Siduhe

If the deeds are silent in terms of words setting out what the boundary responsibilities are - is the land registered at the land registry? If so, there may well be a plan filed with T-marks showing who has responsibility for which boundaries. Most plans can be ordered online.

I can't say how much would be reasonable - presumably they are getting the benefit too? But it terms of what to take into account I would see it being a combination of factors such as: Does the property with the camera have any obligations to maintain it? Assume not. Does the property with the camera have to allow access to its property for maintenance or checking the equipment is working properly - if so inside or out and how often? If a neighbour wants to check the footage for some reason - do they have to ask the property with the camera to check or can it all be done remotely? Basically comes down to what the neighbour has to do in respect of the camera? If not much, minimal fee to deal with access for maintenance/checking, reduced to take account of the share of the benefit they get from it.

Mustard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who is the councillor for Nunhead Cemetery and for > Camberwell Old Cemetery? COC is in Peckham Rye Ward, so Renata Hamvas, Gavin Edwards and Victoria Mills. Don't know about Nunhead, sorry.

I got a 363 (which goes down the OKR) in to E&C about 40 mins ago and it was fine. Not especially worse than normal. Walking up from Elephant to the City the traffic looked quite a bit worse though.

The one attached to my last post should work now. Let me know if not.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: - > I can't open the attached doc - anyone tell me > what it says ? Does this version work for you - I have downloaded and reattached it. If not I'll convert it to an older format of workbook. Edited to say it didn't work. Let me try the older format of workbook.

No, I've never heard of a mortgage broker doing that sort of reminding or being required to. My mortgage company has sent me reminders in reasonable time to remortgage - but again I don't think that's a requirement, just good practice.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > More seriously - if you can get computedshorty in > front of a camera I'd happily watch the final > product. +1

"true ED'ers like us" - seriously? If by "troll like" characters, you mean people who don't agree with everything you post and get a bit bored by the constant slagging off of everyone who hasn't lived here for the amount of time you feel is acceptable [what is that again? 7 years? 10 years? 15 years?] and everything that has grown up in ED during that time, then yes - there are a quite a few people who feel like that out there. And as for "true ED'ers" - well I have not the words and will avoid making the comment I would have done so this thread doesn't leap to Godwin's law in its first page.

DF - it's been happening a bit for me too - the posts take a while to show up. Not deleted. Just slow. And if I refresh too quickly then the post disappears. So I suspect technical underpinnings not anything else.

I read it as totally tongue in cheek. Made me smile a lot.

Also looking pretty good this am when I went through at 7.50 towards Blackfriars. Best it's been for a while, and TFL has finally put in a pedestrian phase for those crossing at Borough Road/St George's Circus so feeling a lot safer all round (as pedestrians don't have to dart through moving traffic to get across that intersection now).

Just passed through Elephant on a bus back towards ED. Best it has been traffic-wise for weeks at this time. Buses also unusually empty - I assume because most people like me who've endured last three days of traffic chaos have moved to other forms of transport in desperation.

hertburs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Could our local councillors please comment on what > is happening at this junction to improve things > for pedestrians. At the moment, their silence is > deafening! The College Ward Councillors tend to use Twitter much more than this forum - or I've found them pretty responsive if you email them.

Waiting for the 363 this morning, every one that I could see as scheduled was terminating early, either in Peckham or at Bricklayers Arms, so looks like TFL has just given up running the part of that route up to Elephant.

E&C was terrible this morning too - but that looked to be due to an accident/collision on the bit of the roundabout leading to Kennington which was causing gridlock. Was hoping that might be the only reason - guessing not from the above.

I wonder if part of the issue with cars that speed is the narrowness of the road (the ED Grove to LLane section). I occasionally use this route and, because of the narrow road and the number of cars parked up on both sides, cars can't pass in both directions in places and there are few passing spaces for oncoming traffic. I can see the temptation, if the road is clear, to move through this section pretty sharpish - with the aim of avoiding getting blocked by oncoming traffic (although I don't think I've ever managed to get over 20 going down there). Would be interested to know where the speeding is taking place - and if it is the first bit off ED Grove towards LLane, would a solution be to remove some parking to create a couple of passing places for traffic?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Out of interest, if this work isn't done what will > be the alternative for burial sites in Southwark? It depends what you mean by "work". The works at COC are part of a plan to also carry out works at Camberwell New Cemetery to provide an additional 1,000 plots there. Other than that, there are no current plans to use any alternative land for burials in Southwark. I think it's also worth looking at the area that is planned to be cleared. It's not the area subscribed by the two long paths which lead down to the open green area which backs onto Rydeale. That's the area that people can currently walk in, has lots of historic monuments etc. It's the area to the left of that (if you look North) which runs down the side of Underhill Road and which is pretty much inaccessible (there was a kind of track you could use to cut through to Underhill which came out exactly where the old yellow salt container was, and people would use the salt container as a step up to get over the fence to cut through the cemetery). I know this because I tried to walk in that area a fair number of times before the fencing went up and other than the track coming out at Underhill, I couldn't find any way in or around that area. I should say I completely get why people would like to preserve the right hand area which leads down only Ryedale as a wilder space to walk in - although I still think burials are the primary purpose. But the argument can't be as strong for a wild area which is inaccessible to everyone (although I guess that's where the nature issues come in most strongly as it's definitely an undisturbed area).

hpsaucey Wrote: > It would be interesting to know if the other > practices using this online registration system (I > noticed the Gardens and Nunhead on there whilst > searching for DMC) have similar issues! Forest Hill Road Group Practice use it - I signed up end of last year and didn't have any issues at all. No idea if I was lucky or if the systems there work a bit better for the majority.

Eloquently put, except that's not quite what is being planned. What's planned is the reuse of common grave sites (unmarked) and a tree overgrown area that is all but inaccessible at the moment. I do understand that headstones are in there and will be destroyed and I wonder if there's a way to resolve this. In fact I wonder what you think the solution is? If there's a way to preserve the areas for all the reasons you mention and still provide burial space in the borough, what does everyone think it is? If there is but it's a matter of cost then I'd be the first out there fundraising. When I asked this at one of the public meetings the response from one of the group campaigning against this was that it's more important to preserve the wooded area for the living than to provide for burials for the dead and that burial was a outdated religious concept. That's what I personally disagree with. I don't think anyone on here has a financial stake in this. We are just are coming at this from a different perspective as to what has primary importance to us.

Reusing very old grave sites is apparently quite common in the UK - you can't 'own' a grave plot in perpetuity so it does happen when sites run out of space. Was news to me too. I'm very local to COC and like some others on here, I'd like use of the site to be weighted towards its primary use as a cemetery. I posted this on the other thread a while back, but after receiving a couple of PMs from people who felt very strongly, I backed out of the discussion. I get that not everyone is religious, but whatever your personal belief system I think it's important to have places where we have a chance to remember our loved ones. That's at the heart of what Southwark is trying to do - that's very clear to me from all the Phase 1, 1a and 2 meetings that I've been to. You may not agree with what they're doing in COC but I personally don't understand how anyone can question the need for burial space in the borough for those who it's important to.

We have a Nespresso machine - the one with the integrated milk container (bought on special offer a while back). I can't put it better than, it's great for "drinkable coffee with almost zero effort". We don't drink a lot of coffee so beans and grinding and stuff is a bit beyond us. It's lasted well so far, easy to keep clean, makes a decent cup of coffee and easy to use. Other suppliers do Nespresso compatible pods now as well. I don't think there is a huge difference between the machines in terms of quality of coffee - from looking at reviews online when we were buying, the frothers used to vary a bit but were all thought of as pretty good when we bought ours.

Loz, thank you! Even after all this time, that thread never fails to cheer me up...

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Crushed and De-valued" Best thread ever...sadly no longer available I think?