goldilocks

Its not One Dulwich who have spent the money though is it - its the Dulwich Alliance who were running the crowdfunder. I know that they're all the same people anyway, but the Dulwich Alliance was set up by Clive Rates and he's now standing as the local Conservative Councillor. Therefore the question as to what has happened to the money from what purports to be a non political organisation is very relevant.

Do some research on the actual emissions and the effect on hyper localised air quality and then come back and tell me its fine. Wood burners are the low tar cigarettes of our generation. Our children will have a rise in lung disease that would otherwise have declined as coal fires and more polluting vehicles become less normalised. We will look back in horror that we ever thought it was an acceptable lifestyle choice, but right now people don't want to hear it. Remember that cigarettes' were sold as 'good for the lungs' Edited to add a link to useful article questioning the 'SUVs' are safer mantra: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/oct/07/a-deadly-problem-should-we-ban-suvs-from-our-cities Angelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "horrifying" > > Hardly.

Would find it hard to be cross if they did - the impact on the immediate vicinity is horrifying where neighbours burn wood. Looking back, people would now be horrified to have their kids sitting in a living room with all the adults chain smoking around them, but have no qualms about lighting a wood burner. However, I'm not sure that the way to effect change should really be direct action against individuals, more individuals participating in collective action to effect that change. The SUV action is a crude means of raising awareness, but it isn't the way to stop SUVs being used in urban areas. In terms of the 'why are SUVs a problem' it isn't just the carbon cost or output either, but the impact of them on vulnerable users of roads. That includes worse outcomes for those involved in collisions as vehicle inhabitants, pedestrians, cyclists etc as well as increased wear and tear on roads. I'm also not clear that the 'safety enhancements' Penguin refers to are actually backed by evidence as often such vehicles are more likely to flip because their centre of gravity is off and thus can cause greater damage from what would be a low level prang! Lebanums Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's not illegal to own or drive an SUV. Surely > they would be better targeting the manufacturers. > > > Next, they'll block the chimneys of those with > wood burners..

ah Slarti - you're so funny. At least I think you must be joking as no one could really think that - could they?

'Now that Labour Mayor Khan has abandoned the Bakerloo line' - really - that's your take on TFL finances? Nothing to do with the Tories playing politics with funding and TFL being continually on the brink of bankruptcy as a result of gradual un-funding since Johnson was mayor!

I did enjoy the bit on their leaflet about bringing in a tram whilst 'we wait for the Bakerloo line' - like that's going to be one hell of a wait! They're also planning to cancel the Silvertown tunnel apparently, though unclear how being elected as cllrs for Village Ward facilitates this. I'm all for that though, so if they can, good work! Similarly their decarbonisation pledges are good if feasible and their tree planting plans. Whilst its clear that they're promising some things that are firmly outside their remit, their leaflet reads more like a manifesto than the Tories 'back of a fag packet' approach to date. Short of the community bus that mirrors the 37 route and removing the LTNs do the Tories actually have any manifesto promises?

There's a group who skate on Sat am at Burgess Park by the BMX track. They're usually there around 10am ish might be worth popping down as I don't know how you'd contact them. Seems to be some who teach and others who are just awesome showing off skills. There was someone doing skating courses at DC sports centre too but think they were adult only.

See you're still trying to discredit renown academics Heartblock. Not really doing yourself any favours, we all remember how this went last time. Edited to add - you've also stated something as fact and then in the very next sentence asked for data because 'you've only seen it on twitter' - which I also think we've been through before in that just because you've seen 'something on twitter' it doesn't' make it true.

No - I will do. Thanks for the update.

I'm not sure its really big enough - its got a pretty tiny footprint, so in order to cover costs it could be a challenge

Yes maybe - but I don't imagine high vibe is going to be open at 10pm! I thought that the link was that it was envisaged that the people using the new bar would be the same people who use the gym - almost like a social add on to the studio. In any event, if its a bar it needs a toilet. Still wonder if the drawing is just wrong - but also that room appears to be access to the outside too. Its all very odd.

The chunks being knocked out of the station development are the lorries turning into the woodyard up the lane. I guess ultimately that will all become housing too and then the problem will end. But there are probably a good few years of having the corner of the block knocked off!

Do you feel that the applications process wasn't correctly followed or do you believe there is some overarching reason that the schools you've selected would meet her needs in a way that Sydenham wouldn't. Not getting the school you wanted isn't enough of a reason to appeal on its own. You should however make sure that you're on the wait list of the schools you'd want, and any others you'd prefer now that offers have been made. Southwark automatically adds you to the wait list of all higher schools on your list and then the schools manage the list. You should accept the school for now and then hope that a place comes up somewhere you prefer. There is always lots of waiting list movement. Final point is that I have a friend with 2 daughters at Sydenham and they love it. Loads of clubs and societies, debating, music etc. Maybe see if you can go and visit?

The thing I don't understand about this application is that as per the plans there doesn't appear to be a toilet. You'd think that there would need to be for a bar, and if its right rather than just an error on the drawings (there is a room with a sink, but no toilet shown!) then I'd be concerned about people using the street instead! Possibly though its just a drawing error?

Thanks for reporting it - I'd imagine that the pavement will need to be fenced off so that if anything else slips it won't injure anyone until its made safe.

Please report it on the following details: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/building-control/dangerous-structures

Hi Redjam - wondered whether you had heard anything further from the school as to whether the funding has been agreed please? As its now March clearly work hasn't started as anticipated, but wondered if there had been any update for parents?

You've seen 'most roads become traffic free'? and if you're cycling the main road is the only road. Confusing post!

You have shown me the counts for a particular ATC site. I agree that particular numbered ATC didn't exist back in 2019 - it would have had a different number. Rockets has pointed out that the tick sheet doesn't show a check for those dates either - therefore must be extrapolated. I think that neither is necessarily a decisive factor in determining it doesn't exist. Also - lets not be quite so condescending when earlier you posted out of date info supporting your arguments.

I love how you all spend your time pointing out that the data isn't well researched but then will defend to the death that a data point referenced in a comparison isn't included in a tick sheet...

Or it wasn't the same date - If you had a date for when the counters were there and a date for the image it would be more compelling. Eg if the counters were for a week there are 3 weeks where they wouldn't be down within a month. Heartblock - I do agree that the data on the site doesn't help - but neither of the counts show there so I'm assuming that theres been some error or oversight somewhere re its inclusion - but not that they've just extrapolated the data point.

The data supplied is a daily count - so unless we're suggesting its taking over 24 hours to cross East Dulwich Grove, I think not! Lebanums Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Metallic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I still have no understanding of the stats > showing > > fewer cars in central EDG whilst at either end > the > > stats show car numbers have gone up. So where > do > > they go? Cloud Cuckoo Land? > > I'm not advocating for either side here, just > thinking out loud. A theory could be that queueing > cars take longer than previously to complete the > journey from one end of EDG to the other, showing > a count of less cars over a period. Where the > other end cars are turning off because of queuing > traffic?

But Rockets - you actually can't 'clear anything up once and for all' because your assertions are conjecture too. We need the council to confirm that the Sept figures are adjusted. I don't think they are because they don't follow the adjustment figures stated. There was a count in the section between MG and Townley near to the health centre. It may not have been in exactly the same point as the Sept 2021 one eg to the nearest cm, but in the same section - so that 'in a different place' is doing some heavy lifting in that sentence. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let's just clear this up once and for all - the > EDG Central numbers deserve far more scrutiny and > showed be treated with extreme caution. > > Here's why: > > There was a count (in a different place on the > road) in Jan 19. The council then "adjusted" that > figure to create a Sept 19 number (which was not > based on an actual count). They, without any > explanation, adjusted it upwards from 11,832 to > 14,214. The Sept 21 figure which was based on a > count (but in a different place to the Jan 19 one) > counted 11,442 - this is what gave them the > "decrease" in traffic on EDG Central. > > Without their adjustment of the Jan 19 figure to > create the Sep 19 figures the reduction would have > been negligible. > > So, until there is a clearer explanation from the > council on why they made such a large upwards > adjustment to the figure then I don't think anyone > should be using the EDG Central figure of any > proof of anything. > > The "reduction" is, basically, modelled.

I was thinking the same Alice - think they've lost the franchise so wouldn't imagine much will change until then

Looking for things that we do agree on - i think this is one of them. I'd support a scrappage scheme for ICE but not grants for purchase of EVs except for those with blue badges. We need to remove ICE from the roads and we need to dramatically shift away from private cars to allow public transport options to be more effective. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No not a conspiracy, it is well known if you have > taken note of the revolving doors of ex-Southwark > Cllr and employees and then Southwark giving work > to those ex's - I think Private Eye and the 35% > campaign are both quite illuminating - but that's > another thread really. > > I would by the way - support the complete ban of > all petrol cars in inner and outer London, with > emergency vehicles being the only exceptions.