Abe_froeman

I'm intrigued (and amused) by why this gets you so cross dbboy?!!

PM2.5 emissions cause defective lung and brain development in young children growing up in the places those particulates are emmitted as well as contributing to lung cancer and heart disease in all people. The damage done to children in East Dulwich is caused by burning wood in East Dulwich. There are no coal fired power stations causing particulate emissions in all of London so that is irrelevant to this discussion.

These three pictures are very nice but none of them seem to have been taken in East Dulwich! Seems a poor advert for East Dulwich that even its own residents think the best thing about it is leaving to go to a neighbouring area!

"It's a postal survey , lol." Heh! Is that really true?!

You can see how bad the pollution on Lordship Lane is here: https://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/annualmaps.asp You can also see a couple of hotspots on North Cross Rd....

It's particularly valid to compare the two when they produce the same pollutants but only one of them is being punished by taxation

The part of that wikipedia article about Victoria Climbi? is particularly concerning

Wow, that's a fantastic legacy for your time in office James. Let's just hope Labour don;t turn it into a gym in a few years time!

Tbf to the council on this one they are completely at the mercy of the property developer, and the council does still have a perfectly adequate functioning library operating only 50 feet away from the new site!

https://www.quora.com/How-much-do-London-black-cab-drivers-earn-from-adverts-on-their-cars

You can check if it is taxed by putting the reg number into the .gov website. The owner of these taxis must just be using them to make money form the advertising. Having googled it it seems you can get up to ?8000 a year for a fully liveried advert on your cab!

I'd rather local government let Thames Water get on with fixing it (which they have done) and focused on getting their own house in order with stuff like rampant motorbike crime, stabbings, failing social care and selling off public housing to private developments and the absolutely chaotic public transport. If they fixed any of these long term problems then they would have a leg to stand on accusing thames water of not doing enough in 24 hours.

Zoom in a bit more to street view. The priority seems to have changed and the yellow box is gone.

That all seems utterly childish

I think it's pretty fair for the council to assume that the 2,200 people who couldn't' be arsed to respond were happy for them to go with what anyone else wanted.

Surely houses are preferable to live next door to than either an operational industrial unit or a tumbledown ruin?

If what James Barber says is correct then I suspect this bus route is doomed, because you won't see labour councillors going up against a labour mayor.

Thanks James.

Could I also ask for the details of the deal the council did to get DHFC back in to Champion Hill, and whether any planning sweeteners were thrown in??

"Is there any way for us to get insight into the details of the deal, and whether any planning sweeteners were thrown in? "You could send a freedom of information act request, I guess. I will ask our local Councillor too on his thread on here!

"Is there any way for us to get insight into the details of the deal, and whether any planning sweeteners were thrown in? "You could send a freedom of information act request, I guess. I will ask our local Councillor too on his thread no here!

Is the council doing that work? how is it going to be paid for?

There is a massive chunk missing from the corner of this building now!

If the council towed the vehicles parked opposite, which are straddling the foot path and the double yellow lines, there would be a lot more room for lorries to manoeuvre and it would be much safer.

Seemed perfectly logical to me too RH. Even if you don't want a CPZ makes sense to opt for the least impactful implementation of one if it goes through...