out there fighting. The House guys are fighting, but it’s incredible. ... Did you see the other day where Joe Biden said, “I want to get rid of the America First policy”? What’s that all about, get rid of -- how do you say, “I want to get rid of America First”? Even if you’re going to do it, don’t talk about it, right? Unbelievable, what we have to go through, what we have to go through, and you have to get your people to fight. And if they don’t fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don’t fight. You primary them. We’re going to let you know who they are. I can already tell you, frankly. ... Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer, and we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we’re going to have to fight much harder, and Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. ... And we were going to sit home and watch a big victory. And everybody had us down for a victory. It was going to be great. And now we’re out here fighting. ... [ I GUESS THE BBC REALLY COULDN'T USE THIS ONE:] The American people do not believe the corrupt fake news anymore. They have ruined their reputation. But it used to be that they’d argue with me, I’d fight. So I’d fight, they’d fight. I’d fight, they’d fight. Boop-boop. You’d believe me, you’d believe them. Somebody comes out. You know. They had their point of view, I had my point of view. But you’d have an argument. Now what they do is they go silent. It’s called suppression. And that’s what happens in a communist country. That’s what they do. They suppress. You don’t fight with them anymore, unless it’s a bad story. ... With your help over the last four years, we built the greatest political movement in the history of our country and nobody even challenges that. I say that over and over, and I never get challenged by the fake news, and they challenge almost everything we say. But our fight against the big donors, big media, big tech and others is just getting started. ... Our brightest days are before us. Our greatest achievements still wait. I think one of our great achievements will be election security because nobody until I came along, had any idea how corrupt our elections were. And again, most people would stand there at 9:00 in the evening and say, “I want to thank you very much,” and they go off to some other life, but I said, “Something’s wrong here. Something’s really wrong. Can’t have happened.” And we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.
    • Saying the election had been stolen was pretty provocative wouldn't you say? Pardoning the rioters would suggest that he agreed with them.  Wouldn't you say? Being an apologist for leaders of a country who execute political enemies, is a sad reflection of civilisation.  Wouldn't you say? Whether the above stands up in a court of law is another question but surely it is obvious to most of us.
    • "His speech did repeatedly call on people to fight."   If that were true there would have been no need for the BBC to splice together two sections of his speech that were uttered 53 minutes apart. They could have just used a clip from one of the times he actually said it. If it were true.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...