Senor Chevalier

Using likely to mean "probably" rather than "probable". An awful turn of phrase IMHO that seems to afflict those of an American or Canadian persuasion though unchecked will likely spread more widely...

Check the fees. Pre planning advice used to be free, but in Soutwhark it is now about a grand a pop which I think is 4 - 5 x the cost of an actual planning application with no statutory response period (for them to miss)....

If I had to go to a non-meat restaurant then I'd be tempted to try this speciality cheese restaurant. Oh and they do foie gras... http://artdufromage.co.uk/

Also they are pants. The developer is a nightmare apparantly. I know someone that bought one of the townhouses. 2 years on and still snagging problems. Damp issue and the latest is that the whole ground floor now needs to be taken up and resealed (again). Apparantly at one point some had (in desperation) hung a bed sheet out of the window on which they had painted "No hot water for 5 days and counting - buyers beware". Bland, developer rubbish with corners cut to maximise profit. So spare a thought for the poor fools that stumped up...

Wow that's pretty amazing. Just wait for the spearhead...

Or chose a random / silly user name with little thought when you first register to give away some things in a house move and then put up with it for years as you get drawn gradually and increasingly into the EDF world, before you know it you've posted too much and it would be somehow dishonest to then change it....

Ooh - but I assume it goes wrong if I send to someone without the relevant add in?

Now I used to be a massive fan of CG Omega but Microsoft dropped it from their standard palette :'( so now I have to make do with Tahoma which is of course fine but just not as good. Like that you mean.

Fixed gear also saves pads and wheel rims, but as you say this saving is then generally applied towards budgie smuggling shorts so net net....

When I decided to buy a bike to pedal to work each day (5 miles each way) my mental arithmetic was pretty straight forward and plain wrong. Bike up front capital cost versus saved ongoing oyster card payment. The reason this was dead wrong is I had missed at least ?100 per year in maintenance from the equation: 6 month service, including new chain and cassette, several flat tyres, gears need retuning / adjusting etc etc, replaced brake pads etc, etc. I'm only in year 2 and maintenance costs will increase as the bike gets older (haven't changed the wheel rims yet but soon). I would think ?100 - 150 per annum would be average for a daily commuter like me. If I rode my bike as a courier where I was doing say 5 x the miles, then this cost would be considerably higher. Now clearly the single speed is not going to fix the puncture issue but many of the other costs would be saved or reduced. With the added opex, suffice to say cycling is still massively NPV positive and much more fun. I agree that cost may not be a major consideration for many but I can see how it would be in some cases. It would be wrong to think of cycling as a free mode of transport.

Interesting thought about equalizing the impact of parking - setting the tariff at a low enough rate (or free) should ensure that the displaced cars were those of people who do not reside in the streets where the CPZ was brought in. That would be a more interesting experiment.

Char1ie - Which Planning Regs are you referring to. The link I posted is to the primary legislation "The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008)". Part A.1(g) for example states that where the development is within 2m of a boundary the eaves need to be less than 3m in height. I'm not sure why they would specify this if nothing within 5m of the boundary is permitted as you are saying. If both are true then then the PD law would be irrelevant and confusing.... Do you have a specific reference for where your 5m rule comes from other than "planning regulations"?

Useful link MSA - bottom of p22 / top of p23 show the the typical side return situation and it seems more than 3m back breaches the rear wall rule as each rear wall is considered. So unless going for a very modest side return extension, planning permission would be needed. However if only going 3m then my read is you could proceed under PD to the boundary as long as no higher than 3m (though Char1ie has different views clearly...)

Chicken for 2 at the Crooked Well is very hard to beat.

Ok here is the legislation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/2362/pdfs/uksi_20082362_en.pdf My lay man reading of this is that your side return should fall under Class A and provided that: -it is single storey; -no higher than 3m at the eaves (party wall boundary); and -no wider than half of your existing rear outrigger The loft conversion should fall under Class B provided that: -the front side of roof visible from road is not altered; -overall height not increased; -the back of your dormer is > 20cm from the eaves of the main roof. Read the link for the full detail though as there are various other constraints around materials and windows etc. As I said before I know there hae been some problems with Councils taking different views on this (e.g. deeming that side return extensions are rear extensions not side extensions and therefore not permitted [Edited: see the doc posted by MSA below which clarifies that side return extensions are deemed as both side and rear extensions and hence both sets of rules apply - i.e. no more than 3m back]) I also reiterate that you must get the certificate to make sure you are covered and avoid heartache later. Also once you get going with your plans, you will find that you may want to go outside the rules and so end up needing planning, for example on the loft conversion I suspect you may want velux type windows to the front roof pitch and you may want to be more inventive with materials and these may not necessarily be allowed under PD. Good luck.

I don't think it is clear cut. The permitted development rules are supposed to apply nationally but they do seem to vary in application. I have seen side extensions done under PD in other boroughs as long as not in a conservation area. However, in Southwark I have seen side return extensions rejected as PD and forced through a full planning application. Whether something is PD or not is supposed to be a matter of fact and if it is you can just plod on and do the work. That said, if it is later found not to be PD (i.e. you were wrong) then you are in a mess having to potentially reverse the work. The solution to this is to obtain a certificate of lawful development, where the planning dept confirm in writing that it is PD and this removes any risk after the event. A good starting point is probably to speak to the planners. Go to the "one stop shop" on the Walworth Rd and speak to the duty planner there - you just drop in without an appointment. I suggest to take a location map (Southwark Council website Maps section is good for this) along with some measurements / rough sketches. You can speak to the officer who should be able to advise whether it is PD or a full application needed. I suspect they will say full application. The other thing you can do is look up your own road in the planning applications section of the Southwark website. What you are proposing sounds pretty standard and if others in your street have done the same there will be a record and you will be able to see whether they sought full planning or a Certificate of Lawful Development. I did have the rules for PD somewhere and I will try to dig them out, but I would be nervous about applying them from first principles without also getting the certificate.

These guys are ace: http://www.eastlondonsteak.co.uk/ Next day delivery arrives before you leave for work - steaks cut to order including rarer cuts like onglet. I have also heard good things about these guys, but not got round to trying them yet: http://www.localgreens.org.uk/

It is idiots on bikes that run red lights at silly times when pedestrians are crossing or when it is utterly inappropriate that give all cyclists a bad name and encourage people to object to all rule breakers - even conscientious rule benders who carefully roll through left hand turns on red lights or through cross roads to get out of the way of a revving white van when there is a green man in the side street so you know it is safe to cross whilst of course deferring to pedestrians at all times and being polite. If cyclists used judgement and only broke the rules carefully and respectfully rather than selfishly things would be better. I realise that as I sit there cursing the tosser cyclists behaving like idiots there are others who probably curse me for my misdemeanours (rules is rules) but I think there genuinely is a difference.

So Fazer, given there is nothing at all to suggest that the proposed CPZ will be in any way different in terms of management and enforcement from any that have gone before, are we to understand you are in the no campaign for this particular campaign, but want to also campaign for a redesigned CPZ that will be different from all others to be implemented? I can understand trying to piggy back off the current consultation to pioneer a new model given the topic is on the table, but there is a danger that the nuance of your argument is missed allowing your support for the new improved CPZ concept to be misconstrued as support for the proposal (which it is not). How about we defeat this (same old) CPZ proposal and then you can table a new motion for a "people's cooperative CPZ". This could perhaps be a free CPZ enforced by resident prefects a la citizen's arrest who would have an element of judgement and compassion whilst remaining beyond reproach etc etc you no doubt have this thought through in more detail...

Try getting quotes for connecting new drains to the sewer - highest quote was 4 x lowest and lowest was 4 x a reasonable estimate by a quantity surveyor that I have been wasting money on.

So here's my CPZ anecdote. When I moved into a flat in North London some 10 years we took the trouble to ensure the CPZ was suspended outside the flat so that the last occupant could park their van on the way out and I could park my car close on the way in. First day in new Flat. Moving house always a bit of a ball ache. Next morning - no car outside. I could have sworn I parked it there. This isn't a bad area is it? Surely it hasn't been nicked. Called the local police who suggested I call the local car pound. And surprise, surprise, notwithstanding the fact that the bay had been suspended for my express use, my car had been towed away. Cab across to Camden and then had to shell out ?400 on my credit card or they would not release it. No argument. "You've got to write in guv". Wonderful. About 3 letters and 6 weeks later I got my money back including the cab fare. Great system - love it.

OK, Buddug zip it, unzip it, whatever. Just thought your extrapolation from the CPZ issue to "anything" was something of a leap and undermined your position. Pint sounds good.

Buddug - tempting as it clearly was to "put the boot in" I can answer your question with a simple yes, he has been of help. Whilst I don't always agree with his view on everything (e.g. his apparant stance on CPZs) generally JB takes an active interest in ED and tries to help where he can. He also "puts himself out there" on this forum (braving the cranks along the way) and we would be worse off without him. So zip it.

Looks like Brixton rec has gone up - it's been a while... I think there is some sort of leisure key card membership thingy which means a reduced rate is payable. Not sure if they still do this.

Brixton Rec.