nxjen

http://www.peckhamryepark.org/news/2016/7/17/former-lido-site I found this link on the Friends of Peckham Rye Park website from February. Basically not a lot has happened. I was keen on the project initially but not so much now as the size of the project has grown enormously and it involves building on MOL.

The Southwark link describes advertising boards and displays of goods that are unauthorised. If set up on the shop's own land, they are not unauthorised.

Maybe I just got lucky !

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Trust Pilot is the review site of the moment - and > to be fair lots of good reviews as well as bad > (and bad reviews are intrinsically more likely > IMHO). > > I don't know about TrustPilot. I recently placed an order from a company that had a 3.5 star rating which provided the worst product and service I have ever encountered from internet shopping though threatening a bad review on TP did bring about a swift refund. On the other hand, John Lewis currently has a one star rating and, hopefully without sounding too nauseating, I experienced a faultless internet shopping and delivery transaction last week.

It's going to be an awful lot of half metres or more that will need to be compulsorily purchased, the lawyers will get very rich and the cost will all come out of our council tax. While everything should be done to aid the progress of wheelchair users, there are upsides to a narrow pavement: 1. When people have to slow down to let each other pass, they usually smile at each other which enhances East Dulwich's reputation as a friendly place. 2. It discourages many cyclists. If there were less obstructions, there would be more cyclists and scooters on the pavement, travelling at greater speed, providing a more hostil environment for pedestrians.

How is it down to Southwark to decide how much of the pavement is owned by the shops? Btw there is no need for quote marks around the word owned: it is precisely that - legally owned.

Nah, I'll pass on that, you only want to contain the "independent spirit of East Dulwich"

In an ideal world I would agree that rehoming of animals should be left to the rescue rehoming charities but the reality is that these are overflowing already and under-resourced. If, heaven forbid, I ever need to rehome my animals, I would try both rehoming centres and try to rehome myself. I know I would scrutinise prospective owners every bit as carefully as the charities, I would want to make sure they go to a good home.

Yes, I remember that. Here is the link to the original call on the EDF http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1787147,page=1 You've been pretty selective in the response the project received.

When you say it's a project that involves the whole community, how many residents were involved in the decision to install the banners? I know only of one resident. Residents may be involved in the actual process of the creation of the banners but that is not the same as being consulted about whether or not the concept is welcome. It's kind of insulting to assimilate residents into serving what is a marketing exercise for the benefit of businesses, attempting to create a faux sense of community. I repeat though that I welcome the proposed mural.

From the article that post is linked to: "The mural will be part of a wider project which includes community lead enhancements to North Cross Road Market and installations of lamp post banners." So despite your coyness on the previous thread, you are the organisation behind the ghastly banner project. Mural good - banners rubbish. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1899568,1899568#msg-1899568

cella Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There was a thread on here a while back which > challenged that assumption and, from memory, > Southwark were trying to get shopkeepers to scale > back their encroachment. Monica and the other retailers have demonstrated that this is not an "assumption" but a legal fact. In most cases the shopkeepers are not "encroaching" but placing A boards/chairs and tables/goods for sale within their own legal space. Whether or not you agree the space should be used in this way, the retailers are perfectly within their rights (subject to individual plans lodged with the Land Registry) to use the space in this way. Which is why Southwark Council has not proceeded in "fining" those businesses who display goods etc just outside their shops.

I don't think anyone would expect the public to have a right of way through people's front gardens. This is the equivalent of expectations here.

You may have read how some who arrived with their parents from the West Indies before 1971, whose citizen status was never formally regularised, are now being threatened with deportation. A petition has been set up to declare an amnesty so that they can remain. Please sign to prevent such inhuman treatment. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/216539

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But hold on minute? What about political > correctness gone mad? Surely we're still going to > hell in a handcart? Aren't we? Some people are, some people aren't, it's a variation on Schrodinger (too much BBT)

Not really. Is it an over complicated way of saying one way systems?

Bear in mind though that often the part of the footpath closest to the shop is part of the shop's land.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > nxjen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Not having a go at the OP here but it's a bit > > scarey that "connectivity" in the form of text > > reminders is meaning we let others do our > > remembering for us and take responsibility for > us. > > It's making us all too passive. > > The text reminder replaces that little card you > got through the post (or am I the only person old > enough to remember that :) ) I'm going to be so picky here but the cards we used to get through the post were reminders to MAKE an appointment, not a reminder to attend for an appointment already arranged.

Except there's NEVER same day, emergency appointments available online. Which is why those, like myself who book online whenever possible because the whole procedure is easier, have to phone if we need to be seen same day, or at least speak to a doctor, same day.

Not having a go at the OP here but it's a bit scarey that "connectivity" in the form of text reminders is meaning we let others do our remembering for us and take responsibility for us. It's making us all too passive.

From September it will be possible to interchange onto the Elizabeth Line at Faringdon from Denmark Hill using Thameslink which will provide a handy connection to the West End, Paddington and further west. Is there any strategy in place to deal with the extra number of commuters then?

Perhaps the current problem getting through is temporary due to the Easter holidays. I managed to get through last week and the week before within 10 minutes

If you were to say what road they?re on it might be possible to search on old maps to see when they were built?

It is a great idea but I can?t help wondering if part of the planning permission deal granted back in the early 1990s was that so many customer car parking spaces had to be provided on site to prevent on street parking. I must say that while at times it doesn?t seem fully utilised, equally I?ve seen it when it?s been full.

?We ask those questions - optionally as on this survey - in every survey we do.? Times are changing James and we?re all getting a lot more savvy about how responses to these seemingly innocuous questions are used. You don?t appear sensitive to that. The least you could do is to make it clearer on the survey that questions regarding phone, email, year of birth and voting preferences are optional, like actually stating ?this question is optional? rather than just the absence of an asterisk. ETA. Regarding your stated aims for conducting the survey, should the council receive enough requests to consider a CPZ, it is most unlikely they would cut corners by relying on data from an ad hoc LibDem survey rather than go through the whole process of a consultation, especially as the responses are from the whole of ED rather than the few streets that may be the subject of a potential CPZ. They would be open to challenge if a decision was made without a full consultation.