MarkT

Where does it say that amount of people is all they need? The 2012 Grove Vale Consultation Report had a 21% response. The Report justifies that as acceptable by quoting Council policy: ?The Parking and Enforcement Plan1 (PEP) sets out the council?s policy in the management of parking on its public highway.? ?The PEP sets out that the council will give significant weight to the consultation return when it exceeds a 20% threshold.? "Q5 Do you agree with the proposed introduction of a controlled parking zone in your street?? Response: Yes 35% No 59% Undecided 6% Recommendation: CPZ throughout the Grove Vale study area. The 2017 Dog Kennel Hill Report justifies a 15% response: "As the response rate was over 10% the Council gives significant weight to the consultation returns." I can't find the PEP on the Council website, so I don't know if that policy has been been rewritten to allow 10% as significant or if the CPZ pushers are making it up as they go along. MarkT

Apmuso wrote: ?Personally I'm for a 12-2 CPZ in the Grove Vale area, but I appreciate the arguments against.? ?As I understand it, the council are willing to implement a CPZ where there is enough support on a road by road basis, rather than firehose the area with them.? Why do you understand it will be implemented on a road by road basis? I have quoted above (Oct 17) from the Dog Kennel Hill Report: - 14 streets out of a total 29 streets voted yes to a CPZ. - 47% of all respondents voted yes to a CPZ. - Based on the results of the informal consultation, officers are making the following recommendations: To implement a parking zone throughout the whole study area. As you are for a CPZ, you might agree with the officers that 47% of a 15% response is, to use your phrase, ?enough support?, but you are demonstrably wrong that it will be implemented on a road by road basis? I also question your phrase ?the Council are willing to implement?. I think that determined would be more apt. In each area that has previously rejected a CPZ, they try again until they have "enough support" to justify bulldozing it through. I?d like to explore your appreciation of the arguments against in a later post. MarkT

To follow up your aside, Jimbo, the garages in Henslowe Road, and probably also your former playground, have a big sign "NO BALL GAMES". I think that is really sad, what harm could be done to a row of garages. Who in the Council takes those decisions to prohibit children from engaging in such positive activities?

Johnie, I have this one reservation. the guides (I have 2 books - Collins Gem Guide and Blacks Nature Guide) seem to make a point about the snakeskin stipe as an identifying characteristic. In Lee's photo, like the ones this year in my garden, it seems smooth http://www.gallowaywildfoods.com/parasol-mushroom-edibility-distribution-identification/ However, looking again at the first photo in the link, that looks smooth. The confusion would be with the shaggy parasol, which at worst according to the link "doesn't agree with some people". - small risk. I'm regretting now I didn't eat mine. MarkT

Looks to me like a parasol. Macrolepiota procera. The specimen in your pic is newly emerged; it opens into an umbrella shape. I ate them years ago, when I was young and careless, and found them very tasty. Sliced thinly, they also dried nicely for later use. My mushroom guide confirms this but warns that related species are poisonous. The edible one it says does not discolour on cutting but it has has a snakeskin-like stem. I don't remember that last detail on the ones I used to eat. So now I'm not so sure; Some appeared in my garden recently - smooth stem - I did not eat them. I would appreciate an expert opinion. MarkT

rh, Abe, my point, which I should have made clear, is that I question the phrase "would like". No doubt people who strongly object to a CPZ would select the 2 hour regime as the least objectionable option if the CPZ is created. That is very different from saying that those objectors "would like" that option. Perhaps "prefer" would be more appropriate. MarkT

I think if you do not want a CPZ it would be unwise to wait for the launch of Consultation. The wanty drivers clearly do not wait. The various consultation reports on specific CPZs make the point that outside of formal consultations the Council receives requests for a CPZ. They do not mention if they receive unprompted objections to a CPZ. Sept 28th on this thread, I quoted from the Grove Vale Report, and now here from the Dog Kennel Hill Report. The pattern seems to be that the council proposes a CPZ and, if it is unsupported in the neighbourhood, they bide their time until they have had enough intervening requests for a CPZ. They then do another consultation and creatively interpret the results to justify a recommendation for the individual Councillor Decision to impose a CPZ Extracts from 2017 Dog Kennel Hill Consultation Report. 2006/7 Area last consulted on possible introduction of CPZ (No widespread support of CPZ at this time) As the response rate was over 10% the Council gives significant weight to the consultation returns. Summary of key consultation findings ? A total of 2,471 consultation packs were sent out to 28 streets within the consultation area. We received a total of 365 valid responses representing a response rate of 15%. ? A valid response is a response from a resident or business within the consultation boundary. ? Street-by-street analysis shows that 14 streets support a parking zone and ten streets are against. Three streets were undecided and there was no response from Grove Vale or Henry Dent Close. ? The majority of respondents stated that they and their visitors have difficultly parking on week days during the day. ? 12% of respondents were undecided on whether they would like a parking zone, 39% stated that they did not want a parking zone and 49% stated that they did want a parking zone. ? It is clear that the largest group of respondents would like a parking zone on their street. ? 29% of respondents would like this parking zone to operate all day (i.e. 8.30am ? 6.30pm) and 29% would like the zone to operate for two hours during the day. ? 65% of respondents would like it to operate Monday to Friday. Recommendations Based on the results of the informal consultation, officers are making the following recommendations: 1. To implement a parking zone throughout the whole study area. 2. For the zone to operate Monday to Friday. 3. For the zone to operate for two hours during the day, 11am to 1pm. My notes on the above: 1. The Grove Vale Consultation Report quoted the Council?s Parking and Enforcement Plan to justify the acceptance of a 21% response: ?The PEP sets out that the council will give significant weight to the consultation return when it exceeds a 20% threshold.? For Dog Kennel Hill the significance threshold has magically reduced to 10% to justify acceptance of a 15% response 2. 3rd bullet point: 14 streets for a CPZ. out a total of 29 ? ie a minority of streets for. Recommendation ?based on that? is to implement CPZ on every street. 3. 4th bullet point: NOT TRUE. Further on in the report the actual figure of respondents who stated that they and their visitors had trouble parking on a weekday is recorded as 47%. That is not a majority. 4. 4th Bullet point ??they and their visitors?? suggests that the majority of respondents were drivers. Why do non-drivers not respond? Non-drivers also have visitors and tradespeople, some of whom may refuse to come to a CPZ. 5. 5th bullet point: A minority - 49% - want CPZ. 6th Bullet point misleadingly implies that the majority were in favour. 6. 8th Bullet point: ?65% of respondents would like it to operate Monday to Friday?. How can that be true when only 49% of respondents want any form of CPZ? MarkT

Sue, this from the Council website: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/bins-and-recycling/recycling/recycling-centres/recycling-locator The link takes you nearly there - goto electricals then energy saving light bulbs. Nowhere nearby. There used to be one at Sainsburys Dog Kennel Hill, then Colyton Rd/Holmstall Rd, but they seem to have gone. MarkT

OP said 18th October. That's next Thursday. But could they leave a display board up, unattended, for a week or so, to give people a better chance to see the proposals?

Sorry, I was being a bit obscure, attempting ridicule rather then outright condemnation. Of course the practitioners are charlatans and are exploitative. At least the NHS has stopped funding homeopathy. The British Homeopathic Association took the NHS to the High Court but failed to get the funding continued. MarkT

Please let us show some tolerance for the faith of others. I am happy for anyone to hold a belief that is unsupported by any rational argument or scientific proof. It is ok by me for others to believe that the efficacy of a potion containing absolutely nothing of the active agent is increased by diluting it further. However, I would ask homeopathic practitioners to consider those not of the faith. Each time you administer a dose of less than nothing of a powerful agent to your client, you are, without my consent, giving me even less than less than nothing.

Average speed cameras are good in principle but how would it work on Barry Road with its multiple crossings? This must be considered in relation to the planned CPZ in adjoining streets. The 2012 Grove Vale Consultation Report states that parking restrictions provide a critical tool in keeping traffic flowing and improving road safety. I would like to see the Councils evidence that parking restrictions improve safety. It seems contrary to the Council?s statements in its own Streetscape Design Manual that improved visibility can lead to increased speed. In addition to the extensive double yellow lines already on corners, the additional parking restrictions eg 2m plus on every dropped kerb, that would come with the CPZ, coupled with speed restrictions on Barry Road would certainly increase the attraction of the side roads for rat running. MarkT

Extracts from the 2012 Grove Vale Consultation Report: ?The Parking and Enforcement Plan1 (PEP) sets out the council?s policy in the management of parking on its public highway.? ?The PEP sets out that the council will give significant weight to the consultation return when it exceeds a 20% threshold.? The response rate to the questionnaires was 21% with additional comments by email, letter or phone, which represented a similar mix of opinion. ?Q5) Do you agree with the proposed introduction of a controlled parking zone in your street?? Response: Yes 35% No 59% Undecided 6% The report cites an earlier consultation in 2001-3 with 244 responses, a 13.6% response rate with 54% were against the implementation of a CPZ, but does not give the percentage undecided and the percentage for the CPZ. In the meantime they had received 44 requests from residents in the study area for a CPZ. Those subsequent requests were not necessarily the same individuals who had responded first time, but, numerically, pressure from a minority of the minority that had lost the argument first time round was used by the council to justify a second go. The second consultation showed an increased response and an increased percentage opposed to a CPZ. The Report acknowledges that, while they delivered questionnaires to every address, the response was unrepresentative in that ?Only 10% of respondents in the study area don?t have a vehicle.? I suspect it was even less than 10% if you include those that drive but do not ?have a vehicle? The Report includes a table and bar chart showing times of day when ?You? or ?Your visitors? have difficulty parking. The overall numbers recorded are notably higher for ?You? than for ?Your visitors?. Any non-drivers who had responded, would, I suggest, record no personal difficulties but might still identify difficulties for their visitors. So in the Grove Vale area, close to the rail station, with all the issues of commuter parking, the Report shows that resident drivers were increasingly opposed to a CPZ. Also that non-drivers opted out. All residents are affected by this. It is not just blue badge holders who need to drive. It is not just drivers who have visitors who may need to drive. It is not just drivers who may need a boiler engineer on a cold winter day. We can?t leave this to a small minority of wanty drivers.

sillywoman, you say "you can park on anyone's drive". Are you saying on their private property?

cuctacuctac, try Leasehold Repairs 0207 525 2600 and mshoccteamrepair@southwark.gov.uk. I was assuming that all the communal drains run vertically. The flats now draining into yours must be above your kitchen sink, but there could be side branches in the communal drains. "Upstream" is the issue. Can you see the drain pipes? can you follow them upwards? MarkT

I have some specific experience with an almost identical situation a flat in the middle of a vertical stack of 5 flats. In that case, privately owned. My friends came home to find a flood in their kitchen, backflowed out of their sink, and confronted with an angry leaseholder from the flat below. Water had come through his ceiling via his light fitting. He demanded that they pay the bill from an emergency electrician and finance the redecoration of his kitchen. It turned out that he had replaced his original cast branch with plastic, but the new plastic pipe was partially blocking the downpipe and causing solids to collect from above, until the pipe was blocked. His drain meanwhile coninued to flow freely. In that case I took the initiative to tamper with the communal downpipe, but I would not be so bold as to tamper with the Council's property I cleared the blockage, but I did not cut back his pipe, thus leaving the evidence that it was his fault. The management company accepted the obvious logic of my explanation, and he backed off with claims for compensation for his self-inflicted damage. I repeat that it is obvious that your branch is not blocked. (It is also obvious, Ianr that the flood water is coming from the flats above.) Cuctacuctac, you need to seek the cooperation of those above to stop flooding your kitchen. They may be so far unaware. If any water has gone through you floor to the flat below, be clear that you also a victim here.

Sorry, posted prematurely, in error. To continue, you plumber has tried and failed to clear that blockage. Any further work must be to communal pipe and your plumber surely has no authority to do so. In the meantime, you have a crisis. have you spoken to the people above? Unless you tell them them will be unaware of where they are dumping their water. If you tell them, and they continue to do so, then they are knowingly causing damage to your flat. Best to do it in writing and make a note of discussions. Hopefully they will cooperate. When you sink fills, does it drain away at all, but slowly? Washing machines drain in one go, so your neighbours would have to agree to not use them, but might have limited use of their sinks. MarkT

Cuctacuctac, Not only is CORGI historic, it is also irrelevent to a drains issue. A plumber who does not work on gas does not need Gas Safe Registration. The situation most likely is that there is a vertical drain pipe taking the waste from your kitchen and all kitchens vertically above and, if there are any, below. Each kitchen feeds into the communal down pipe via a branch pipe. It is reasonable that you are responsible for your branch pipe. Any water backflowing into your sink is obviously, as you have said, coming from the flats above - sinks, washing machines etc - and has met a blockage in the communal downpipe, below the point where your branch joins the communal pipe. It is a matter of simple logic, requiring no plumbing qualifications or certification, that if the water is flowing back up your branch pipe, then THERE CANNOT BE A BLOCKAGE IN YOUR BRANCH PIPE. A few questions that might help with your approaches to the Council: Have you been phoning the general repair helpline or the Home Owners helpline? Is there a flat below you and if so it a Council tenant? If yes then the Council will have to be doing repairs to the flat below, possibly emergency electrical repairs. Since your branch is obviously not blocked, and any plumber would need to

Yes, the next event is Sat 27th October. Thanks for the alert, reminding us to update Recycle for London. They are still showing the date of the last event. We have have just emailed them with the new date. MarkT

"but the Council won't do anything due to the buses that use the street." Is this true? Ivydale Road has buses and pinch points with alternating one-way. Red Post Hill has buses and islands so traffic has to slalom and alternate one-way. MarkT

Adding to my last post, this one makes 3 this year MarkT "Re: Speeding on Barry Roadattachment Posted by MCMC July 09, 10:09PM Unbelievable! Just came to check up on my post and hear a huge bang outside! Massive crash on Barry Road. Three cars damaged. Someone needs to act. (see attached image) Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was july 09, 10:10pm by MCMC. Attachments: Webp.net-compress-image.jpg (51.4KB)"

Robin, are there any records since 2016? eg: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1908473,1908473#msg-1908473 http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1941239,1942032#msg-1942032 Both of those in 2018 would seem to be speed related MarkT

What about removing the white lines. These reports are of 2 years ago: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35480736 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/03/plan-remove-white-lines-roads-divides-opinion-norfolk

I should have mentioned my link above was about the Cockchafer bug. Quite dramatic in flight. MarkT

Wot about this? https://www.buglife.org.uk/bugs-and-habitats/common-cockchafer