henryb

Hand weeding and steaming seem to be common alternatives. Here is a well thought out letter to Camden Council from a resident there. http://www.transitionkentishtown.org.uk/2015/04/the-campaign-against-glyphosate/

It looks like the Shelbury Rd and Colyton junction is roughly half way between the boys and girls school by road. I wonder if that was the reason.

Found this on specialist planning law Solicitor's blog. Certainly sounds like there are reasonable grounds for objection. http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/p/how-to-object.html To summarise, the following are the grounds on which planning permission is most likely to be refused (although this list is not intended to be definitive) : ? Adverse effect on the residential amenity of neighbours, by reason of (among other factors) noise*, disturbance*, overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing, etc. [*but note that this does not include noise or disturbance arising from the actual execution of the works, which will not be taken into account] ? Unacceptably high density / overdevelopment of the site, especially if it involves loss of garden land or the open aspect of the neighbourhood (so-called ?garden grabbing?) ? Visual impact of the development ? Effect of the development on the character of the neighbourhood ? Design (including bulk and massing, detailing and materials, if these form part of the application) ? The proposed development is over-bearing, out-of-scale or out of character in terms of its appearance compared with existing development in the vicinity ? The loss of existing views from neighbouring properties would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring owners ? [if in a Conservation Area, adverse effect of the development on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area] ? [if near a Listed Building, adverse effect of the development on the setting of the Listed Building.] ? The development would adversely affect highway safety or the convenience of road users [but only if there is technical evidence to back up such a claim].

The sprayers seem to covering a lot of ground. I have never seen it been used this extensively before. I guess a problem is if it is used in this quantity in a paved urban environments, rain water will wash most of it off into the water ways. It doesn't break down very easily so will build up over the years. It has been linked to the bee population decline. Chicago and Paris have stopped using it because of concerns. It is not agent orange but it is still nasty stuff. Campaigners in Hackney are trying stop it being used there. http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/21/glyphosate-probably-carcinogenic-pesticide-why-cities-use-it

bermygirl Wrote: > if I took my eyes off the road for a > minute and someone got hit, I would not be at > fault. In that situation you would be at fault - even more so if didn't have your eyes on the road. Pedestrians have right way at junctions if they have started to cross. https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-junctions-170-to-183

Yes the only options for "Turkey Island" as some people call it is Francesca Cabrini or Harris ED. Once Harris ED moves to it permanent location and if it becomes more popular then that might change. The frustrating thing is Harris has been given approval for a new school in the area, they have stated that their ideal location is the Homestall Rd site where the temporary buildings are - I am sure there would be a lot of local support for a school there. However they can't do it because of planning problems as it is Metropolitan Open Land. In Islington new schools have been built on MOL so there must be a way around it.

Quite. I did read somewhere speed bumps are bad for fuel consumption because of continuous acceleration/deceleration. Ideally they should designed so a constant reasonable speed can be maintained.

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I dont understand I get 17mpg at 30 and 35-40mpg > at 60mph so how can 20 be better fuel wise? Because most of the fuel you use driving in London is used accelerating because you stop and start so much. Accelerating to 20 mph takes less fuel than accelerating to 30 mph. The mpg at 20 is less than at 30 but not by that much and it is cancelled out by the effect of less acceleration. Well that's the theory - it would be hard to prove it either way as there would too much noise in any test.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes exactly - except acts of God obviously. so, no > such things as accidents except, well, accidents. > Root cause analysis does, occasionally, come up > with chance occurrences - such as heart attacks > etc. It is a system designed to uncover what > caused an 'accident' - so that avoidable elements > can in future be avoided, but it does not require > that all elements should be classifiable as > avoidable. Of course actions have causes, but 'no > such thing as an accident' implies (requires to > imply) that the cause can never be a matter of > chance or happenstance. In many cases random > chance is called to account when proper analysis > would show underlying fault, but not in every > case, and as an analysis requirement. Sh1t (acts > of god) does happen. Well yes but my guess it is actually incredibly rare that a road collision is the result of random unforeseeable event with no human agent. Nearly all of them are someone's fault even if it is just someone not paying attention. Which I guess was the point.

Yes exactly - except acts of God obviously.

Mechanical failures are the responsibility of car manufacturers, pot holes - the council and so on. Root cause analysis is how investigate aeroplane and train crashes - which might be why they are so safe.

I don't want to put words in James's mouth but I think he meant there is no such thing as a random accident. i.e. every road collision will have a least one root cause with ultimately someone responsible, even if it was unintentional.

Thanks Frazer. Very interesting. Thanks also for all your efforts on the issue. Nice to know we are not going mad.

I am not sure more regulation would helped that much. Ultimately it was an international credit boom and associated asset bubble that crashed. The demand and supply for the new credit products was vast. It would have been hard for any individual government to put the brakes on that not to mention politically/diplomatically difficult in the climate the time. Economic cycles are inevitable. I guess the mistakes Labour made was thinking that the 2001/7 boom was going different to all the others, very publicly claiming responsibility for it and not reducing the debt down to manageable levels during the good times. If a captain of a ship tries to take credit for the good weather it is unsurprising they get lynched when a storm comes.

Interesting site to help decide. Personally I think the election should more like this to reduce the tribalism. https://voteforpolicies.org.uk/

I made this one for the 2014 catchment areas. Unfortunately it is not as slick and comprehensive as other one. I would love to know how the data stories one was one made. http://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/East_Dulwich_Schools_2014/Hn3Q46F0LW

Hi adamc79, Yes I will.

Hi east-of-the-Rye. Yes I definitely think the access should be better. A couple of members of the SSW campaign and I are going to a stake holders meetings about the plans. I will raise the issue of access including your points in that forum as well if you like. Regarding the COC - the current plans include a new access point on Underhill near Hillcourt which is welcome.

Unfortunately you (like us) live in one of the local black holes - well very limited choice areas. When we applied in 2013 we put the 5 closest community schools and got it in none. Here is a map for the 2014 catchment areas. The green pins are under-subscribed schools, blue pins are over subscribed community, the red pins are over subscribed non-community schools. http://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/East_Dulwich_Schools_2014/Hn3Q46F0LW What is also worrying is the admissions went up 4% on last year. I think that is a lot more than Southwark were predicting.

I don't see how the land being correctly registered is denying Dulwich Estate?s legal rights in anyway. They can still apply for planning permission however it is registered. Even so as the land is currently being used as a playing field and leased by the school I would have thought any planning application would have to involve Sports England and the Secretary of State.

EuroTunnel is definitely the quickest and cheapest route - you could even take the Dover Calais ferry. Getting to Dover is very easy from around here - Portsmouth is harder. We went via Dover/Calais ferry two years ago with 18 month old and 4 year old. With the money we saved going that route we had a overnight stay in hotel in Rouen which was very nice. Having said that Brittany Ferries are very pleasant if the weather is nice. It was the cost and the timings that swung it for us.

Signed. Do you have a Twitter page?

If you call or contact Southwark Council they should be able to take it away for you. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200084/recycling_and_waste/1667/bulky_waste_collection

The petition has over 4000 signatures! As this over the 1500 threshold Save Southwark Woods can present it's case to the council assembly or cabinet. More details to follow. A big thanks to everyone for the support.

I wonder if the new buses will have the same fault. Imagine if it was full.