Jump to content

Siduhe

Member
  • Posts

    1,899
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Siduhe

  1. Are you on a 3G or a 4G phone? I found upgrading my phone to 4G had a massive improved impact on signal quality at the other end of Lordship Lane. I believe this is because all the networks are focused on upgrading/improving 4G coverage at the expense of 3G, but if you're on a 3G only phone it might be worth considering.
  2. Palmerston for me too, or Joannas in Crystal Palace (short hop on the 363 and you can get a pretty good cocktail to go with your steak).
  3. As Overhill is one way "in" from Lordship Lane, what Fliss describes above shouldn't have happened as the car should only have been turning "in" from Lordship Lane, not out on to Lordship Lan. However, I've met people coming the wrong way down Overhill a couple of times - both coming out from the large building just close to Lordship Lane who either didn't' know or couldn't be bothered to go round the one way system, so it could well have happened like that. There was one lady wwho I met a few times coming the wrong way but I haven't seen her in a couple of years. The good news, Fliss, is that there are planned works (on Overhill at least) to improve this junction for pedestrians. The bad news is that, as dimples says, it will be made two-way for cyclists so they are going to need some clear protection turning right out of that junction if it's allowed.
  4. The Responses to Issues Raised document has just been published. Have only skim-read but one interesting point is that the strongly support/support responses on the closed questions in favour of option 1b) (Camberwell) come out at 64% compared to 49% who support the option 1a) OKR route (as supported by the Mayor's office). It's a similar breakdown for the open questions - 25% of respondents expressed a preference for extension Option 1b (via Camberwell and Peckham Rye), compared to 7% of respondents preferring Option 1a (via the Old Kent Road). Of the 32% of respondents who stated a preference of one route over the other, 78% expressed a preference for Option 1b. TFL's take away from both the open and the closed questions combined is that "Of the respondents who indicated a strong preference for the Option 1 route, the majority (78%) preferred Option 1b via Camberwell and Peckham Rye compared to the remainder (22%) in favour of Option 1a via the Old Kent Road" It was open to someone to support both routes in the consultation, but seems there's a pretty clear public preference for the Camberwell route. https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension?cid=bakerloo-extension
  5. Have you looked in the What's On section below? Usually best place to start. Looking for anything in particular to do?
  6. I did read it. And I agree the overall tone of the proposed ToR to other residents is very reasonable. But (again, outside looking in) I don't think the problem that most people are focused on and concerned about is the residents of Melbourne Grove who want a barrier. That's their view, they are perfectly entitled to it and it may well be a more informed view that my own (as I don't live near there) although there seem to be plenty of well-informed views of local residents the other way. What a number of people on here are genuinely concerned about is the public administrative process being used, to seemingly push an a personal or political agenda. That's nothing to do with the residents and everything to do with they way that our appointed representatives seem to be handling this issue. I'm a big supporter of all the hard work that local councillors put in, including you, and I've said so many times on here - it's a hugely vital service that people give a lot of their time to and I have nothing but admiration for. However, I really think you need to hear what people are trying to say to you on this thread - the process which has been used here is genuinely concerning as is the background involvement of councillors proposing ideas in the first place, then supporting the allocation of significant amounts of money in support of those ideas, and then making public statements in support of ideas they already know they support. It is CPZ time all over again. The Melbourne Grove residents who want a barrier shouldn't be the ones proposing the ToR after funding for that study has already been approved. Surely that should all have happened and been considered in a way that allowed other views to be heard, before funding was even allocated?
  7. Couldn't agree more. It's a vicious circle. The more traffic calming measures there are, the more frustrated a certain type of driver gets and it's those drivers who aim to drive in a responsible way who take the brunt of that. I'm not saying we shouldn't have traffic calming, but there really needs to be some focus on the other aspects which make our roads unsafe as well.
  8. I may be reading too much into the words used, but this sentence is interesting: This reads to me like a call out to those councillors or council employees who proposed/supported the idea of a barrier to some residents, but are now backtracking when they see the views of others against the barrier being expressed as strongly. I have no personal skin in this game (although from my limited viewpoint living in another part of ED that is also pretty busy, I think the idea of a barrier at that end of Melbourne Grove is madness!) but if that's the underlying meaning then I have some sympathy. A small group of residents were told a barrier was a feasible and good idea and now suddenly it's not. I can see why they want it considered. Doesn't make it a good idea, or an idea that ever should have been on the table (in my view) but from the outside looking in, this barrier idea has been incredibly poorly handled from the start. Edited for spelling
  9. Siduhe

    Crab Apples

    I was just thinking about this, this weekend. Our neighbour's crab apple tree is dropping a tonne of windfall apples onto our lawn but I was thinking about going for a savoury version - crab apple and chilli jam is supposed to be good. I guess if it tastes alright I then need to work out which house belongs to the neighbour who backs onto our garden to offer them some. TD, you're not on CPR by any chance are you? ;-) Apple jelly is one of the easier ones to make because of the higher levels of pectin - although it can vary between types of apple.
  10. Beers on tap courtesy ruffers67.
  11. So, sad person that I am, I've been back through 7 years of Southwark traffic orders to try and understand where this existing restriction on Melford Road is. And I think I've found it. In 2009 and then again in 2014, there was an order which provided for the conversion of "an existing loading bay adjacent to No. 481 Lordship Lane to 20 minutes maximum stay free parking". I know where that bay is, it isn't signposted (if it ever was) but it exists - you can see the road markings. However, it's definitely not 12m long and it doesn't start 10 metres from the kerb line with Lordship Lane. The restriction which is being put in place by this new consolidation order says the restriction will be "the south-east side, from a point 10 metres north-east of the north-eastern kerb-line of Lordship Lane north-eastward for a distance of 12 metres." The interesting thing will be whether this is actually just referring to the existing loading bay or whether it will extend the loading bay further up the road. It could just be the drafting of this latest order (which is difficult to understand compared to the simple "convert loading bay" language of the other orders) so I guess I will need to wait and see if any changes are made to the existing bay.
  12. Abe_f - I agree, but I can't for the life of me see where these existing restrictions are on Melford Road - maybe they just aren't clearly marked/signed?
  13. bloonoo, if you don't have a large brown bin, just a caddy (i.e. no garden waste) the refuse team won't empty the caddy unless the waste is bagged. If you have loose items they leave the bin (in my case with a note on explaining why it wasn't emptied the one time I'd left unbagged flowers in).
  14. Well, isn't this interesting. The order that Artful lists above includes Melford Road close to where I live - 12 metres of new, 20 min only parking restrictions. As someone who looked very closely at the one hour parking consultation when it came out in 2014 and subsequently, I can tell you that Melford wasn't listed as one of the streets where one hour restrictions would be put into place. So this list of new 20-30 min restrictions is wider than the one hour consultation. It's going to cause issues for residents on a part of the road which is heavily parked up due to the buildings at Melford Court. Looks like I will have to go on a hunt to find out when/where this particular restriction was consulted on...
  15. I walked past the cut-off junction at NCR five times yesterday throughout the day - fairly well spread out times - earliest was 12 midday, latest was 6pm. Not a soul even present at the roadworks - not even sitting in a van having their tea break.
  16. I think you would notice it more/be more conscious of it if it was lined up in the way you suggest - it would draw the eye a lot (at least for me it would!) more than the current arrangement which looks a lot more natural to me. But I very much get that once you notice something you can't "unnotice" it...
  17. Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- It would be reasonable, however, to require > hard standing for cars to be made out of water > permeable materials, either gravel over membrane, > bricks laid over sand (bricks are water permeable, > unless specially treated) or whatever (you can get > a grid which sits over lawn and will support cars, > allowing a lawn to grow through it). It is > concrete or asphalt which cause environmental > problems, creating run-off etc. We bought our house with an off-street parking space already created but it was a condition of planning that the surface be made of special spacer type bricks to allow for permeability and support. I'm not sure if that is just because our house was a new-build or whether it is a standard requirement applied in Southwark when anyone wants a drop kerb for an existing garden, but the Council were pretty hot at specifying their requirements for off-street parking (this is back in 2006/7).
  18. If four different people have experienced the same thing, parked in the same place on Melbourne Grove then this does start to feel like a sustained campaign rather than random vandalism (at least to me). It might be worth asking the local SNT and/or councillors for some advice or at least bringing this trend to their attention - maybe a home nearby has CCTV that might help? Really sad (and frankly, outrageous) if this is someone acting over a parking space.
  19. MrBen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Having a debate with my brother about whether you > used to be able to get dark chocolate Yorkies. I'm > convinced you could...and they had a red wrapper? I think the Red wrapper = the old Peanut Yorkie - long discontinued (there was a limited edition recently but it wasn't the same). Don't think it was dark chocolate though. Edited to add - this is the one I mean: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/296745062924064984/
  20. Esee/Gillian, It might be worth the two of you comparing notes about exactly where you are parking. I just wonder if there is more to this than random vandalism - if you parked in exactly the same place, could this be about someone trying to keep control of a space that they consider "theirs"? I lived in a block of flats with private parking once and someone kept vandalising cars that parked in a particular space. Turned out to be one of the residents who liked to use that as "his" space - even though it was someone else's reserved space. The block ended up putting up a camera to catch him.
  21. I hadn't, thanks for posting. Looking the elevation plans, those flats are going to have pretty low ceilings! http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!hD4y6aYeLcrRjBW7MA3n0w%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d
  22. Agreed. A nice idea with some balance to it.
  23. I can only speak for COC, and yes it's designated as Metropolitan Open Land (OS149). I'm no planning expert, but my understanding from this Southwark document is that using MOL land as a cemetery is consider as an appropriate use, therefore the current plans are permitted. If someone wanted to build there, the designation as MOL would prevent it. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/6877/southwark_open_space_strategy_2013
  24. +1 for Dorset. Had a long weekend there recently and really liked it. We stayed at Summer Lodge Hotel (which was excellent but really pricey, not sure I'd go back), did a bit of walking, drove to the beach for a fossil hunt Lots of options.
  25. *Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The old myth; cause of many a dispute Agree, our house is a case in point. We are responsible for all the boundaries as our house is build on one half of a split of a single property, and the neighbour decided they wanted as little responsibility for boundaries as possible (which is fair enough!)
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...