Hare

Ha! Just in time for us - back from hols, nothing in the fridge, so where to go on a Tuesday evening? Yay! What wants to know what we had? Oh, go on then, you’ve twisted my arm. Here’s some pictures, since my vocabulary won’t do it justice… First, from the inside looking out - nicer not being blown down the road, especially if the weather where you’ve just come from is still warm and sunny - then the Menu (which is indeed a soft launch menu and will change, apparently). Next, starters - spring rolls and Gyoza. Love the china and cutlery, too! Better put the other pictures on a fresh post…… Now our main courses - Pad King and a Green Curry. What was left? Empty plates. Really enjoyed it - food was fragrant, creamy, fresh, tasty…. oh, and the chairs are comfy and the table doesn’t wobble!

Hurrah!

I?ve never said, or heard anyone say, ?I?m just going up Lordship? - always ?the Lane?. I imagine it?s part of a drive to root the outlet in the local community but delivered by people who either haven?t investigated prevalent usage or else don?t have a firm grasp on syntax. > Jenijenjen: Just saw Megan?s are attempting a rebrand of > Lordship Lane with a sign they?ve installed saying > ?Megan?s on the Lordship?. Hilarious > > Penguin68: Although there is an element of sense in > distinguishing - a simple 'I'll meet you at > Megan's' is open to misinterpretation - it's > likely that people might naturally use that > sobriquet anyway. Or another, worse, one.

The felling of trees for reasons including 'insurance mitigation' is a long-established reality for many councils. It is described* on page 60 of Southwark's own Tree Management Policy along with a much more detailed exposition on pages 38-39. In 2007, Tony Kirkham from Kew was involved in making a series for the BBC called 'The Trees That Made Britain'. I was invited to take part in my professional capacity to comment on tree cover in urban areas. Coincidentally, I was contacted at that time by a homeowner on Cambrwell Grove who was seeking advice about the demand by their house insurance company that the Victorian London Plane in the pavement outside should be felled. They did not want this to happen and felt that the insurance company was making an unreasonable demand, without being able to provide proper evidence that the tree was in any way affecting their house. Upon speaking to Southwark Council's lead tree officer at that time, I established that the tree was not considered to be posing a threat as it was not dead, dying or dangerous and any root growth was already being limited through a longstanding practice of regular pollarding. However, despite Southwark's defensible rejection of the claims of the insurance company, they had received advice that the cost to the public purse to fight the demand in the courts (which the insurance company was actively threatening if the tree was not removed) was prohibitive and that therefore, as the lesser of the evils, the tree would be taken down. We were able to get BBC cameras down to the site and film the felling, which was then shown as part of the series to illustrate the dilemma of councils faced with costly court action to defend a non-felling stance. I report this not because I have any insight into the case described in the original post, but to illustrate that decisions by councils to take down trees are sometimes made because the alternative is to engage in costly litigation with insurance companies, at the public expense. Like so many decisions in times of reduced funding, one set of expenditure is pitched against another and there are no winners. Fight a tree felling demand, or fund a public service already under threat? I should also add that when I made a claim for subsidence that had resulted from the collapse of old clay water pipes along the flank wall of my own house, my insurance company demanded that all trees in a certain radius of my home - including those in the public domain - be felled. It's the only time ever that I've used the 'do you know who I am?!' attack and it was only because of my friendship with the Queen's tree surgeon that I was able to force them to rethink the demand. Felling demands can be a lazy response to a more complicated problem and whilst felling may sometimes be justified, we have lost a lot of street trees that need not have gone. I firmly believe that we are losing more urban trees than necessary, whilst recognising that not all trees are the right trees, planted in the right places. Southwark launched a Tree Warden network in partnership with The Tree Council's national scheme as part of its tree management strategy in 2013 and that is still supposed to be running** but I signed up to be a volunteer Tree Warden and I've heard nothing for years. If the community were to be engaged and organised, perhaps we could save more of our important street trees... but it needs to be in partnership with Southwark, not against them. I'll be asking my candidates for election in May what their commitment will be to safeguarding our green canopy. I'll let you know the answers - and maybe you can do the same? *"Annual Felling Programme:12.1 The annual felling programme includes trees recommended for felling from condition surveys which do not require removal within short time frames on the grounds of public safety, or in association with insurance associated mitigation. The programme has been designed to take place during the September/October period in the interests of operational efficiency, planned communications with stakeholders, and to limit the time between tree removal and replacement prior to the planting season (November ? March)" **7.5.2 Tree Wardens Community involvement has the potential to provide additional resources for tree management and maintenance. Past planting projects in Southwark have demonstrated that, when local residents are involved in planting and maintenance, new planting have a better survival rate, are less likely to be vandalised and give a sense of ownership to the local community. The Council will continue to encourage greater community involvement in the care and management of Southwark?s trees through schemes such as community planting and Tree Warden programmes. Tree Wardens will work with the Council to promote trees throughout the borough and be eyes and ears for the Council on tree related issues. The programme will be implemented in 2013.

So glad to have heard this - reduced to ordering full doorbell and chimes set online but when they arrived today, found they were barely audible, even at full volume. Sent them back, went round to Shaun?s and bought additional doorbell chimes to my existing set-up, bought there last year. Excellent customer service and a commitment to return in the unlikely event that they were not compatible. They are. Must go now - someone at the door??

Information (although some similar to that offered elsewhere) about the Highshore Road delivery service and a question relating to the second part, for the purpose of deciding whether there is a wider issue that I should pursue or if it is an isolated incident. Information: 1. On the Monday before Christmas, I was sweeping leaves at the front of the house when I heard what sounded like a vehicle engine in severe distress. It was a postal delivery van and it stopped on the road by me. As the driver got out, I commented that Royal Mail needed to get the van to a garage before it caused any harm. The driver was very good-humoured and told me that he actually did a domestic round on foot, but that the sorting office was so far behind with parcel deliveries that on his return that morning, he had been asked to take this van out and work a driving shift. He explained that even this van was in constant use and that he?d taken it over from a worker who?d just finished their shift so there was no chance they were going to put it in the garage. He described the wider postal service as being in chaos as a result of covid infection and other, seasonal, absences but believed that relative to other sorting offices, Highshore Road was just about managing to cope. 2. Close friends in Germany called a couple of days ago to tell us that the parcel they had sent to us on 5th December, with perishable Christmas goodies inside, had just been returned to them. It had travelled all the way to the sorting office, then had a label attached to say that it couldn?t be delivered and that no-one had come to collect it so was being returned to the senders. There has not been a moment in the last two months when the house hasn?t had someone in, and since anything that is put through the letter box is really easy to see in the hallway (no hiding places) it?s clear that no delivery note was actually completed and delivered. Added to this, our neighbour across the road works from a desk that looks straight at our front door and in the past, has regularly received unexpected postal deliveries on our behalf; they saw no failed delivery during this time period either. Question: is anyone else aware of packages that were destined for them but have been returned by the sorting office to sender, with no apparent attempt having been made to deliver?

Corroboration of Siduhe?s observation: fireworks, appearing to be simultaneously igniting from low level, possibly accidentally ignited in a store somewhere around the area of Dulwich College Squash Courts on the South Circular.

St Christopher?s Hospice have indeed been appealing for PPE items....... http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2020/04/st-christophers-hospice-post-urgent-appeal-for-protective-gear-can-you-help/ siousxiesue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > St Christopher's Hospice might like

Good news for us all - dependable quality and cheery staff. Heroic to be reopening though I believe it?s only the Grove Vale Shop for now.

Farmers have been open for essential cleaning/disinfecting materials and deffo had chalk on the display at the very back of the shop when I went looking a couple of weeks ago. I bought the last big box but there were small boxes and they may have restocked by now. twinhunters Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Didn?t realise they would be open great I?ll have > a look :)

Yes, at the Grove Vale end of Oglander Road so some way away from PR

From the Guardian online today, a very hard-hitting example of imagery that educates and warns.....

Peckham West https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/peckhamwestparking/results/peckhamwestparking-interimreportfinal.pdf East Dulwich https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/eastdulwichparking/results/eastdulwichparkingconsultation-interimreportfinal.pdf

There was a representation to accompany the traders? petition, signed by circa 10k people, at the full assembly meeting of Southwark Council tonight, followed by a deputation from residents of streets off Grove Vale and East Dulwich Grove, making the case for a localised CPZ around their streets. Full proceedings can be viewed on this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuunqOt42NU The meeting was informed that the consultation responses are being analysed road by road before an officer report is prepared and that will be published online at Southwark.gov.uk, some time between mid and late April in readiness for discussion at the Dulwich Community Council meeting at 2.30pm on Saturday 27th April 2019. It was reiterated by Cllr Livingstone that the final decision rested with him.

BCWYWF #1: Net loss of parking space from dropped kerbs National studies by environmental organisations have demonstrated that the instinctive householder response to curtailment of on-street parking if there is a front garden is to remove the landscaping and replace it with hard standing on which a car, or cars, may be parked without the necessity for annual permits. Anyone may do this and apply for a dropped kerb outside their property by e-mailing or telephoning the council. For the rest of us, this has significant consequences. The Southwark.gov.uk website says 'You must not park in front of a dropped kerb on the road or where the road has been raised to the same level as the pavement, regardless if yellow lines are present or in force' and also that 'We may introduce waiting restrictions (yellow lines) in front of dropped kerbs if street parking is controlled for other reasons (e.g. the street is within a parking zone, yellow lines are needed to allow sufficient space for vehicles to pass, or road safety)'. These will be two metres in length in either direction. So, we lose not only - the front garden width but also, - the length of two more car parking spaces. The consequence of this alone is significant loss of parking options for all other visitors and residents in front of and beyond the necessary entrance, even during times when the front garden parking space is empty. Peckham West CPZ area consultation closes on 7th February East Dulwich CPZ area consultation closes on 28th February Either way, Vote and Say! To Be Continued......

?The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.? Please, everyone who has so eloquently written on this and other threads, make your concerns known through the formal consultation process or you may find that your view has not been represented. ?The consultation will identify what appetite there is for controlled parking in different areas. The consultation area is quite big but the results will not be all-or-nothing. In other words, if controlled parking is popular in some areas but not in others then the former can have controlled parking and the latter not.? Written on this Forum by Cllr James McAsh, 2nd Sept 18. History suggests that voting silence will be taken as assent. Thus, in the Dog Kennel Hill CPZ consultation, 14 of 29 streets voted yes but ten voted against; three streets were undecided and there was no response from two further streets. 10+3+10=23 which beats 14. Resulting recommendation: ?To implement a parking zone throughout the whole study area?. In the so called ?toastrack? area, the decision was implemented on a 57% majority, but that was 57% on an 18% turnout - in other words, just 10.26% of the eligible responders. Yes, a blanket CPZ recommendation based on 10.26% returning a ?yes? vote. If you want a CPZ in your street, but can see the logic of a different regime elsewhere, then say so and give your reasons. If you don?t want a CPZ anywhere, then say so and give your reasons. If you want blanket coverage, then say so and give your reasons. But just, don?t say it only on an online forum and not get round to formally submitting a response. This broadcast has been made on behalf of the Street Party and is sponsored by the Edmund Burke Said It First campaign. (Not really, I just made that up....)

?The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.? Please, everyone who has so eloquently written on this and other threads, make your concerns known through the formal consultation process or you may find that your view has not been represented. ?The consultation will identify what appetite there is for controlled parking in different areas. The consultation area is quite big but the results will not be all-or-nothing. In other words, if controlled parking is popular in some areas but not in others then the former can have controlled parking and the latter not.? Written on this Forum by Cllr James McAsh, 2nd Sept 18. History suggests that voting silence will be taken as assent. Thus, in the Dog Kennel Hill CPZ consultation, 14 of 29 streets voted yes but ten voted against; three streets were undecided and there was no response from two further streets. 10+3+10=23 which beats 14. Resulting recommendation: ?To implement a parking zone throughout the whole study area?. In the so called ?toastrack? area, the decision was implemented on a 57% majority, but that was 57% on an 18% turnout - in other words, just 10.26% of the eligible responders. Yes, a blanket CPZ recommendation based on 10.26% returning a ?yes? vote. If you want a CPZ in your street, but can see the logic of a different regime elsewhere, then say so and give your reasons. If you don?t want a CPZ anywhere, then say so and give your reasons. If you want blanket coverage, then say so and give your reasons. But just, don?t say it only on an online forum and not get round to formally submitting a response. This broadcast has been made on behalf of the Street Party and is sponsored by the Edmund Burke Said It First campaign. (Not really, I just made that up....)

In further confirmation of fears already expressed: a local headteacher from within the East Dulwich side of the consultation has expressed concerns to me about the impact on recruitment since the school has no car spaces and staff rely on street parking.

Me, just +/- 150m. - plus, have spoken to three close neigbours who have all had the same notification.

Here are two screenshots taken today: 1. for general information, the map on the Forest Hill Group Practice website of the new boundary that has been drawn "owing to a great demand of providing [sic] medical services". 2. the landing page of the practice website on which visitors are invited to register as patients - which by implication rather undermines the validity of the basis on which current patients are being told they are to be de-registered, that is, the practice services are in great demand and can't be stretched outside the catchment area. By any standards of good practice, FHGP appear to be failing in their duty: a) to existing (/longstanding) patients in only giving four weeks (from date of letter [25.9.18] or receipt? unclear...) to re-register elsewhere or be unilaterally de-registered from the practice list and b)to future patients in continuing to expand the registered numbers, thus further stretching a service already described as overstretched.

This survey asks questions of no relevance to the topic and will not process the response unless they are provided: they are NOT optional. It appears to me to be a cynical ploy to garner data for political use. Here are the examples: ?8. If there was an election tomorrow, which way would you vote (please tick more than one if you're unsure) Conservative Labour Liberal Democrat Green Party UKIP? How is my voting preference relevant to CPZ introduction? I had to ignore this several times before I could get past it. ?7. In what year were you born? (enter 4-digit birth year; for example, 1976? How has this to do with CPZ introduction? I?m voting/driving age, which can be ascertained by a cross-reference with my name and address on the voting register (the form asks for this information in order to check that the responses are from affected individuals, which is reasonable) And finally, ?If you return this survey the Liberal Democrats and their elected representative may use the information you've given to contact you. Some contacts may be automated.? I feel that this fundamentally impairs the validity of this survey.

Best I've encountered, but not cheap (though the cheap options have all been failures, so not such good value after all) and effective on carpet or flooring is a brand called Foxi - see link for South London stockists: http://www.foxirugtamer.co.uk/London%20South.html

Steveo: having ploughed through the documents to compose my own objection, I'm not surprised if you were put off by them. Here's my basic grasp of the reasoning behind why 'a move to block any demolition' is not the focus of action. - A developer owns two of the three cottages. - He has applied to Southwark Council for planning permission to demolish them and build a block of flats. - Southwark refused planning permission, based on the reasons that Zak outlined above. - The developer has appealed to the national Planning Inspectorate against the refusal. - Members of the public can submit further evidence about the application at this stage. - If the developer's appeal is rejected by the Planning Inspectorate, then the block of flats must not be built. - This thread is to encourage people to object to the appeal. - A rejection will stay off damage to No's 1&2. - If an owner wants to demolish a house that belongs to them, then no Planning Application approval is needed. - This is true even if it is in a Conservation Area. - No legal campaign could simply block demolition. - An application to list the cottages may be made to Heritage England and, if successful, may stay his hand but this is hampered by an earlier application that included the station buildings and was rejected. This is my understanding, though others may have a clearer view and be able to add to it but meanwhile, I hope that it helps in some small way.