Siduhe

Usually it's because you are using a forbidden word - there are some words that get used in spam posts a lot, which the forum rejects - "bump" I think is banned, for example. Kitchen was a banned word for a while too due to lots of spam. Try rewording your post.

If you don't mind travelling a bit, Mount Mascal would be worth looking at. They do a great "back to riding" course for people but also have lost of advanced riders and great facilities so would suit a mixed level group. http://www.mountmascalstables.com/ It's just outside Bexley, so easy to head out into the Kent countryside from there.

It's a test for the new online census to see how the new online system works in practice and what problems people have filling it in. https://www.ons.gov.uk/news/news/testingforthe2021census We got one with a cover letter that gives a number to call if you have concerns.

rch, it's worth nothing that at least one of the objections on the Southwark planning site are from the flats above the M&S site who would be particularly badly affected by what is being proposed. As I say, I'm not directly affected so my voice doesn't count for much in the planning process but the person who submitted this objection has exactly captured what I think about the whole process. Only, he/she is a lot more polite about it than I would be:

To be fair to Southwark, there is absolutely no mention in the application to lift the delivery conditions that this would lead to deliveries at the front - it's all drafted as if nothing is changing at all. But if the effect of the lifting is what the developer seems to think it is, someone really should have spotted it.

So I've got the application reference working - the documents are here: http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9561557 What seems to have happened is that the Developer applied to lift the servicing conditions entirely, on the basis of certain delivery agreements by M&S and a noise assessment. Southwark agreed to do this without (at least on the wording of the Officer's report) appreciating that would lift the condition about delivering to the rear of the site. The Officer's report continues to operate and reaches her conclusions on the basis that all deliveries would take continue to place at the rear of the site. There was no consultation of any neighbours or interested parties who might have pointed this issue out to the Council.

I've just taken a quick look at the documents filed by the developer/M&S regarding deliveries - I am not directly affected but the approach the developer is now taking is outrageous in my view. If I was a local resident I would be incandescent - not just at the early morning deliveries that are being proposed but at how this has all come about. This is what the application letter says regarding deliveries: The developer then attaches various documents including a noise assessment report showing that there should be no adverse impact on local residents by this extended servicing period. Pausing here, I posted a while back about the delivery conditions which M&S had signed up to. It took me ages to find the conditions (see http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1667695,1724082#msg-1724082) but they were very clear about deliveries having to be made off Chesterfield Grove at the rear of the store. Now it's being said by M&S this part of the delivery conditions were done away with. For some reason the reference given isn't working for me. It seems a bit odd if this was done without any consultation - James, any chance you could clarify or find out on what basis this first change of delivery conditions was approved? But if we take what is said in the Developer/M&S letter as correct - that all which needs to be applied for is a change to delivery hours - then I've got two questions: 1. What steps can be take to claw back the significant cost and expense to Southwark Council in dealing with a planning application that was done on a clearly incorrect and unsustainable basis (as pointed out by many residents at the time). The developer pushed the revised application through with threats of litigation if Southwark declined the application based on delivery issues, saying that it was clear that deliveries could take place at the rear servicing area because it had always been done this way. They have maximised their profit at the council and the residents' expense and with what seems to be no real expectation that deliveries would be done in accordance with planning. It would be nice to see some of that money wasted by Southwark being repaid. 2. Given how incorrect the developer's expert reports on servicing have proved to be to date, why on earth should anyone think the noise assessment is of any better quality or any less self-serving?

Courtesy of Mellors, for those of you at the Grove Tavern end of LL, there is a Lewisham textile recycling bin on Sydenham Hill at the Horniman end, about 200 metres before the entrance to Crescent Wood Rd on the left hand side (as you drive from ED). I used it recently and was very grateful not to have to travel to Devon St.

This is a brilliant summary. Stop and search can be a very effective tool but there's a history there which is very difficult to understand if you haven't experienced it. My own experience was extremely limited - getting stopped on multiple occasions with an old boyfriend because the police didn't believe a mixed race man in his 20s could own a nice car unless he was a drug dealer - but the treatment he got was a total shock to me - nothing I had ever seen or experienced. Cressida Dick has said she wants to do stop and search in a better way - and I like the way she talks about "policing with London's consent".

It's a dilemma for me - either Helen Hayes (who I like, is a responsible local MP and stuck to her guns and voted against triggering Article 50 in line with the majority referendum result in my constituency but is Labour, so a vote for a Corbyn government which is the last thing I want), or Lib Dem (pro-Europe, but not a fan of Tim Farron's voting record on women's issues or the Lib Dem decision to break election pledges last time they were in government).

If you're going to rely on quotations from the 18 February 2016 letter, I think it's important to give the whole quotation, and then also reference the later 2017 judgment from the Consistory Court, which set out a rather different picture from what has been suggested above (in my view). I'll set out the relevant bits as I see them, so that people can make up their minds: I read this as the Chancellor saying that a Faculty may be required, but he isn't giving a definitive view and is deferring to the outcome of the Consistory Court hearing. You then get the following from the Chancellor's Feb 2017 judgment: So what seems to have happened is that Southwark asked for clarification of their ability to clear trees with a greater diameter of 75mm in Area Z, the Chancellor pointed them to some part of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules and in reliance on his guidance Southwark went ahead. And the Chancellor, in full knowledge that trees greater than 75mm were being cleared said "I have however no reason to think that this work did require consent by faculty". I've thought long and hard about posting on here on this again, as someone's pointed out I'm one of the people that Lewis wants to identify, and I've been called a troll and a twat and worse apparently as well as someone who has "no right to anonymity" which is just plain creepy. There's a certain irony here as SSW know my username, real name and email address and what I do for a living (nothing to do with the council btw) as I did try and engage with their group a fair bit in the very early days, when I understood they were supporting a more rational burial program with more focus on green space, rather than the one Southwark were proposing. But I guess they haven't kept that info. Anyway, I'd much rather be having a genuine debate about if and how we try and balance green space and burial options for those who it's important to. Instead I'm going to keep pointing out (what seem to me to be) half truths and incomplete info which keeps getting put out there as gospel. Like the "old hawthorn hedge" that was supposedly cut down (but never existed). I know it's the way of things these days that it doesn't matter what you say or how you say it so long as you achieve your preferred outcome, but it still sits very badly with me.

What I can't work out is whether she's doing this (as some news outlets have suggested) to give herself a cast iron mandate to push a hard Brexit through, or (as others have suggested including the FT) to disempower those parts of the Conservatives who will only accept a hard Brexit making it possible for her to push a soft Brexit through. This is where "Brexit means Brexit" is sod-all help to the average person.

Have a look at this: http://www.housebeautiful.com/design-inspiration/home-makeovers/g2260/non-working-fireplace-ideas/ I particularly like the bookcase and the winerack ideas.

@bobbsy, do you recharge the gap in the megaflow? We were told it's best to do this about every 8-10 months to stop any overflow leakage happening. Takes about 10 mins and has worked for us.

We have a smaller combi boiler and Megaflow tank on separate floors - boiler on the top floor and Megaflow in the middle. It works well for us, but our main bathroom is on the top floor and we're up a bit of a hill so water pressure can be variable - particularly at peak times (or when there's a leak somewhere else in ED), without the Megaflow, we would struggle to get decent water pressure in our main bathroom. I agree it's all about what you need most day to day.

Thanks RPC - I'd like it to be something other than plastic - though the third one is lovely. Definitely the right kind of design.

RD - that is amazing, thanks. Knew I would get some good ideas on here - feeling a bit more positive about the whole thing. RPC - Graham and Green. Good for mid range stuff and I guess it's lasted a fair while (would have likely lasted longer if we hadn't moved out for two sets of underpinning work), it never really recovered from the last dint in storage.

I love that - though it might be a bit too industrial in a modern (largely featureless) room??? Will take a look at the rest of that site too - really liking this: https://www.beautifulhalo.com/black-18-light-vintage-sputnik-pendant-light-p-219707.html Thanks

Our much beloved, kind of chandelier, light has finally died. It's always looked great but it's been repaired umpteen times and the structure is no longer safe. It's about 1m wide and was the first thing we bought for our house when we moved to ED 10 years ago. Anyway, I'm trying to find a new light that does the same thing. It doesn't have to look like the old one at all - but needs to be big, bit like a chandelier, needs to light up the dining table which is underneath,be a feature in the room. Looks good in a modern house but isn't uber trendy. I'm not thinking Elle Decoration prices but would pay ?250 for something I'll keep for another 10 years. And I'm really, really struggling - and getting more annoyed as time goes on that we don't have a working light - so am turning to the crowd wisdom of the EDF. Any design or lighting nuts out there that have any ideas?

Not on the online version! And no option to put it in as far as I could see. [Almost] the first thing I checked.

Yes, we got one a couple of weeks ago. It's to test the new online version of the census as I understand it.

We had ground bees a couple of years ago in one of our raised beds. We went through exactly the same thought process, but they weren't aggressive at all. They were there for a summer and haven't had any since. In fact we rather miss them.

Just to add, I also thought the Guardian article was good overall - and agree that there should be more encouragement of ways to balance different forms of end of life remembrance. But there will still be a group of people for whom burial is particularly important for religious/cultural reasons and I would support provision being made for them as well as encouraging other options which may be more suitable for people who aren't bothered in the same way.

What's even more worrying is the reply from the arts reporter at Southwark News. It is possible to disagree with the positions being taken by Save Southwark Woods, particularly given the inconsistencies therein, and not be a troll. Screenprint below for those who haven't seen it.

I saw it. So the "old hawthorn hedgerow" has now become fact in a national newspaper FFS.