Siduhe

The rolling closures of Rye Lane when they did the water/sewer pipes a couple of years ago were awful, traffic regularly backed up, buses terminated after just a few stops travelled, and not helped by the fact that there are huge numbers of regular deliveries that need to take place to the front of the shops there (as there is no back access or place to deliver). This sounds like a bigger project. Not really looking forward to it.

The charge for 2018/19 is the same charge as last year - ?16 for up to 10 items.

Overtaken by updated post!

Working fine for me today. You need to put your postcode in first as an access key to unlock the ticket selection. With no spaces in the postcode. HTH.

Noticed this online consultation which is open for comments until 22 October - there are plans to restrict traffic other than cyclists turning into Champion Hill from Denmark Hill on the basis that most of it is people cutting through. https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/championhilltrial/ May be of interest to those on Bromar, Ivanhoe and Pytchley Roads as well as those on Champion Hill (who I assume are being directly consulted).

At one level, if this is part of an effort by the practice to manage their existing patient load better, then that's something. After a few months of better appointment availability, we've gone back to "no routine appointments available in the next month", so you either need to have an urgent problem which justifies an 8am appointment (I don't) or you need to find other care. That said, it makes no sense to me to cut off patients who have been long-standing patients of the practice, particularly if they are still registering new patients. Why not just start by only taking on new patients from within the new boundary? There must be a care issue/consistency of care issue for someone who's been seen by the same set of doctors for 30 years and then has to switch to a new practice. And 4 weeks notice is completely unreasonable - particularly since a large number of people may be looking to switch at the same time.

We?re just outside the proposed CPZ zone, so there?s a concern about spillover here too. For me it comes down to what sort of CPZ is proposed. Something with a 3 hour window where people can?t phone in remotely to get parking during the controlled period wouldn?t stop me from using the places I do on LL and surrounds. I mostly cycle anyway but occasionally use the car. But there?s no CPZ that Southwark operates which will help with the parking issues we have - which is small business vans and lorries parking up. We have three businesses run from homes on our street (garden design, builder, waste removal). Each of them has 2-3 vans/small lorries and the people have family cars too. They?re great neighbours and you can?t really criticise anyone who runs a successful business from home in this environment but it does have a big impact on parking and a CPZ won?t help as they are residents entitled to take out permits. The last survey done by the LibDems re a CPZ showed a similar issue - there were comparatively few commuters parking in ED to then catch trains elsewhere, but there were a lot of small business vehicles and local shop/business workers coming in. I agree with other posters that the pressure on parking is greater and I suspect the majority of people will now favour a CPZ, so the thing for me is making sure it?s one that doesn?t damage the vibrant high street and businesses we are lucky to have while balancing residents needs.

M&S has been flouting the delivery conditions for the site since day one - bearing in mind that the conditions required them not to deliver via Lordship Lane but only to the rear of the site. They agreed to this despite residents telling them it wouldn?t work (which it didn?t) - lo and behold they applied to remove the delivery conditions post occupation on the grounds they were unworkable. There was a long thread on this at the time of the application to remove conditions and I can?t remember if they also applied to remove the timing/delivery route conditions. Will see if I can hunt it out.

There were a couple of installation vans from Heineken "Smart Dispense" (no, me neither!) outside the Barcelona yesterday so definitely looks like works are progressing.

Already done! Thanks.

"We are planning to introduce formal pedestrian crossing arrangements at this junction" - that's brilliant and long overdue. Thanks for posting.

It depends what you mean by a difficult site - it won't be close to the rest of the bars and restaurants on Lordship Lane so they won't get as much passing business or people stopping in before going to the cinema or on to eat. At the same time, there's a huge amount of homes nearby - the LL Estate, Underhill/Overhill/Melford/SC end of Wood Vale/Horniman that don't have anywhere to drink within a 10 minute walk. Come up with something that appeals to the local residents rather than passing trade and it will do well. I don't think it's about "defending" the location - more that most of us would love somewhere to go out for a beer that involved a short walk - the Grove was always busy before it shut after the fire and Barcelona was averagely busy considering it wasn't great at food (I do miss the sangria though).

jimbo1964 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's not off the beaten track for people that live > there. Currently no pub between The Plough and > Forest Hill. Couldn't agree more.

colville09 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James, can't open the link to the proposed area > map. Could you add in another way that people to > open it up, thanks. I've reattached it in a different format (JPG) - does this work for you?

James, I appreciate the consultation on controlled parking isn't out yet, but do you know what "East Dulwich" means in this context? Will it include parts of Dulwich Hill ward or is it limited to what was the old East Dulwich ward?

Lots in common with the Hamlet too, it seems...

It?s a prefix character showing that the text has been replied to or forwarded. Whoever is replying has set their email client up to add a prefix to the original text.

Interesting re tomatoes - I'm exactly the same. I had eczema badly as a child, grew out of it, and then it came back in my 30s on my shoulders, arms and back. The two foods that were guaranteed to make it worse for me were tomatoes and oranges.

No one on here can give you proper legal advice (including me) esp when you have your own solicitor - it would breach all kinds of ethics and conduct rules...but...the main difference between TiC and Joint Tenants is what happens when you die. As joint tenants you would own the property jointly and if one of you dies, their share would automatically go to the other person, regardless of any will. If you don?t want that to happen and/or want to own the property in unequal shares then TiC may be a better way to go. It is more complicated than that - there are variations you can put in place, so for example you can be joint tenants but add a stipulation that the first ?x on any sale goes to one party (good if one of you is putting up the deposit but you want to own jointly). The important thing is to have the agreement you?ve reached recorded somewhere. Doesn?t have to be on the land registry docs. Which has a good and more detailed guide here. https://www.which.co.uk/money/mortgages-and-property/first-time-buyers/buying-a-home/tenants-in-common-vs-joint-tenancy-amlkh0x4ct97 Edited to add - in terms of being equal TiC or unequal TiC it?s completely up to you both what arrangement you want to put in the Declaration of Trust - again this may help - https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/may/04/buying-tenants-in-common-what-happens-if-we-split-up. Appreciate this was more what you wanted ideas on.

I was looking for something on Southwark Council's site and came across a consultation re Peckham Rye Park which closes in 4 days. On a brief review the proposals involve putting in similar flood prevention measures as have gone into Dulwich Park (raised mounds and ditches to hold rain), a series of other "environmental improvements" in some less used areas of the park, new seasonal planting and some information boards. You can comment using the online survey - https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/lost-peck/ Definitely worth a look if you are a user of the park.

Looking at the sales materials quoted above, there is nothing that says "all natural ingredients" - indeed the wording seems quite carefully drafted to give an impression that only natural ingredients are used, without actually saying that in terms. So you'd have to try and build an argument/case based on section 11 of the CRA, based on the clear impression given by the marketing materials. That would have been really difficult to do under the old patchwork of consumer legislation, but there should be a little bit more flexibility under the CRA (although still not the easiest). In particular you could argue that the heavy emphasis on the use of natural ingredients and the lack of reference to any other kind of ingredients was a sufficient description that any use of synthetic ingredients was a deviation from description within the scope of 11(1) of the CRA. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/11/enacted editing for spelling

Don't know but this was the last discussion on the subject (also inconclusive): http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1901847,1902947#msg-1902947

+1 for CarWow. We ended up going to Kings Lynn to buy our car but we saved a significant amount on the price by doing this.

I'll happily take some off your hands to make apple jelly if they will survive to the weekend.

Here is a link to the old Met Police site - it points to a new site but which seems to be out of commission. This may help you at least start to track down where you can register! http://www.metkeyholders.org.uk/