Siduhe

National Carriers Ltd v Panalpina (Northern) Ltd (1980) was a House of Lords decision which confirmed that in principle the doctrine of frustration could apply to leases, but on the facts of that case, the argument for frustration was not upheld. Like robbin I'm not aware that it has been upheld in the context of leases. I have seen it upheld (but rarely) in other sorts of commercial cases, particularly around goods and supply chains.

It's the gym/fitness place on Lordship Lane. http://www.esph.co.uk/

There's a short but similar thread here - you could try PM'ing Mark as well but he's a busy man. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?12,1325212,1326453#msg-1326453

You need to use the Google custom search for any word of three letters or less - forum quirk!

Apparently a refurbishment (but no direct knowledge). http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1998176

I've met* two people recently who drive in from Kent to the Underhill Road area, park and then get trains from FH or ED which really surprised me. *met in the sense that they both parked across our drive in the hope that no-one was in the house all day...

Jakido Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is it possible to limit the time period to > discourage commuters leaving vehicles e.g 9am to > 10am, but allowing people to still drive and park > at other times? At the risk of making it look like all I do is post about CPZs - the problem (it seems to me) is that Southwark do implement a 2 hour window only for the CPZ but then allow people to pay by telephone - so no bar to commuter parking if they are willing to pay for the 2 hour window. At least that has been the experience of some roads in the Denmark Hill CPZ. I've said elsewhere I think the time has come where a CPZ feels inevitable as everywhere else around us is controlled parking but if we have one, it needs to work for residents, allow people to visit our local shops and restaurants and not just be a revenue raising exercise or an ideological one in that Southwark think CPZs are the way to discourage car ownership in the borough. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1989466,1992981#msg-1992981

The consultation isn't live yet but there have been various discussions about it on here including a map of the proposed area on the local Councillor thread - see http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1932267,1965260#msg-1965260 The longer discussion about it is here http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1970938,page=1

I don't get anything under the "all the photos" section in Safari even with the scroll. Works ok in Chrome (both browsers on the same wireless broadband connection).

You definitely could book appointments via the two apps I mention last year. But I've just gone to the website and got this pop up notice which suggests things may have changed: From 14th January our appointment system will be changing. Should you require an emergency appointment , please phone between 8:00 am and 10:00 am. The receptionist team will take some details and GP will phone you back. If you require a routine appointment, these will be available up o[sic] two weeks in advance. Phone after 10 am in order to book This sounds like you can only book by phone now.

How are you accessing the system online? I can get in to the booking system via both the MyGP and Patient Access apps, but I get a popup for both saying all appointments are booked and to contact the surgery if you need urgent care. Maybe that is why you can't see anything?

The idea that Southwark introduces a CPZ but then allows people to pay via telephone for the 2 hour restricted period doesn't make any sense if the aim is to limit parking by non-residents/commuters. That really does feel like revenue raising rather than street management. How do they justify the decision to allow pay and park by telephone?

Updates from O2 available here - https://status.o2.co.uk/

Good reminder to say thanks to nxjen for posting - I didn't find it too difficult to complete and I read the purpose as a "give us your priorities so that we can develop a plan that you can then comment on". There is a clear statement in there about Southwark's intentions to reduce car journeys across the borough which has impacts for car owners as we've discussed on here loads of times, and there was a good blank space to give input about how Southwark should approach the planning. For what it's worth, I took a leaf out of the James Barber playbook and gave chapter and verse about how there are very different environments in Southwark and a single plan which applies equally to E&C and Dulwich isn't the best way to achieve their objectives. Who knows if they will listen but the more people who contribute, the more chance there is the plans take account of what we need in ED.

The second location looks like the Lordship Lane Estate to me.

@JayneB I also got woken up this am 5:45-6:30am constant barking. We're Underhill/Melford borders so the sound is definitely travelling.

According to some recent TUC research, an hour's bus journey isn't too bad, but it confirms that travel by bus is getting generally slower. I travel to work by bus most days from the Grove Tavern end of Lordship Lane. Yes it's slow and massively impacted by small changes like occasional roadworks, but it's convenient in the sense that it's end to end and I don't have to change modes of transport or queue up to get on a train.

I recently made a enquiry/complaint to TFL about the increased number of buses I've been on terminating early at rush hour - spurred on by a day when I got on 3 x 63 buses one after the other and none of them ran beyond Blackfriars I got the usual brush off reply but it had some interesting stuff in it, relevant to the plans for the number 40. TFL's view is that the way to keep buses running to time with less resources is to run shorter bus routes and require passengers to change at least once (but up to two times is considered acceptable) to get to destinations that used to be served by a single route. Their theory is that it's the long bus routes that cause delays overall and that running shorter routes and requiring people to change more is the way to keep things running smoothly and "to provide maximum service to the main and busiest parts of the route". Which is exactly what they are proposing with the 40. To the comment above, that seems to assume that everyone is able to navigate multiple buses with limited allowance for people with disabilities, prams, luggage and that it will be possible to change onto other buses at peak times.

The skip lorries are the ones I notice most because they speed over the speed bumps as it's the smoothest way for them to drive, but it's also the noisiest for nearby residents. However, I do think that a fair amount of it comes from local developments and building projects (of which there have been many around Underhill/Melford/Wood Vale in the last year).

Good spot Jenny. Got a text message this morning in response to my reports saying that a fix is underway...

I've reported it twice to Thames Water who have assessed it as a minor repair and therefore haven't got around to it. Will do so again, but it would help if others did the same.

Not sure why this has been moved to the Lounge - Melford and the Southwark side of Wood Vale are in East Dulwich (just - the last street before it becomes Lewisham).

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've no clear idea of the truth, but from what > I've read I'm surpsised,, notwithstanding the > upset that I accept was caused on both sides, that > it's said to be a still active police case. Have > any witnesses actually been asked to make formal > written witness statements? The gentleman has indicated on Twitter that he?s ?resorting to private prosecution?. It may be that is what the new request for witnesses relates to. Personally, I?d rather that admin didn?t lock this thread - any abuse of the OP should absolutely be removed, but I found it very useful to understand the two sides of the story - and there clearly are two.

apmuso Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MarkT - don't shoot the messenger. Just what > someone told me in conversation. > And obviously can't reveal my sources... Which rather suggests whoever you spoke to is treating the outcome of the consultation as a foregone conclusion. I think that?s a big part of my concern given some of the history here and what has happened with consultations in other areas.

I?ve been told that a long while before that it was a old school pharmacy - that?s where the cabinet came from.