ianr

Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally? I've just been looking through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022. So it seems that, in this particular, it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation. I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.

Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance. https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274

So what have you been doing?

For information, these are two recent relevant TfL FOI responses: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-0829-2526 https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-3530-2425 Rockets, can you please let us see the visual evidence that Southwark provided. Was it video, or still photography, or frames from a video sequence?

I can think of several possible motivations for your writing that, but can't tell which.

Mr Google's good friend differs: "AI Overview "It is highly unlikely there are over 86,000 private rented homes in Southwark. "According to the 2021 Census, 29% of Southwark's households were private renters. Considering the total number of households in Southwark was 134,800 in 2021, the actual figure is closer to 39,100."

Nah, that's just schlock. ... Ugly-algia.

I'm not going to bother to even look at the page of a video clip if you don't give some explanation of what it's about and your reason for suggesting I view it.

In fairness, I think the complaints about being limited to one answer are unjustified. Clearly above the column of choices I see the text "Choose as many as you like", and the page does permit that.

On the nostalgia side, I don't think anything can replace the clatter of the metal crates and the whirr of the milk float making its short hops. ETA: Spartacus wrote: >Blimey Sue >That was a rough neighbourhood if the birds were nicking your bottles. 😅 Which leads precariously to even more nostalgia here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/446783695525873/posts/2409887992548757/

I did check that Tesco were the applicants on at least one of the 7 May forms. I would be interested to know what Monica has seen. Possibly some other formal annnouncement somewhere, or the LL traders' grapevine (which I'd guess is generally reliable)? I wondered if it might have been a licensing matter, but don't see any mention in the licensing sub-committee's 16 October meeting agenda. In the meantime, I'm not even assuming that Tesco are taking the lease.

Alternatively, here's the whole caboodle. Reference 25/AP/1351 Application Received Wed 07 May 2025 Application Validated Wed 14 May 2025 Address 29 - 35 Lordship Lane London Southwark SE22 8EW Proposal Installation of a new ATM with associated security camera and light. Status Granted Decision Minor - GRANTED Decision Issued Date Fri 13 Jun 2025 Reference 25/AP/1352 Application Received Wed 07 May 2025 Application Validated Wed 14 May 2025 Address 29 - 35 Lordship Lane London Southwark SE22 8EW Proposal Installation of a new louvre. Status Granted Decision Minor - GRANTED Decision Issued Date Fri 13 Jun 2025 Reference 25/AP/1353 Display of 1 no. new non-illuminated box fascia with vinyl lettering, 1 no. new box fascia with internally illuminated acrylic lettering, 2 no. new non-illuminated box fascia, 2 no. new internally illuminated projecting signs and 1 no. new vinyl to be applied around ATM. 29 - 35 Lordship Lane London Southwark SE22 8EW Advertisement Consent-GRANTED Decided Mon 07 Jul 2025 The only Lordship Lane item I could find as granted in w/b 13 October was to do with replacement of Dulwich Library's heating system by an air heat pump.

I don't think a single all-inclusive URL is easily doable. When you enter a search the system presents the result without any of one's search parameters added to the URL. So I suggest you go to https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=advanced where you just need to enter the address -- use SE22 8EW -- and the Date Received start date. I used 1/1/2025. The three Tesco applications, all minor things, were all made in May. The Simple search that I'd done previously had no time limit, and didn't include anything else that might have been from Tesco in the last two years. Incidentally, when I searched on the address 29-35 Lordship Lane it did not pick up the Tesco applications, which were held as 29 - 35 Lordship Lane Grrr!

[superseded]