AbDabs

Agree with Loz. I fought the CPZ because I'd done the sums on the number of cars in my street, and the proposed layout of parking bays, and knowing who would or would not cough up, we were all* going to be ?90 down and no better off. *Not me though as I have off street parking - (but the CPZ would have put a double yellow line across the frontage so no visitors could park across my driveway!)

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At least if you're paying/arranging maintainance > yourself, you know the landlord hasn't awarded > dodgy contracts to his mates at an inflated price. The trouble is that if you're paying the maintenance yourself it only works if everyone wants to pay up. It can be a real problem if one of the residents decides they can't or won't pay. You may feel sorry for an elderly neighbour's apparent poverty but if the roof needs replacing it gets pretty expensive to pick up their share as well. Even worse if you need access through their flat to do work and they won't let you in. Going to court takes up a huge amount of time and effort and its not pleasant doing that to someone you'll continue to live next door to. I'd rather pay a few inflated bills (within limits) and let the landlord have the hassle.

unlurked Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James Barber Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Please do submit views for or against the latest > > planning application for this site. > > A small request please copy me as a ward > > councillor on any email submissions so I can > check > > I haven't missed anything I should have raised. > > Being disingenuous again, JB! Asking people to > copy you in on emails to the planning dept is > applying unnecessary pressure on planning officers > when they see councillors copied in. If you are > such a caring and diligent local representative > then you should ask to have emails forwarded to > you, not copied. I wonder what the scrutiny > committee will make of this latest attempt of > yours. You don't really think that planners are such wimps that seeing emails copied to JB will scare them do you? I would be very worried indeed if they were. JB is a relatively gentle individual compared to the average building developer. Copying JB in to an email is considerably more open to scrutiny, and far preferable, than blind copying or forwarding the email.

fergju Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ... not sure if we can ask for the > height to be reduced to a more reasonable and less > precarious height. Def don't want them to take it > out but just made a bit shorter. > > Thanks The trouble with reducing the height is that it won't stay that way - they grow again (surprisingly quickly if they've been reduced in height)- and if it isn't pruned properly it may not grow to be as stable as it is currently. Do you have a particular reason for thinking that the current height is dangerous? Is there disease in the trunk or splitting? Do you know the variety? Do you have a photograph? Having a tree pruned professionally is quite expensive so offering to help with the cost may make a big difference.

What sort of land contamination? It makes a huge difference.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ... > God help us if a discharge from the Sun > temporarily disabled all our satellites (and > apps). We'll be back in the age before we > discovered how to make fire and use a wheel. If that happened, very few of us would have a job to go to so the lack of trains would be largely irrelevant. Last night I arrived to catch the 18:50 from LB. I got on a train that left at - guess what - 18:50. OK, so it wasn't 'the' 18:50 (I think it may have been the 18:20), but I don't really care if the train is called Fred as long as it goes when I want it to.

I guess those who get so upset about trains being delayed must live in Wimbledon/Croydon/Epsom etc. With a train every ten minutes to ED, I find I manage to catch an earlier train that was a few minutes late (and so get home earlier) almost as many times as the train that I intended to catch is late. The balance of lateness is really quite low. But I'm not keen on the extra (monstrous?) additional few metres I'll have to walk once we're moved onto the new platforms...

lemerson Wrote: ...... Surely clever engineers can divert the > waters to the other side of the South Circular - > the Dutch manage it?! Are you referring to the Dutch polder system? This is for reclamation of land from the sea not emergency flood relief. In any event, they use banks (dykes) and open channels. I can't really see that working across the South Circular. The soft drainage proposed is very clever, sustainable, and how many people picnic in the middle of winter (when the flooding may prevent use of the park)?

spider69 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I am in my late 60's and have always lived in the > area and can recall much of the flooding is due to > 2 things, not keeping the sewers and drains > cleared, And burst water pipes which the blocked > drains etc cannot carry away. > > How many times can people recall seeing a regular > drain cleaning lorry on the streets > > I cannot ever recall a Biblical flood in the area > due to adverse weather > > Perhaps other long standing residents can comment The OP refers to the proposal relating to risk of 1 in 75 year flood. This is a statistical risk event not a record of historical frequency. As Penguin68 suggests it may have nothing to do with riverine flood risk, which I understand - please correct me if I'm wrong - is due to flooding emanating from a river. I certainly agree about the lack of maintenance (although I do often see the drain cleaning lorry outside my house as I report every blocked drain in the street), but I would have thought that the (increased) risk may simply be due to run off (ie rain) that has less ability to escape due to overdevelopment (infill housing and extensions, and to a lesser degree off street parking) which all reduce natural percolation. The recent rains have demonstrated that once land is entirely saturated there comes a point where the water has nowhere to go; I could dig a pond in my lawn at present and it would fill immediately.

spider69 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Silly question. > > How does the water get into Dulwick Park? Not a silly question at all. The consultation document doesn't explain (I admit to only skimming the drawings) but I would suggest a) Natural flow, b) Diverted flow, c)(most likely?) pumping from the piped/culverted underground rivers and streams in the local area, allowing them to take greater capacity where the flooding event has actually occurred.

lemerson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is about protecting the sancticy of publicly > owned open spaces for local communities to use = > amenity for all?! We do not know how long these > flood plains might last as there is no mention of > how the waters would be dispersed? Why can't they > flood the fields the other side of the South > Circular which are used far less? Doesn't a river > u run under the Park so there's an obvious water > course to use? Unfortunately you can't pick and choose the appropriate flood plain on the basis of personal/public preference; it's a matter of hydrological design. The river may run through the park but if it flows the wrong way (ie because of relative ground levels), if it doesn't have sufficient bore, or if the underlying subsoils won't allow natural soakaway*, then a particular piece of land won't be suitable. In any event, this is not intended as a regular flood area, but as an emergency capacity. Seems entirely sensible. The cost of the alternative, for relatively rare occasions, would be a ridiculous waste of taxpayers money. *or the opposite if the intention is simply to store and then extract by pumping

MarkE Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > lane lover Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I never thought of late trains being > "horrific", > > It's all relative. The service we get to ED is > generally pretty good, and will likely be better > if what I heard on the platform about longer > trains comes to fruition soon. I've been getting on a longer train every morning since the new timetable came in. If you walk further down the platform at ED you may find there are an extra two carriages (Oops, now I've let the cat out of the bag I may not get so much choice as to where to sit)

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In Scotland the seller has a survey done that is > provided to the buyer before they can market the > property as well as an independent valuation. > > Therefore, the buyer has no risk on that side and > makes an offer in full knowledge of the state of > the property It's a really nice idea to imagine that a surveyor will act equally for those who don't pay him/her and for those that do but I wouldn't rely upon something that I hadn't paid for directly. And when was the survey done? I know that houses are selling before the details are typed up in ED but elsewhere properties can sit on the market for months. Things happen in that time; drains collapse, slates fall, trees grow. As Mick Mac says, buyers still have to pay for surveys and end up paying for far more of them.

Ted Max Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yeah Meg, why do you hate children? A bit unfair perhaps. I worry when the provision of new schools encourages parents to stay in a heavily built up area rather than moving a little further out to where there still are playing fields (or at least a playground) and their children might get to see the light of day. And what happens when those primary school children grow up and need the next stage of their education? Another school wedged into a site too small, and frustrated teenagers spilling out into a community too densely populated to cope with the very natural need for a little freedom that's sometimes destructive. And later those same children will be wanting to leave home and a percentage will expect to stay in the area but won't be able to because there isn't anywhere for them to live. An old expression is that you 'can't put a quart into a pint pot'. We seem to be trying to do that far too often lately.

I don't think anyone should take offence; I don't think they were making a comment about the people. I look back a few years (and a lot of years) to an East Dulwich that was a 'bit rough', as in 'rough and ready' or 'rough round the edges' ie untidy, unloved. That's how it always seemed to me; too many empty or run down shops, a few too many semi-derelict houses. Now it looks like someone cares about the place.

The stalls were great down NCR but the music was just too loud for me. Something gentle in the background is lovely but my head was splitting by the time we'd walked the full length. Shame, my purse came home a lot fuller than it would have done if the decibels were a few less. Perhaps we were there at the wrong time. I didn't know anything about a market at Push studios - would have gone if I'd known.

AnotherFineMess Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We have recently had a number of mums and kids > knocking on the door asking for donations for > charity walks and requesting the money immediately > saying they live far away. While I think this is a > great way of raising money for charity, I am > concerned that some of these walks cannot be found > online or with the registered charity. > Does anyone know of any websites on which > fundraising activities can be confirmed so that > all donations reach their intended target? I just ask which website they're using for donations and explain it's because I'll only give money if I can Gift Aid it (I absolutely hate handing cash to charity whilst still paying the taxman). I've found it quite rate for a legitimate sponsored event etc not to use a 'giving' site nowadays.(Eg Justgiving - yes it is a private company but it's fees come from a relatively small proportion of the tax refund so the charities are much better off than if you just hand over money at the doorstep)

right-clicking Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What I fail to comprehend is why there is a "green > Levy" attached to our bills? Surely it's the > responsibility of the energy companies whose > business is energy production to swallow the > investment costs even if it initially effects > their profits, eventually the fossil fuels will > either choke the planet or finally be used up? > > Then where will their business stand? I'm guessing that your tongue is sticking out of your cheek right now so I shouldn't take the bait. But hey ho. Energy companies are just another business; their 'job' is to make money by selling something people want. If they could be certain that their efforts to find alternative energy would finally be rewarded then they'd invest but they can't be certain so they don't. We 'choose' to accept an energy levy because we insist upon using so much energy. If you don't want the levy then it's your (and mine, and everybody else's) responsibility to use less of it and think of how we'll live when it's all gone. I'm sure the last Dodo salesman made a packet from the final bird, then he went off and found something else to sell.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Often on this forum you suddenly see a thread that > lordship Lane is closed for a number of hours > while the mess from a crash is sorted out. We're > all paying too high a price for such crashes and > this measure of 20mph will help reduce it. Just out of interest (because I simply don't know), how many of the crashes you refer to involved cars travelling at more than 20mph but have been caused by people who are otherwise complying with the law and paying due care and attention, ie by people who are likely to take any notice of a 20mph limit?

Calsug Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You're kidding me right? Maybe I am missing some > "grander thinking" point but surely any > development in this economic climate is a good > thing - why are these stores seen as a threat > instead of increasing footfall and pulling people > away from the larger supermarkets like the > Sainsburys which is "out of town"? .... Development is only good when it brings something to the area without taking anything away. Unfortunately we all only eat so much. Unless vast numbers started driving in from elsewhere (car parking?) then M&S would drive away those who love Iceland (that may benefit Peckham which needs a lift though) and the net increase in footfall might indeed come from Sainsburys. But I somehow doubt Sainsbo's would be chuffed if that happened and would fight back. Unfortunately they wouldn't fight M&S (as that happens on a national rather than local level), they'd fight the local shop keepers by undercutting on products that M&S don't supply.

Mellors Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ... > I am mostly too scared to go in Fabric by the Mag > after a few grumpy experiences, and think its > mostly upholstery type fabic rather than > dressmaking. The Fabric shop has evolved into mostly upholstery but it wasn't always so. He also tried selling wool for a while but found it wasn't sustainable. Unless you've got a big enough shop it's really hard to be able to provide the level and variety of stock that will keep your regulars happy. I spoke to the owner of Sew East Dulwich some months ago and it seemed that she was going through the same process (of learning what would sell) as the man at Fabric had done before her but, ultimately, he owns his shop so doesn't need the same margin to cover costs and is happy to run a business as not much more of a hobby. It's a tough business when so much has transferred to the internet (I'm guilty - if I want variety of materials I head to town and for basics (lining material, threads etc,) it's straight to my laptop). Shops on LL need to adapt to survive; some will get it right and some won't. This was just an example of one that didn't.

Cedges Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is actually a real need for a haberdasher in > this area, the problem was that Sew East Dulwich > was so expensive, it was a luxury and it was still > worth trekking to Lewisham or Brixton for > reasonable priced fabrics and threads etc. Surely it wasn't just that it was so expensive (for what they were selling it was pretty shocking) but because there is another shop that sells material just a few minutes walk away (few doors down from the - now ex - Mag). I know the owner of that shop is a bit of a grumpy so and so but I've been happy with all the material I've bought from him.

Isn't this campaign just a little late - 5 maybe even 10 years too late. Works to railways have to go through an extensive governmental/public/safety approval process. Whilst the timetable may not be finalised, surely that only means at what times past the hour the trains (already programmed for that route) go, not which ones.

tiddles Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the main question is why the trees have > been cut in the spring. I don't think people are > anti-pollarding (as I think burbage is suggesting > - sorry if wrong). > > There are certain times of year to do things (ie > prune fruit trees) and I think the main concern is > that it has been done at the wrong time of year. I > LOVE the photo robin posted!! it looks like > something off a 1970's edition of doctor who!! What's wrong with when they were done? The RHS recommend late winter/early spring for pollarding.

Where did you live before? I only ask because we do have very hard water here (which is why you get so much scale) and it will taste very different from a soft water area.