ed26

Well, as my admittedly tongue-in-cheek-but-still-valid suggestion got moved to The Lounge in amongst the chat about Word puzzles and the like, I thought I'd paste it again here. It's just a thought.... It seems that the big problem with the CPZs issue is that no one has a clue how things will turn out if they are implemented. Residents off LSL want greater certainty that parking in their own street will be easier, rather than more difficult. Others would like to know whether we can still easily stop off at the butcher's on the way to do the weekly big shop, with similar considerations for the retailers along LSL. Where will the free parking be? Where will the paid bays be? What will the CPZ hours be, etc.? Will total parking decrease significantly? So wouldn't it be sensible for the Council to publish a proposal for the final CPZ before residents get a say on it? If (say) two thirds of respondents oppose it, then it's completely abandoned. If two thirds support, then it's approved. And between those figures, the deal could be negotiated with some alternative arrangements? It would be a bit like a... I don't know... People's Vote? If the Council committed to respect the outcome of the vote, it would be difficult to argue about the outcome. I don't think anyone really knows whether ED supports a CPZ in general or not.

Just an idea..... It seems that the big problem with the CPZs issue is that no one has a clue how things will turn out if they are implemented. Residents off LSL want greater certainty that parking in their own street will be easier, rather than more difficult. Others would like to know whether we can still easily stop off at the butcher's on the way to do the weekly big shop, with similar considerations for the retailers along LSL. Where will the free parking be? Where will the paid bays be? What will the CPZ hours be, etc.? Will total parking decrease significantly? So wouldn't it be sensible for the Council to publish a proposal for the final CPZ before residents get a say on it? If (say) two thirds of respondents oppose it, then it's completely abandoned. If two thirds support, then it's approved. And between those figures, the deal could be negotiated with some alternative arrangements? It would be a bit like a... I don't know... People's Vote? If the Council committed to respect the outcome of the vote, it would be difficult to argue about the outcome. I don't think anyone really knows whether ED supports a CPZ in general or not.

@intexas, the bus status said it should be sorted on Sunday but I hadn't checked the Thames Water. As far as I know, the official diversions don't go around the back streets but you can't plan for sat navs, which usually take the shortest route when you click the "avoid road block" button. You would expect Clarks et al to have dedicated HGV satnav though.

Sat nav, avoiding the road closure. Should be sorted after the weekend.

I completely agree with most of the recent thoughts in this thread. I was fairly open-minded about the CPZ but I have become very anti-CPZ in recent weeks due to the way in which it seems to be forced upon us. My thoughts... - Unless Southwark can demonstrate that the scheme is cost-neutral (i.e. revenue will only be used to cover the cost of implementing and policing the CPZ) then I refuse to believe that this is anything but a revenue-making scheme. - The consultation focuses purely on HOW the scheme should be implemented, not IF. I still want a say on how the scheme should be implemented if there's no choice, but I fear that my stats will show I am in favour of a particular approach - I'm not convinced that the pollution and traffic in ED is caused by people driving to/from the area. I'd think that the majority is through traffic, or local residents hopping around town. A CPZ wouldn't reduce pollution from either type of traffic (and may increase it if it makes it easier for local residents to park around LSL). Has the Council published the results of its traffic surveys, etc? - My experience of activists is that they ARE very pushy and I have been asked about my views on parking, although this was possibly just to try to extend the conversation when I was trying to get rid of her - I'd like the Council to try to tackle the blatant parking abuse before inflicting a CPZ on everyone - lines of cars for sale, camper vans for hire, cars advertising man & van for hire, etc. I appreciate that a CPZ would solve this problem but that's the common sledgehammer and nut approach

Here's my take on it. The explanations on the consultation website are extremely detailed so I've only skim-read it at the moment and might have misunderstood it. Considering we live 5 miles from the centre of one of the world's busiest cities, I don't think it's THAT bad at the moment.... I think that the design envelopes suggest what could happen in the event of a 3rd runway opening. Green areas will be worst hit as flights are 4000ft over us (orange area) and a bit more spread out. I assume A3 and A4 are alternative arrival expansions and D is the departures expansion. A3 and A4 suggest that we would have between 0 and 47 additional flights over us each hour, but only 1 would be >65Db (i.e. super loud). But the departure flight path suggests that we would have an additional 0-17 flights taking off over ED, and 0-17 of these would be super loud. This is very bad. It looks like these departures will only come over us if a third runway is built; not if the capacity of the two existing runways is increased. This website (http://myneighbourhood.bksv.com/lhr/) shows current flight paths. [Put in your postcode, or just East Dulwich and it will show departures (green) and arrivals (red). The percentages are the total percentage of flights in and out of Heathrow.] I'm not quite sure how to read this but I think it means that 52% of all arrivals come over us (28% from Essex, 12% from Bromley and 12% from Watford). I would have expected half of all of Heathrow's flights to be noisier than it is. But importantly, no Heathrow departures come over us at all. This is why the proposed flight paths are going to be much, much worse for East Dulwich. I wonder if, like me, many ED residents don't think it's that bad at the moment, and that it won't be much worse when the flight paths change. If my understanding of the diagrams is correct then a lot of people could be in for a shock. I'm not sure if my interpretation is right, or whether we can do anything anyway, but maybe we should be giving the No Third Runway campaign some support if we are going to be affected?

You should have filmed the person who wasn't shoplifting and then sought advice on a private prosecution when the innocent person's partner approached you and asked you to stop.

Looks like some prompt action has been taken now in the playground, although some patches of slippy stuff are still there. Thanks to anyone who was involved in making this happen.

Virgin all the way here. Speed is rarely below 200Mbs - maybe a slowdown on weekend evenings but still > 100Mbs. Apart from the 24-48hrs outage last year, the connection has been rock solid. I know we're lucky, but it's good when it works as it should.

There's a big difference between someone slipping an item into a bag when also pushing a trolley / carrying a basket and clearly using your own bag for your shopping. It might have seemed suspicious a few years ago but these days it makes perfect sense to use your own bag so you know how much you can fit in it and whether it will be too heavy to carry comfortably. You can't grab a few extra carrier bags to carry extra items or split the load evenly between a few bags without having to pay for extra bags. Then you invariably have to scan your own shopping at the till anyway, so I would think that dishonest people are more likely to abuse the scanning system than to attract attention to themselves by stashing loads of goods in their own bag. In my case, I often put shopping underneath the pushchair while I'm still in the store. It saves me carrying a basket / bag and also helps me to know how much will fit.

Thanks for acknowledging :-)

Not sure if this should be listed as a new thread or on this "councillors" thread, but it would be great if a councillor could acknowledge that it has been seen. The following thread details a few incidents that have taken place in Goose Green playground due to the slippy green matting around some of the play equipment: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1982352 Today, I saw three people slip over on the matting (2 young kids and 1 adult). No one was seriously hurt this time but the problem is that the matting looks like it is non-slip and gives people a false sense of security. I don't know if it's just growing algae and needs jetwashing, or whether it's completely unfit for purpose and needs replacing, but someone else is going to break a bone before long. I'm pleased to see that the playground is maintained regularly - the seesaw disappeared and has returned after maintenance, the arbor has been rebuilt, the rope bridge was repaired quickly and I hope that the low bridge will return soon too. But there's nowhere obvious on the Southwark website to report this problem, so I would be very grateful if this can be brought to the attention of the relevant people.

I saw two children fall flat on their faces and an adult fall over today. No harm done, but lots of tears and the children weren't too chuffed either. I'll add it to the councillor thread as it needs attention.

-

I was parked for over two hours a few weeks back. No fine yet, touch wood. Very easy to do when shopping with kids, by the time you've driven down to the parent parking, found the spaces are full of vans, driven back up to the top of the car park to find a wide enough space to get the doors opened, done the usual shop, looked for things that have moved or you don't usually buy (with one eye on the kids), changed a nappy, queued and paid. I thought it was 3 hours but noticed it had changed to 2 hours a while back. Makes sense if they don't want the car park to be overused on match day.

I just thought that starting a thread about leaving ED 7 years ago and then making some (unintentionally?) inflammatory comments at this time of night must involve at least one bottle of cheap C?tes du Rh?ne.

Any bus that starts around here and goes out of London rather than in e.g the 197 towards Croydon and 177 towards Greenwich / Thamesmead. Both are always filthy, full of litter and seem to carry more than their fair share of rowdy kids and people who shout obscenities at the drivers and other passengers. Getting the 37 back to ED/Peckham from Brixton direction - frequently a 20+ minute wait and packed when it finally arrives. And getting anywhere around Holborn from here in rush hour: choices a) worry about whether you'll get on a Thameslink and then walking 20 mins from City Thameslink b) getting the 176 to Aldwych and walking up Kingsway c) bussing to E&C and then squeezing on the Northern Line to TCR. None are a favourite option at 7-8am.

I hear you can get a litre of red wine pretty cheap in the South of France. I'd be typing nonsense at 11.30pm (GMT+1) if I'd just necked a bottle.

Seems to me that they fixed a major leak and distributed water pretty quickly considering it was a weekend and access to contractors and support staff would have been limited. The information about rerouting the water from another area was poor - first it was imminent, and then it was a few hours away, and then it took 24+ hours, but I think they did a pretty good job, all things considered.

It's treacherous. I know someone who broke an ankle on it a while ago. When it's wet I'm very worried my little one will try to walk up / down it.

Thank you James. Good to know you are supporting us.

@Michael Palaeologus - I don't think they want to.

Low pressure or no water Last updated Friday 2nd November 2018 - 20:50pm. Customers in the SE22 may be experiencing low pressure / no water, due to a burst water main in SE15. We are continuing to repair the broken pipe. Whilst we do this we've re-routed water from another part of our network so it brings you water. You may experience low pressure or cloudy water over the next couple of hours; this is normal and safe to drink. If your water supply is not back to normal by 23:00 please call us on 0800 316 9800 and we?ll be able to help. You can also get further updates by clicking on our twitter link:

@jimbo1964 - you can usually ask Amazon via their chat help to issue a return label for a different method, if the default option isn't convenient. Barry's Food Store is a Collect+ and East Dulwich Store on Crystal Palace Road is a Pass My Parcel. Amazon have sent me labels for both of these options in the past.

First time reading this thread for a month or so since I last made a comment. Interesting to see that the unanimous opposition to this idea is viewed as "mixed feelings." I hope that Councillor McAsh will take an opportunity to raise the local community's concerns publicly rather than waiting for the outcome of the consultation. Interesting comments from James Barber re TfL's funding. Didn't spending money that we haven't earned yet almost bankrupt the country in the late 2000s, leading to that shameful "I?m afraid there is no money. Kind regards ? and good luck!" note? Now London has done exactly the same thing. It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer runs for Springfield council by making unaffordable promises: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trash_of_the_Titans