Abe_froeman

That petition is rather miselading. There was a consulation that closed just over a fortnight ago.

That's exactly my point. The roads affected by any knock on effect, looking at the map, seem to be nor bury road, frosted road and college road, not any in east Dulwich.

You might get more support for this petition on the west dulwich forum, as the proposal barely affects east dulwich: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/lambeth-q7-wd/user_uploads/quietway-7-elephant---castle-to-crystal-palace.pdf

It would be interesting to know how they were alerted to the burglary. To get there in time to catch a burglar on site, one imagines a very expensive silent alarm system with a direct link to the rozzers!

The plant in the foreground of the picture on that petition page actually looks a lot like knotweed.

James if you read Southwark councils paperwork it suggests that the standard implemented is 7.5m or less. Where does the idea that Southwark have or will paint 10m of double lines at every junction come from? In many places there are just a few feet of double yellows, and as far as I can see there are no published plans to change that. Is different information available?

The problem with knotweed is that a very small offcut can grow into a full size plant. Undisturbed knotweed is less easily transported than knotweed that has been chopped into small pieces whilst clearing land. "Digging or other disturbance is known to increase stem density. If soil contaminated with rhizome is moved to another part of the site or to another site it will regrow and cause spread. Rhizome is particularly resistant to dehydration and freezing. As little as 10 mm or 0.7 gm of rhizome can regenerate into a new plant." - See more at: http://www.devon.gov.uk/control_of_knotweed#sthash.zBU1RIuQ.dpuf To ignore these warnings would be extremely selfish and utterly irresponsbile.

The paperwork for tonight's meeting is available here: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g5160/Public%20reports%20pack%20Tuesday%2015-Mar-2016%2019.00%20Dulwich%20Community%20Council.pdf?T=10 I would be interested to know when this was circulated to councillors. Some interesting points to note: *Labour do have plans for public consulation. A traffic management order is requried to imlement the proposals and public consultation is mandatory, as set out in the DCC agenda (page 68): "We are therefore recommending implementing junction protection in all streets in Southwark on a ward by ward basis, subject to the necessary statutory consultation." *There are 34 junctions affected but 18 of them are T junctions. *"The yellow lines are installed ... for 7.5 meters on each arm of the junction." This means just over a kilometre of new double yellows.

Don't most junctions in east dulwich already have extensive double yellows and build outs preventing parking anyway? How much difference is this actually going to make? And isn't this anti car agenda actually part of the Southwark lib dem pro cycling policy?

Fazer, which other laws, policy and "political claptrap" do you think our council or politicians should ignore for the sake of expediency and commercial profit?

Is that a recent issue or a long term one David? I heard a theory that the increase is down to supermarkets charging 5p for bags that would previously have been reused picking up dog turds but are now saved for shopping. It would be ironic if in trying to save the environment, the environment has been made worse.

I'm not convinced that the law has loopholes more than the council are scared of being taken to court for applying the law as it is written. Judicial review is very expensive and I suspect developers have deeper pockets for legal expenses than the council on these issues and less (no) public opprobrium if they lose in court.

I wonder if it is even possible to impose a section 106 condition on an application for two penthouses and eight offices. Presumably the permission already granted can't be ungranted and made subject to a new condition?

You might have more joy on Twitter!

The agenda pack and the basis of the decision is set out on pages 15 to 33 here http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g5100/Public%20reports%20pack%20Tuesday%2008-Mar-2016%2019.00%20Planning%20Sub-Committee%20B.pdf?T=10 "Whilst the proposal is below the affordable housing threshold, there is an extant permission for 8 flats on the first and second floors of the building, demonstrating (should this proposal for 2 flats at roof level be permitted) that at least 10 flats could be created here were a future scheme to come forward proposing residential again at first and second floor. It is therefore considered necessary that a S106 agreement is required here to ensure that the cumulative number of residential units at the site is considered, should future proposals come forward, against the Council's affordable housing policy."

Hi first mate, Looking into this further, James is not on that committee so won't be involved, unless he attends to make representations. However, the council do seem to beware if concerns about efforts to avoid providing affordable housing: "Whilst the proposal is below the affordable housing threshold, there is an extant permission for 8 flats on the first and second floors of the building, demonstrating (should this proposal for 2 flats at roof level be permitted) that at least 10 flats could be created here were a future scheme to come forward proposing residential again at first and second floor. It is therefore considered necessary that a S106 agreement is required here to ensure that the cumulative number of residential units at the site is considered, should future proposals come forward, against the Council's affordable housing policy." This comes from the agenda pack for the 8 March meeting, pages 15 to 33 here: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g5100/Public%20reports%20pack%20Tuesday%2008-Mar-2016%2019.00%20Planning%20Sub-Committee%20B.pdf?T=10

If they had applied at the outset for planning for four floors and ten flats (2 or 3 of which might have been 'affordable') does anyone think they would have been knocked back by the council?

I suspect that's why ED trains are so regularly cancelled, non-stopping or terminated short at places like South Bermondsey, because they know that you can still catch the next train and not be delayed by more than thirty minutes overall.

In the neighbouring streets that are CPZ restricted is parking much better? Are there lots of empty spaces there?

Good news for Meat Liquor - a cooked quarter pounder beefburger contains 78g of red meat according to the NHS- only 8g more than their recommended daily allowance of red and processed meat... And they also say "If you eat more than 90g of red and processed meat on a certain day, you can eat less on the following days or have meat-free days, so that over time your consumption is not more than 70g per day on average." http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/red-meat.aspx

The only good thing that may come out of it is that the council might stop putting ridiculous anti parking measures in everywhere like build outs, double yellow lines, pig sty cycle boxes etc.

I imagine some people wanted it in north Dulwich as a consequence of increased parking resulting from Lambeth implementing a CPZ in Herne Hill proper. East Dulwich is almost an island of unrestricted parking now and I imagine it won't be too long before we suffer the domino effect and clamour for a CPZ begins here!

Maybe you are cycling too close to the vehicle in front?

According to that Wordpress blog Brian is Catholic.

Remarkable.