AbDabs

Any sewer (a pipe carrying drainage from more than one property) that runs under your property and was built before 1937 was designated a 'public sewer' by the Public Health act of 1936. The latest Act simply brings in the sewers built after that date (known as private sewers, as described by The Minkey above), which effectively clarifies matters regarding those sewers that were not recorded on the official sewer maps (previously you only had to notify the authority if you made changes or works close to a sewer that was recorded on the official map, so a lot of builders chose to assume the pipe was a private sewer rather than let anybody know!). There are masses of properties in ED that have public sewers running under their gardens, and plenty with the sewer running right under the house. There may be a fee for building within 3 metres of a sewer but Thames water are taking on a heck of a risk if you build over one - it's an awful lot more expensive to repair a pipe under a house than one that can easily be dug up in a flowerbed. The only real benefit to TW from this legislation is the time they save not having to work out if the sewer is a private or a public one when it fails. Re the chimney breast; is it on a party wall?

I've just clicked on the first link and it only seems to ask me for my email address. Surely, without a full name and postal address this can't be taken into consideration; it doesn't constitute a valid objection to the application for planning permission. Wouldn't it be better for the affected residents to write a proper objection rather than just sign a petition. A petition is only worth the effort it took to click a few buttons, which isn't much.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > FM, I agree. Have you spoken to the freeholder > about the delivery times and lorry access? It > seems like a viable compromise might be possible > on these very legitimate concerns. How is the freeholder going to be able to do anything about it? Once he has granted a leasehold, he doesn't have any legal interest in the use (other than those things that might directly affect his legal obligations). Also, why would he care? The freeholder won't be the one who has to respond to complaints and potential legal action. > The parking issues I have less concern about as it > appears the existing parking lot was not widely > used even on weekends (most people seemed to be > unaware it existed until the application) and > given you can't do a weekly shop at a Simply M&S, > I think the concerns about people driving there > more than is the case for Iceland are perhaps > overblown. It is certainly true that the car park is not fully utilised (From personal observation, I would suggest that there is often half the spaces free) but the intention is to remove the car park to create a much bigger shop for a more affluent target market who tend to have higher car ownership. Whilst it may still be too small a shop for the average family to do their weekly shop, nevertheless, for the car owning young single/couple, the temptation to 'pop into M&S' will be immense. At least that's the response I've had from 30 something friends when they hear M&S is coming. Regarding the flats, I am for the > development of more flats in general. While I > understand the parking concerns this poses, I > think most people who buy flats near the high > street and public transport (which these will be) > don't typically own cars as there is less need for > them. While its difficult to make this a > condition of owning the flats, I think the risk > that the new flats will considerably increase > parking pressure is fairly remote. I'm afraid that the reason Mr Ricketts gets so apoplectic is that there have been a number of flat conversions in the streets close to Iceland/M&S in the last 10-15 years and the level of car ownership has increased dramatically because of it. I'm afraid that whilst there are some who choose not to buy a car, there is certain evidence that many do. I do though tend to agree that the level of pressure on car parking will not be as high as some fear as there is a saturation point which has generally been reached where shoppers won't look for spaces. What I do anticipate is a significant increase in illegal parking (across driveways, on doubles yellow lines etc) within the immediate vacinity as drivers 'pop in' to grab supper. I hope that TFL are ready for the disruption to the bus lane and are quick to hand out fines.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > :) > > What's the London law on burning elm? > > Froggies won't mind, apart from the fact that they > don't have the same authentic smell of burning > sheep. You can burn anything you like as long as you have the right sort of woodburner. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/1992/approved_smokeless_fuels_and_exempted_fireplaces So that's ?1000 for the new woodburner but yippee, free logs Probably better to get some friends from the country to come and help

If the house is Victorian this is terribly common indeed.

Thankfully, I've only rarely had to use a police station (fingers crossed and touching wood) but those few occasions needed someone close at hand. Lordship Lane police station is not best placed to be of the most use. If you don't live locally you wouldn't find it on a night out. A small shop front amidst the bars would be much better - even a flat above the street as long as it has an entrance on LL would be fine.

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On Tuesday, London Bridge did a test run of their > Olympic policy, this included sending passengers > from the Southern platforms via the main entrance, > Borough High Street and Tooley Street to get to > the tube station instead of the escalator straight > there. > > According to my boss, it took 30 mins to do this > in the morning peak. I dread to think what it'll > be during the games. Do you think your boss may have been exaggerating just a little bit, or was it the time that caused the problem? I went through LB at about 0800hrs and it took me less time than normal - everyone seemed to be funneled into particular routes so we didn't get the jamming caused by flows of people crossing each other that you normally get. I'm guessing that when things get bad, they'll be very very bad, but if you go a little earlier than normal you may find it pleasantly organised.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Both Iceland and M&S do not cater for my tastes > but I do recognise that people should not be > economically excluded from their local high > street. I know this post has good intentions, as well as all the others who support Iceland as a cheaper shop for those with lower incomes, but I'm beginning to think that I must be the only person who actually uses Iceland and also watches their pennies. I use Iceland for milk, yoghurt, sometimes cheese, sometimes bags of potatoes, but these are loss leaders designed to get you into the shop. Once I've bought these I walk out so that I don't get fleeced. I've always found the co-op cheaper for everything else. Of course you have to be careful - never buy loo rolls in the Co-op unless on 'special' and get the coconut milk from the 'speciality' section not near the pasta. Dried pulses/rice are often better in SMBS (just keep your head down and avoid everything else in there!). I guess if you don't read the price labels then Iceland may seem cheaper as there isn't anything really expensive to fall into your basket by mistake but, if you do shop with care, there is very little in Iceland that is really a bargain and an awful lot that is really pricey. If Iceland goes I shall miss the cheap milk and I'll have to walk up to Sainsbury's for yoghurt at the same price but it won't be the end of the world.

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They dont need ANY permission to move in. Any > store except maybe a sex shop could move in. > However they do need permission to change the > building and that is what the consultation and > permission are about. Good point; we've got plenty of supermarkets and other food shops so losing Iceland won't be the end of the world. But the one shop we don't have....... (Petition anyone?)

Gidget Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From what I have read, the Co-op chicken isn't > free range - allowed to roam outside - but the > birds are in a barn and aren't caged. I guess > that is considered to be ethical but it isn't my > idea of a good life for a bird. Chicken that is bred for meat is never kept in 'cages' as you can get far more chickens per square metre if they are held in large flocks in a 'barn'. Chickens only used to be kept in cages for egg laying as this allowed the most number of birds without damage occurring to the eggs. Unfortunately, the great British public has been encouraged to get confused about this. 'Barn' eggs mean the birds have a reasonable amount of space, but 'Barn' chickens grown for meat can have a pretty disgusting life. If you can't afford free-range chicken (meat) then it's best to make sure there is an RSPCA freedom food label which does ensure they have a reasonable life. Co-op does sell free-range but it also sells Freedom food and standard chickens (Standard is not a good word in the chicken industry). However, the co-op does (generally) have higher standards than other supermarkets, and may insist on lower densities for the barn bred birds.

If the middle classes are keeping the postal service going (and clogging up LL post office as a side effect) then hats off to them. I gave up on the Royal Mail years ago. All the chocs I send to New Zealand relatives originate from New Zealand chocolate shops. That's the beauty of the internet.

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Administrator Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It's because your house/event is in Crystal > > Palace/Birmingham/Zanzibar and as this is the > East > > Dulwich Forum it's been removed. > > Now that sounds like some event! Yeah, but if you want to go you'll have to take the bus as they're introducing a CPZ unless we can get a million signatures

The Minkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I didn't get anything dropped through the door but > I did take a look at a friend's leaflet. > Apparantly, if I've understood the leaflet > correctly, some areas are expected to get a poorer > signal after the switchover and the recommendation > is to go Sky / cable etc - bit rubbish for anyone > unable to afford a monthly subscription. Was that recommendation in the leaflet that says 'printed by Sky' in incredibly small letters at the bottom? Seriously though, we had a Sky leaflet sent through the post and if you only read the front page you'd think you have to have Sky to get digital TV. I worry how many elderly and vulnerable people will sign up to a subscription service when they don't need to.

Oops duplicate post

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Spot on jelly. Self-absorbed. Trendy claphamites > snobbishly shunning the existing culture of a > working-class neighbourhood ........ I know this might offend some people but I don't ever remember ED being an entirely 'working class' neighbourhood. Perhaps there's been a change in the definition of working class but a review of census info and trade directories shows there have been plenty of middle class people (identified by professional occupations) living around here for more than a century. And am I the only one to notice that many of the newer residents are very definitely blue collar workers? (A group of building labourers got off the bus ahead of me yesterday - they definitely weren't born here) Yes, there are plenty of noisy, splash the cash types, who get on my wick at times, but I'm pretty certain that they like their daffs all wrapped up in fancy paper (who else would buy on Northcross road)- they're not so keen on getting their hands dirty in a public park.

There's dodgy and there's dodgy. A young man hanging around a playground may be doing so because he knows there will be lots of distracted mums not keeping enough of an eye on their handbag. Let's take heed of the warning and watch bags and children but also remember that there are some terribly lonely people out there with limited social skills and whose attempts to make contact with the rest of the human race may come across badly at times.

But they're not just any daffodils, those are Northcross Road daffodils.....

I refuse to sponsor anyone to do anything simply because it always involves some of my cash being used to pay for the event/holiday itself (OK, so a kids' sponsored silence might get me to open my purse, as long as the orange squash and biscuits after are being given by the mums for free). If you want a holiday then I hope you have a nice time but pay for it yourself. The most efficient way of giving to charity is a monthly direct debit. Then they know what their funding will be and can budget work accordingly. If you gift aid it they get the tax back which is worth a lot. Money that comes in in dribs and drabs from small sponsored events actually costs quite a lot to administer so it's terribly wasteful.

sillywoman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hmm, still no sensible answer to my perfectly > reasonable (or so I thought) question (though I do > appreciate your comment Monica). . . looks like > I'll have to rely on my own moral code for this > one. Best to leave them on the ground. It may seem a waste of the additional joy that you might get but it would only be you benefiting. And, whilst your intentions might be reasonable, your actions could be misinterpreted. It's not just that someone might get cross by what they think they see, but that someone else might interpret your picking flowers (without noticing that you are only choosing the damaged ones) as an indication that it's OK for them to do the same.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are you talking about a Btech? As is Bachelor of > Technology? > > As someone who?s first undergrad degree was a > Btech I can assure you have to finish school (or I > suppose get your ?Ey Levels as it?s called over > here) before you even start on a 4 year programme > of study. Btecs aren't the same as Btechs. The former is a vocational equivalent (so they say) of A levels.

I wish I had been taught Latin. The rest of my family did, and whilst they all admit it was a hideous and painful experience at the time, they also report how useful it was to learn such structured grammar when they went on to a range of other European languages (which they then found very easy). Without that basic understanding of how languages are structured, I failed dismally. I also wish I'd had lessons in metalwork and woodwork - but perhaps only a term of each. A GCSE of combined practical and life skills would be useful (to include finance and cooking) to everyone and provide a taster of what might be interesting for those who aren't academically minded but, otherwise, I think there is a terrible risk of a late starter being sent down a path that doesn't give any alternative options at the end of it. If you get a maths GCSE but hate maths, it's still got a place on your CV. If you get a GCSE in woodwork but then decide you want to work in an office you may regret it. By the way, I am an engineer - the lack of metalwork/woodwork meant we had one 'catch up' lesson at University so that we could complete the necessary project work. That was sufficient. Those that hadn't been taught any applied (as well as pure) maths had a much harder time of it. I'd also like to make the point that if you're inclined to the practical side of engineering you will still need adequate competency in English/Maths/IT to deal with the administration that goes with all but the most menial of tasks. (Contracts/health and safety/taxman) When I was at school we had elocution classes. For those who are not academically able it's a shame that this isn't an option. Every time I ring up a call centre on my mobile and find it impossible to hear the person at the other end, it makes me wonder how much easier it would be if they'd had a few hours of 'How Now Brown Cow'

At 7am on a Sunday you'd barely need a traffic cone to keep the workers safe from traffic. Surely two men with stop/go boards would be enough. Or is there some sudden rush of traffic that I've never seen. So let's see; one truck, one van, two men to do the work and two men to hold the stop/go boards. Half an hour for someone in the office to write the method statement, half a tonne of blocks/bricks, three bags of cement, some sand, a wheelbarrow and a cement mixer.......... Has anyone done the sums yet? James, if they do come back with an argument for 'improving' the roundabout, to whom do I write to request a copy of their calculations (Freedom of Information Act request)? It should be a good laugh to see what they come up with.

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy, > > It affects me because the tattoos are, invariably, > on public parade and, as I find them ugly, this > affects my aesthetic pleasure in crowded places. > > Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - and so is > lack of beauty and ugliness. I prefer to be > surrounded by beauty. If only they were always on show. I wish everyone with a tattoo hidden under their clothes had some sort of indicator tattoo in an obvious place. Nothing worse than suddenly finding one at an intimate moment. (I've always found them a little icky - I don't mind seeing them on people in the street but not on skin that I might otherwise want to kiss/touch)

Scruffy Mummy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just wanted to weigh in on the issue of plastic vs > cloth bags vs paper bags issue - there has been > some talk recently about this - particularly due > to the environmental impact on making cloth bags > vs reusing platic ones. Here is a link to an > article: > > http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-liv > ing/plastic-fantastic-carrier-bags-not-ecovillains > -after-all-2220129.html > > But as the article points out: > > 'All bags have an impact. The best solution would > be to use a cotton bag several hundred times, > probably using it constantly for years. If you are > not going to do that, a plastic bag ? re-used as a > bin liner ? is the next best option, better than > paper. Avoid accepting a plastic bag unless you > need one, though.' There was something about this on the television a few weeks back. I think they said you had to use a heavy duty plastic bag (the sort you normally pay for) at least 40 times to be equivalent to a modern thin supermarket bag. I got given some cotton bags when I bought clothes in white stuff, and use them instead. They go in the washing machine every few weeks. I've still got my East Dulwich SNUB bag which I use for heavy stuff but I don't see many others with them even though there were lots to start. What happened to them all? The bit about bin-liners is important. If you say no to a supermarket bag and then buy a roll of bin liners, what's the point?

Lishyloo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People who buy property in built up areas of shops > restauraunts bars ect should exspect a level of > noise it's common sense. This was the reason I > never wanted to live on lordship lane. Get a grip. Are you a newby Lishyloo? Lordship Lane hasn't been full of bars/restaurants for very long. There are lots of old people living in the streets just off LL and they must have bought years before any of the noisy bars opened