edhistory

XIX Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah I'm somewhat intrigued [...] Another opinion and belief post.

The order is dated 10 August 2017. https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2842673 There is more there than just the Dulwich Village junction.

> But it looks like the current works are going to go through, no matter what Is there a suggestion that the plans are inaccurate and do not match what is happening on the ground? Inaccurate plans or works carried out that do not match the TMO would render the TMO null and void. Has anyone seen the TMO?

Fraud?

Did anyone with an inside track check whether the date of the works contract was earlier than the date of the Council decision?

I thought this thread was about un-cool anti-social parties.

> People get away with bonfires when they aren't reported. I don't understand this. Are you saying that all bonfires should be reported?

TheCat: Do you think we should restore beating the bounds (using the 2017 boundary)? Mr Lewis Schaffer has done this for Nunhead but I don't know with how much traction.

Has anyone yet identified a single report that can not be traced back to SNARL as the sole source?

I do wonder whether we should do more to help Mr Barber performs his duties,

Thanks for that IlonaM. If you read the text more carefully it does not say bonfires are banned. Mr Barber will probably not the e4xisting restrictions and exemptions for bonfires.

Rosetta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bonfires aren't allowed. Are you sure?

Ian has information that these are not free, but cost ?600 each. ED Light Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The council offer free floor anchors generally for > motorbikes. > Should do the trick for bikes. Contact Cllr James > Barber

Thanks Penguin68 There also appears to be a problem with the railing posts too. Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Steel railings leaking lead particles? > > How does that work? > > I imagine they were painted with a lead-based > paint [...]

Steel railings leaking lead particles? How does that work?

The northern boundary of St Stephen's parish (South Dulwich) may assist this discussion.

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/search.php?12,search=ChazParks,page=1,match_type=AUTHOR,match_dates=0,match_forum=ALL Is this an unlicensed commercial operation?

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,618969,619185#msg-619185

I thought Mr Barber's Public Realm Patrols were going to cover these areas as well: Advertising hoardings fixed to buildings without plaaning persmission and/or business rates assessment. Estate agent signs that should have been removed. Shop fascia lettering that was installed after the current legislation came into force, is oversized, and does not have planning permission. Street furniture that requires a permit but does not have one.

Thanks Ian - an interesting set of onion layers uncovered there. I have a degree of confidence that HMRC can find its way through this and ensure the correct tax is being paid. ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I doubt it was the council. The page you mention > is at > http://southwarkmagazine.com/news/8275/Occupiers-r > each-for-Peckham-Levels. The mag. itself is a > private one, unconnected with the council. The > subsidisers appear to be the Peckham Levels > project, http://www.peckhamlevels.org/about/, > which was awarded to Make Shift Community Ltd, > http://www.makeshift.org/. I see that Make Shift > similarly offered a limited number of subsidised > places in Brixton Pop, another of their temporary > projects. > > Peckham Levels Ltd is wholly owned by Make Shift > Community Ltd. Make Shift has two active entities > with significant control: (1) Mr Carl Turner (2) > The Collective Partners LLP (which holds at least > 75% of shares) The Collective Partners LLP has > one active person with significant control: Mr > Reza Mohammad Merchant. All according to > Companies House. > > Southwark is the landlord and enabler. Possibly > that's all? Wherever it was advertised, they seem > to have got the applicants: > http://www.peckhamlevels.org/blog-1/2017/6/28/coun > tdown-to-launch. There's a useful Southwark News > summary too, at > http://londonbulletin.co.uk/gentrification-of-peck > ham-continues-as-car-park-plans-reach-new-level-p2 > 978-271.htm. > > Remember when it was just the site of a Sunday > morning boot sale?

Toosmart1973 Wrote: > Excellent news, we use one in SE15, they're a > godsend for our 3 bike household! What are the charges over in SE15?

> This is one of the things we get asked about/for the most Who is "we"?

suzyq Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi all, Tried joining the existing WI in ED only > to find that the waiting list was closed and they > were full. I was toying with the idea of starting > up a second branch for ED and I was wondering if > there were any interested ladies out there?? Report this to WI HQ and the branch may be told to bifurcate itself.

Does anyone know the name of our employee at Southwark Council who signed off this arrangement?

Thanks to both of you. I would like to read the Arup structural report that post-dates the 5 July [sic] email. It does not appear to have been published on www.arup.com. The interviews with tenants broadcast on BBC Radio 4 today have the structural cracks wider than suggested by the Arup email.