bluecanary

Thank you so much for your message. Have replied on Lost & Found. Owner has been reunited.

Knight & Son have just made short work of the various items I?d had stacked up for years. Paul and his son are lovely guys, really helpful. I wouldn?t hesitate to recommend them. You can contact Paul on 07985 104027

Based on the many glowing recommendations here for Joseph I arranged for him to move my daughter into her new place which involved numerous boxes, black bags and the like as well as some furniture. Some of the furniture required dismantling and reassembling at the other end, which Joseph tackled with ease. In this instance the work needed two men and the price for this together with the van was very reasonable. Joseph and his assistant were very polite and helpful. Nothing was too much trouble and the work was done with both efficiency and pride. Really nice guys, would definitely use Joseph's services again.

Having read through this and bits of the other threads my head is spinning with the effort of trying to separate the wheat from the chaff. Have no wish to add to the thread or discussion save to post the link to the protesters original objectives. henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Update from Save Southwark Woods for those not > following on Facebook/Twitter. > > At the Public Meeting, the council gave residents > until Friday 20th February, a typically short > period to make comments on their brutal, > destructive and short-term proposals. Here are the > people to write to, it can be in one email/letter > and you can be as specific or as general as you > wish, but has to be with them by Friday 20th. > > The people to write to are: > > Officers: > [email protected] Simon Bevan, Head of > Planning > [email protected] Rebecca Towers, > Parks & Open Spaces Manager > [email protected] Des Waters, Head of > Public Realm > > Copy in Councillors: > [email protected] Cllr Darren > Merrill > [email protected] Clly Victoria > Mills > [email protected] Cllr Renata Hamvas > > And please copy us in too! > [email protected] > > The main points Save Southwark Woods is calling > for are: > ? For these woodlands, wooded areas and > greenspaces to be protected and managed for nature > and people - no new burials > ? For both cemeteries to be declared the Local > Nature Reserves they really are, and managed as > Nunhead Cemetery is > ? That years of illegal fly tipping under the > council?s watch should not be the excuse used for > a massive redevelopment not just of Area Z but > across the whole of these magical woods, with > sanitised landscaping and THOUSANDS of burial > plots instead of woodland at the end of it > ? A full Public Consultation 2015/2016 on these > brutal and destructive proposals, denied to the > public with a toothless public information > exercise instead > If you wish to express support for the SSW > campaign too, that would be great but the main > thing is to make your comments known. The council > has tried to get this through without anyone > realising what was happening. Tell them they can't > pull the wool over residents' eyes like this. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1464510,1474909,

There has been an incident (I know not what) and Lordship Lane is closed coming from Forst Hill at the junctions with Mount Adon Park and Court Lane. This includes pedestrians as well. Presumably it will be shut further up, but I can't see that far.

I use an app called iResize https://appsto.re/gb/GfGiw.i

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bluecanary Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > A Toby Carvery would do very well there I'm > sure. > > The one at Elmer's End is always packed. > > That is the pensioners then. > > My mother loved them. and she was vegetarian :) > (She met friends there) Pensioners, babes in arms and every age in between!

A Toby Carvery would do very well there I'm sure. The one at Elmer's End is always packed.

Much Ado about Nothing

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here's a link to proposals on free parking...again > has consultation passed us all by > [www.southwark.gov.uk] > ojects/3654/one_hour_free_parking_in_local_shoppin > g_parades The closing date is today FEB 9th - so take a look and respond. Is it worth a separate thread on EDF to flag this up right now and if so, can someone do that?

CONSULTATION CLOSES TODAY! http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200140/parking_projects/3654/one_hour_free_parking_in_local_shopping_parades Lordship Lane starts on page 30 of the proposal drawings Short summary of proposed changes (my adding up, feel free to check!) 18 new restricted spaces created on North Cross Road 22 new restricted spaces created on Lordship lane and side roads 83 current 30 mins restricted to be changed to 60 mins, 62 of which will have the hours of operation extended to include Saturdays. Therefore in effect creating a loss of 62 unrestricted parking spaces on a Saturday. I post this information to bring it to the attention of interested parties, although a regular driver I either walk or bus whilst visiting Lordship Lane so am not directly affected at present by the proposals.

CONSULTATION CLOSES TODAY! Short summary of proposed changes (my adding up, feel free to check!) 18 new restricted spaces created on North Cross Road 22 new restricted spaces created on Lordship lane and side roads 83 current 30 mins restricted to be changed to 60 mins, 62 of which will have the hours of operation extended to include Saturdays. Therefore in effect creating a loss of 62 unrestricted parking spaces on a Saturday. I post this information to bring it to the attention of interested parties, although a regular driver I either walk or bus whilst visiting Lordship Lane so am not directly affected at present by the proposals. first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200140/parking_pr > ojects/3654/one_hour_free_parking_in_local_shoppin > g_parades > > See map, page 30 for detail of proposed changes > from unrestricted free parking to restricted, > under S'warks free parking scheme. Consultation us > ongoing. Without objections this is due to be > implemented late March, early April thus year.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How can they target cyclists anyway. Cyclists have > no way of knowing if they are breaking a speed > limit, because DUH they are not required to have > on board speedometres. I would have thought that > to be blatently obvious. Quite. Hence the backing down!

'The London borough of Southwark has this afternoon announced it will not attempt to impose speed limits on cyclists as part of its adoption of a 20 mph limit across the borough. While lower speed limits are to be welcomed as reducing road danger for vulnerable road users such as cyclists, there was concern that attempting to apply the limit to cyclists was beyond the council?s legal powers, and would provide police with another excuse to harass cyclists in light of the Met?s disproportionate attention to cyclists in Operation Safeway. Cycle campaign charity CTC pointed out that the Road Traffic Regulations Act gives local authorities the power to impose new speed limits only on motor vehicles, not cyclists. Following road.cc?s stories on this issue yesterday and this morning, Southwark Council issued the following statement. Councillor Mark Williams, cabinet member for transport: "The council sees the establishment of a 20 mph borough as significant step forward in ensuring the safety of all road users not least cyclists and pedestrians. To achieve this we feel that all vehicles should limit their speed to 20 mph. "The report published on the 18 July to determine the statutory objections relating to a borough-wide 20mph speed limit makes it clear that orders made under Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 can apply to motor vehicles only and as such any prosecution by the police for breaches of the speed limit under that Act would be limited to motorised vehicles only. Accordingly the traffic order will be amended to make reference to "motorised vehicles" only. "The council does not have powers to prosecute cyclists who travel in excess of 20 mph and recognises that dangerous cycling is a matter for the police alone. Nor are we seeking to " target" cyclists for enforcement, rather to reflect the concerns raised by pedestrians about the problems caused by a small minority of cyclists whose speed endangers other road users."

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1725/resp > onse_to_reports_concerning_20mph_limit_and_cyclist > s > > A search on S'wark website indicates that that > cllr barrie Hargrove announced in oct 2013 that 20 > mph would go to statutory consultation. The above > is a press release in June 2014 which indicates > the consultation has been done, it also contains > interesting information on enforcement, whereby > the limit won't apply to cyclists, only motorised > vehicles.....bizarre and a bit of a mess. Apparently Southwark originally intended to include cyclists but had to back down after being challenged http://road.cc/content/news/124738-southwark-backs-down-20mph-cycling-limit

Thanks first mate but I continue to seek documented proof that consultation letters were delivered to the local community.

Scanning the QR code takes us to http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2558/traffic_orders where there are various notices including some concerning removal/introduction of parking restrictions.

first mate your third link is for the decision details on East Dulwich Grove 20mph, Road Safety and Traffic Calming Proposals. At the very end of the accompanying documents is a list of addresses that were consulted. Not been able to find anything similar for Lordship Lane although did find the public notice and traffic management order http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/9989/introduction_of_borough-wide_20_mph_speed_limit_-_public_notice_dated_27_february_2014

How different things are when we are positively courted for our opinions, mailings hand delivered, personal visits, hands shook, babies kissed and dogs petted - all for an x on that all important form!

Have I missed something bawdy-nan? Who are these people that feel the law doesn't apply to them etc.?

Indeed. In response to Objection 5 concerning boundary roads with neighbouring boroughs it is stated that Lewisham will be making a decision shortly (document dated July 2014) yet Lewisham seem to have a lengthy and open consultation process in hand http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s33032/Boroughwide%2020%20mph%20speed%20limit.pdf

This is the bit where we were consulted. Oops I mean notified of the intention. Via a notice in the London Gazette and Southwark News! In accordance with legislation2 the council advertised its intention to make traffic orders in respect of the changes to speed limits on 27 February 2014. Notice was given in the London Gazette3 and local press (Southwark News). Notice was given to the following statutory consultees: London Ambulance Service, London Fire Brigade, Metropolitan Police Service, TfL Buses, Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association. 7. Notice was also given to non-statutory consultees including: Transport for London, Southwark Disablement Association, Southwark Disability Forum, Southwark Cyclists, Living Streets and London Travel Watch and full details of the proposals were also made available for inspection on the council?s website or in person by appointment at 160 Tooley Street.