sambobia

I've noticed caged chickens in a back garden. I wonder if they will attract foxes?

AlexC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ah, the good old EDF. Someone posts something as > they are feeling positive about the area that they > live in and within minutes the vultures with a > chip on their shoulder swoop in to rain on the > poster's parade. Spot on...and splendid metaphors -- vultures, chips, rain etc -- to boot. For my money, ED is great as it is.

Yes, Ed is lovely. A London gem. And many thanks to James Barber for all his hard work over the past year. I appreciate the work he puts in on the forum and think we would be poorer without it.

Thanks for the update, James. Sounds v sensible.

The 'nutters' remark is an unfortunate distraction from what is a perfectly sound idea. I'd estimate at least 50% of the passengers alight at ED during rush hour.

I suspect if the Lane is busy with locals, with a few hefty police patrolling, this will be deterrent enough.

Whereabouts on Melbourne Grove? Sorry to hear about your unfortunate experience.

Atticus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark council have said that the reason > Landells got approval and Archdale didn't is > because sometime during 2010(?), Southwark's > interpretation of the rules changed > > "55 Landells Road, was made under a former and > different interpretation of the General Permitted > Development Order 2008" That would account for the confusion. There are plenty of other cases, in addition to Landells, where a loft extension over the rear outrigger has been approved, in circumstances identical to Archdale. Archdale have resubmitted their application, so it will be interesting to see what happens. Having made and adhered to one interpretation of the rules, Southwark would need a very strong case for switching to a different interpretation, thereby creating the inconsistencies mentioned above.

Like Shankley (and Atticus), now thoroughly confused. Atticus's case (as I understand it) concerns an extension to the original dwelling and a loft conversion (therefore, Classes a and b). I can find no part of the technical guidance which prohibits a loft conversion on a side return built as part of the original dwelling, even if this means raising the height of that (side return) roof. Specifically, Class B, Technical Guidance: 'This provides permitted development rights for the enlargement of a house consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof.' And, again, Class B: 'Additions and alterations made to a roof to enlarge a house (e.g. a loft conversion or the replacement of an existing flat roof with a pitched roof) will only be permitted development if no part of the house once enlarged exceeds the height of the highest part of the roof of the existing house.' 'The highest part of the roof of the existing house.' Confused? Er, yeah....

Congratulations. Thoroughly deserved.

Surely, Southwark have got it wrong. The technical guidance is quite explicit (p32): 'the highest part of the roof will be the height of the ridge line of the main roof'. The main roof, not a secondary, lower roof: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/100806_PDforhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf Additions and alterations made to a roof to enlarge a house (e.g. a loft conversion or the replacement of an existing flat roof with a pitched roof) will only be permitted development if no part of the house once enlarged exceeds the height of the highest part of the roof of the existing house. If it does, planning permission will be required. The highest part of the roof of the existing dwelling house will be the height of the ridge line of the main roof (even though there may be other ridge lines at a lower level) or the height of the highest roof where roofs on a building are flat.

Me too: in favour of Sunday opening.

pablogrande Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One thing that would help a lot of the shops is a > custmer service course, I can think of at least > five I won't shop in due to poor attitudes. Spot on. I have experienced woefully poor service on occasion in several ED independents, though consistently excellent service in others.

What I personally want is to preserve the existing integrity of the Lane, and its body of independent shops. These do much to give ED its neighbourly feel and, in my experience, often beat the supermarkets on quality and price. This means opposing further supermarket expansion, aspirational and otherwise.

Pie, or possibly pies, for me. Does anyone know if she is there Thurs/ Fri?