peterstorm1985

Closed - it keeps the heat in. Very odd to leave the curtains open at night. But what to do when you're away? On balance we've always kept them closed on the principle that burglars check if there's anything worth stealing before taking a risk but if you live in one of those really quiet back streets it may be worth investing in some lightweight muslin curtains that look like they're just privacy curtains during the day, rather than the house is shut up for a fortnight.

spanglysteve Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Help me. I chose to live near a bar and now I am > upset that I live near a bar. Plenty of us didn't choose to live near a bar - we chose to live near a normal shopping street that had a few pubs that shut at 11 and a couple of restaurants. We all accept that times change and that premises once used by building societies that shut at 5pm might get converted for other use but we don't expect to have our sleep disturbed in the early hours of the morning by rowdy drunken customers of this bar, particularly not when there are children who need their sleep before a school day and plenty of us who need a clear head for a day at work.

A neighbour has just drawn my attention to the fact that the Adventure Bar has applied to extend their hours, yet again, on Thursdays and Bank Holiday Sundays so that they will stay open until 0230am. It was mentioned on another thread but somehow I missed it. I'm guessing by the number of objections so far that not many others are aware. Last time there were a large number of complaints. If you want to object you need to get in there quickly as the last date for objection is February 10th. It's easy to forget how unpleasant some of their late night customers can be at this time of year as there are less of them in the winter, and the cold tends to mean they hurry home, but once the weather warms up you can expect to have your sleep disturbed if you live on any of the adjacent streets. Just want you don't want to prepare you for a day of work on Fridays. Licensing Register

snowwhite Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I had a new pair of nike running shoes (caked in > mud) stolen from outside my front door the monday > before last... they were a christmas present from > my 2 little boys.... would a fox really take a > pair?!! Yes. They particularly like running shoes, or anything else with a high level of human scent.

Cardiffgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unfortunately, when local authorties are having > their budgets cut they have to go to other forms > of money making. This will be bringing in money > which they need. I'm not saying they should all be > allowed, and location is everything, but > personally I think an advertisment stand along Rye > Lane (a commerical shopping street) is not a > massive problem. Putting one of these signs on the pavement immediately outside of a row of Georgian houses might be offensive to some (I'd be screaming) but on Rye Lane I'm hard pressed to see how they could bring down the tone. Something shiny and modern might actually suggest a potential for economic recovery.

The 'chlorine' smell is usually caused by a lack of chlorine - actually chloramines which occur when the bacteria hasn't been killed off properly.

Put a sign up saying "Free paving slabs, Just take what you need."

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi fredricketts, Loz, > The decision to approve two Lordship Lane > crossings was taken by the Dulwich Community > Council. The consultation had a majority of local > residents and businesses in favour. > The South Southwark Business Association attended > the meeting to say traders weren't in faovur but > equal number of Lordship Lane traders attended > saying they wanted it and the consultation > responses had a mjority in faovur of businesses. > Residents have been asking me repeatedly when it > would happen as shown in the consultation > responses. > BUT some fine tuning of yellow lines in the area > is taking place to ensure overall slightly more > parking at the end to replace the places that will > be lost due to the crossings. > I'm also expecting the horse box parking to be > removed and replaced with general parking behnind > the Police station. Tried repeatedly to get that > resolved and no horse boxes visited in a decade. James, you mention the horse box parking in the same breath as reference to parking in the vicinity of the new crossings. Presumably there will be signs up on Lordship Lane to direct people to these hidden away spaces behind the police station. Will there be a transport service to bring them to the shops they actually want to go to?

James Barbers suggestion of having the chunkier ones at the back is a good one. When you come to sell, first impressions count. By the time you've got to the back of the house it's either sold or not. Spend the money at the front. I would have expected the value of a house with sash windows to be at least ?10K more than one with inappropriate double glazing.

Take photos, send to landlord, ask if insurance covers the additional risk. Landlord may choose to intervene.

Mabel2001 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here is a letter I have just received from > Southwark Council, to which I would love some > advice on how to take this further. Our next door > neighbours on the immediate other side of the > property are upset also. > > > Dear --- > ............. The other potentially harmful > factor was the visual impact, which was not > considered sufficient to warrant enforcement > action. > > Your neighbour who is elderly was finding it > incresingly difficult to maintain the front > garden, which is why she had the hardstanding > installed. In coming to our decision, we balanced > this and the potential impact of an overgrown > front garden against the hard I have referred to > above. .............. In terms of where you go with this, you need to ask what there is to gain/lose. Your 'loss' in financial terms was small (and could be deemed non-existent if you did not have the right to use the garden), so there is no point considering legal action for loss. Unfortunately, the lack of interest from the planning department is probably due to the fact that you are the only complainant. If your neighbours are also upset they should do as you did and complain. Visual impact is subjective so if only one person complains then it would be difficult to justify the cost of enforcement. However, if they received 20 complaints it would be more difficult to judge the visual impact as not significant. It may be worth writing back and stating - if it is true, and you haven't already done so - that you would have been happy to maintain the garden and so should have been consulted but without other complaints I'm afraid it is unlikely that you will get much response. The only other option is to consider something media orientated; with a view to highlighting the dangerous precedent being set by councils.

If not a robin, then it may be a blackbird. We had one a couple of years ago that used to start singing at 2am and go on for an half an hour or so (ie just long enough so we were completely awake)

yikes, just came back to look at how this thread was doing and see that the CPZ must have opened wounds that will now take years to heal. Play nice children please.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > And what's wrong with making car ownership easier? > - are we taking some moral anti-car, anti people > with cars stance here? No moral stance at all - simply that the easier it is, the more people will buy them, and the harder it will be to park.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think that the LD councillors were > initiators of the strange zone, which had > something to do, it was claimed, with TFL who were > funding the consultation, or even the rules > regarding consultation, but at least one of them > very clearly supported and argued in favour of > them. Most agreed there was no parking logic to > the zone chosen, so one does look for other > drivers. I think it is the drivers that are the problem......

peckhamboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting point about electric cars - they're no > use for longer journeys, Their range is steadily increasing but at present you're right. But if the long journeys are occasional then hire cars are a sensible option (much cheaper than car club for greater distances). so actually a lot of > people who buy one have it in addition to a petrol > car, increasing demand for spaces on the roads. Those who have an electric car in addition, do so for commuting into town - due to being able to avoid the congestion charge. A shame there is no way of making the congestion free status only work for those without a second car.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For me, taxis and hire cars would probably work > out cheaper than car ownership, but it simply > would not be as convenient. > And there of course is the problem (thanks for your honesty Jeremy), and in some ways a reason not to spend money making car ownership easier (by making car parking more available). The more attractive it is the more that we will all want one of those nice shiny, warm and cosy, personal forms of transport. The trouble is that the bus will never have a stock of mints/crisps/cans of drink, cushions, small library (or even a TV in some cases) for passengers, or be perfectly clean, or only have nice people in it. There is no real solution other than to accept that if you live in a street with too many potential car owners, you'll have to hunt for a space. And if you're next to a school, or a row of shops/businesses, or even a train station, you'll just need to hunt a bit harder.

Twirly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Totally agree with this. I have a friend who lives > in Herne Hill, and it takes less than 10 minutes > for her to get to me in the car - it can take over > an hour if she has to use the bus. It would be > quicker to walk, I don't think public transport will ever be able to beat the car for short journeys unless on main transport routes. (If I want to get to Kings Hospital the time of car/bus is often identical but only because it takes so long to park the car at Kings and the bus journey follows the same route). I can't see any way that bus/train/tram transport could be improved to provide a direct equivalent for local transport. But what about taxis? I wonder how many people who have cars sitting outside (within 100yards?) of their house for the working week actually sit down and do the sums to see if taxis and occasional car hire would actually be cheaper. From Herne Hill it should be easy to cycle. Personally, I rather hope that the increased interest in electric cars will improve the availability (and initial cost) of electric micro cars. You can get two of them into a standard space. Not so good for transporting a family of 4 though.

goldsmik, I've always found it best to email Southwark rather than speak to someone by phone. [email protected] If you don't get a reply in 2-3 days, forward the email again pointing out that you're still waiting for a reply. Communicating in writing tends to make them more responsive. I've had a lot of 'forgotten' telephone calls but emails don't get ignored for long.

It sounds as if you just have a right of access across the garden not a right of enjoyment so, sadly, it ends there (unless you had been using the garden for many years in which case you may have acquired a right). The photos show paving slabs, rather than solid concrete so it may not be irreversible but unlikely to change until the tenant leaves. I wonder if the council tenant had a duty under her tenancy agreement to maintain the front garden; that might have led to her worrying about not weeding and the unfortunate events that followed. What I want to know now is who or what is buried in the coffin?

treehugger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1 Forest Hill Road is an EXCELLENT practice (I > have been goign there for 20 years) and have never > had a bad experience or an undue wait for an > appointment. They're not perfect but I wouldn't take any money to move to another practice

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > There are so many car owners living on the > breadline around the station it a right disgrace! It only takes one for there to be an injustice

If the council tenant engaged contractors to carry out the work then this is the person who has caused you a financial loss by destroying your property (assuming that you were allowed to put the plants in), and you should claim damages from them. You say that the council gave them permission but that would only be as the freeholder, not planning permission. If the works needed planning permission then the tenant should have applied (if it is required, as your earlier post suggests). Perhaps you should contact the council planning office to highlight the failure - it's wonderful how the different departments can act independently. (If you can get other neighbours to complain that would also help) Unfortunately, otherwise, if your landlady doesn't want to follow it up (just because someone is 'elderly' is no excuse for desecration) then there isn't a great deal more you can do but I would put in writing at the earliest possibility to your landlady that you may not want to renew your lease - if you're a good tenant (worth their weight in gold) she may become more motivated. Concreting over a front garden cannot be considered 'improvement works'. Do you have any before and after photos?

Nice idea Loz, but if each property had a permit for just one car, all those second cars would still be parking in the adjacent streets..... (And all those with a permit but no car could sell their allocation to a 'commuter' and how we would all laugh at the result)

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > There is no other solution. > It seems that only certain streets have the same level of parking problem (or there would be closer agreement amongst residents of all streets near to the station). This indicates that there is something special or odd about certain streets. Having seen the stats I would interpret the figures to indicate that some streets simply have too many car owners rather than pressure from commuter parking (due to multiple occupancy of properties). Putting that to one side, there are alternative solutions to a CPZ. A less expensive (to the residents) option would be to make those streets with the greatest problem less attractive to the dreaded train 'commuters'. Blocking one end of those streets would make them a time risk for anyone wanting to jump on the next train, such that they would try another street first. The minor additional irritation for residents would, presumably, be acceptable, particularly as the blocked street end would, potentially, create an additional two parking spaces (those that would otherwise be too close to the junction. Unfortunately, you are unlikely to get this as the statistics suggest that resident numbers are the issue, not commuters. (Perhaps you could apply for one of those Cleaner,greener safer grants to block off the end of the road to reduce pollution and provide a safer place for children).