Siduhe

Monica, we're on Melford/Underhill borders with BT Infinity (so we have the same issue with mobile reception as you, but solved this in large part by swapping to 4G where the rececption is much better than 3G). I have to say BT Infinity has been rock solid for us and speeds are good - regularly get above 50mg/s at peak times. I wonder if we're served by a different cable than Overhill?

I would guess it's the same point we discussed here. You can't drive across a pedestrian highway, other than at a designated point (like a dropped kerb designed for vehicle use). http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,450326

Voted. Look to be few votes ahead now!

Just to add to what others have said, the impact of the ongoing problems with London Bridge and Thameslink trains is definitely being felt on the 63 and 363 buses, which are now packed during travel to work time. The one I got on yesterday into two was full after 3 stops (so that's full from the Harris Boys stop). What's really different is that the bus in (going from FHT to KingsX) used to clear out quite a bit at Peckham Rye but now doesn't and is full all the way into town. I haven't been able to get on a 63 bus home for weeks before 7.30pm. Completely understandable that people who usually travel by train want to switch, but there's a definite knock on effect. I've now taken to walking a couple of miles to Elephant and getting the 363, which doesn't come as often but I can at least get on the bus!

Are the Overhill Road works related to this recent consultation? http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200308/current/3657/overhill_road-_proposed_contra_flow_and_highway_improvements

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Siduhe, > The proposed CPZ around ED station was more spaces > for parking. That aspect of relining was > implimented and more spaces for parking was the > actual result. These new parking restrictions will > reduce that unrestricted parking. James, that's interesting - although I have to say my recollection of the original CPZ proposal is rather different (what was done with relining in practice may well have led to an increase in parking spaces). The CPZ docs are no longer on the Southwark website, but some of my and others posts about the loss of parking spaces are still on this site: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,772215,776257#msg-776257 All of the information in the proposal suggested there would be some loss of parking spaces by the introduction of a CPZ - just not how many would be lost. What I (and others) were querying was how much parking would be lost and whether this really justified the CPZ proposal. That's the main reason I felt the CPZ proposal didn't make sense. I agree with you that further loss of unrestricted parking with this proposal is unhelpful and should be rejected.

cb10 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just out of curiosity- why is everyone against > CPZ? Learning how much current on-street parking would be lost by the imposition of the proposed CPZ due to tidying up of parking lines, limiting parking by junctions etc - would have put significantly more parking stress on the affected streets. The statement was made that the parking spaces lost were expected to be offset by those who could no longer park in the area - so basically parking pressure appeared to be at risk of staying much the same - just with everyone paying for the privilege.

Try this: https://www.change.org/p/city-airport-stop-the-current-proposal-to-concentrate-departures-from-city-airport-over-a-narrow-corridor-of-south-london-catford-dulwich-brixton-stockwell-and-vauxhall-east-london-bow-hackney-wick-leyton-leytonstone-wanstead-barkingside-colliers-row?recruiter=175400994&utm_campaign=mailto_link&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition

Septic from where? I'd take a 30-something Williamsburgite to Peckham and a 45-something Bostonian or Californian to ED but there's a big old range of experiences in a country that big. I once recommended a foodie colleague from Texas go outside central London to a really nice restaurant and she just couldn't deal with it. She had to turn round part way through travelling there (she was travelling on her own, meeting someone there).

I assume it's part of this Southwark-wide 20mph speed limit plan - was discussed a bit last year. Basically every street within Southwark's control is going to be 20mph. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/100011/transport_and_streets/3431/borough-wide_20mph_speed_limit

camberwell70 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are you Mark E Smith? *blushes* I had to ask my (musically literate) other half to explain this. I suspect that means no. ;-)

Tipping the Waste Technician...

jacks09 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Could you send the link to Overhill please? Of course, it's on the same main consultation page: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200308/current/3657/overhill_road-_proposed_contra_flow_and_highway_improvements

Here is the consultation link for those who would like to respond: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200140/parking_projects/3654/one_hour_free_parking_in_local_shopping_parades

I've just responded. Absolutely crazy to change unrestricted parking to restricted parking in these areas and suggest it somehow supports business when such a short time period is suggested. Would encourage everyone to go online and respond too as this also feels like the first steps to CPZ by stealth. Just to balance this up, I did (when I responded) see a new Council consultation on Overhill Road which directly affects me (although this is the first I've heard about it). Opened it with a sinking heart, but pleasantly surprised to see what looks to me like a sensible, well thought out scheme to improve safety for cars and cyclists. So the Council can do it when they put their minds to it!

The other part of the Phase 1 docs:

For those that asked, here are the other Phase 1 docs that I had at home in hard copy (sorry, has to be in two separate posts due to the size of the scans). One question I had looking at this again is whether the "80 new trees" that were going to be planted as part of the Phase 1 works have been planted, and if so where? I wonder if they actually mean 80 new trees and shrubs?

People who get on buses, sit down on the outside seat, put their bag on the inside seat, then studiously look down to avoid catching your eye when you want to sit down. Up to and including a comedy look round the bus when you tap them on the shoulder, to check there isn't another seat you could be taking rather than disturbing them.

I will look at what I have at home, but if anyone is looking for the original 2011/2012 consultation and meeting documents about burial strategy in Southwark and how we've ended up where we have - a lot of it is still online (just not easy to find). The ones I am aware of (and people should feel free to add stuff I've missed) are: The April 2012 Southwark Council Cemeteries Strategy is here: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3046/cemetery_strategies The results of the 2011 consultation and the Southwark Council meeting that considered it are here - I would look at Apps A (which is the same doc as above), D which is the consultation report, G and particularly F which is about some specific discussion with residents on Ryedale and Forest Hill Road: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=21262#mgDocuments There were also some specific materials about the Phase 1 works on WoodVale/Langton Rise, which I'll look for at home.

I'll definitely see if I can find the Phase 1 docs and post them - they should be in a folder somewhere at home. The issue with Honor Oak Recreation Ground as I understand it (and I don't have any confidential info at all - this is based on what was said at the various public meetings I went to about that site) is that the council bought the site in 1901 but it had been in use as a recreation ground for a very significant period of time, and the council had not maintained a clear or unambiguous position that it would or could be used for burials in future, including in many publicly available documents - leading to arguments around "legitimate expectations". The debate was around whether Southwark had put out documents in the past which essentially contained a promise to preserve existing policy to use it for recreation (which would be binding) or whether it had only established a policy of using it for recreation which local people were entitled to rely on, which would mean Southwark had to conduct a fair consultation before making any changes. There were some documents and letters Southwark had issued which local residents relied on as being a "promise" which Southwark couldn't back out of, and took legal advice on. Thanks keira for the info about the rest of the cemetery, I had thought there were some bits they had identified without any people buried, but I may well be wrong about that. If they're using the same process as Phase 1 (building up the level of the soil) then they really do need to answer the questions about drainage and lessons learned. That seems like it could have a big impact on residents on Ryedale who back onto the cemetery.

Totally agree but, as I understand it, one of the big problems with "filling in additional space" at COC with new burials is that Southwark don't have accurate records of where existing burials have taken place, particularly the older burials. So a big part of the Phase 1 works was finding areas of the cemetery where they could be confident that no burials had taken place. This was to avoid the risk of disturbing an old grave where the monument or headstone has fallen down or been removed, and is how we've ended up with major Phase 2 works in only part of the cemetery. I think still have the Phase 1 consultation docs somewhere which had a lot of info about this, if anyone's interested. Edited for sense.

Like many of the posters on this thread, I think it's good that the Council is engaging more widely about their Phase 2 plans for COC and I also agree that there should be a balance in the plans between the various issues (burials, nature, woodland, residents' concerns). Where I differ from some, is that I do think the balance should be weighted in favour of the use of COC as a cemetery, for families and relatives who visit it regularly, and as a place of remembrance. I live nearby, walk through it most days and regularly visit at the weekends, but I don't feel like this gives me priority over families of those who are or will be buried there as to how the space should be used. It's a cemetery, it's not a wood, nature reserve, park or place for families to ride bicycles. To be clear, I think it's great that it can also be used for those things and I agree Southwark shouldn't be trying to shoehorn a cheaper scheme through that takes no account of the wildlife, when there are some things they could be doing to protect it. But the balance should be in favour of its original and primary use as a cemetery. If the suggestion is that no further burials should take place at COC to preserve the woods that are there, and local people should be burying their family members and visiting their graves out of Southwark, then I disagree. I'm not sure anyone is actually saying that, but it's a potentially logical conclusion from some of what has been said. Part of the difficulty for Southwark is that they have run out of burial space in the borough, and they've found it very difficult to identify new land - my understanding is that there were substantial legal difficulties for them in trying to take back Honor Oak Recreational Ground for a completely different use after such a long time. One of the things I think is amazing about COC is the number of regularly visited and maintained graves there are and how many relatives regularly go there - it's quite different from what I was used to before I moved here. My personal focus, and what I've already written to the Council about, is how they can be sure these works are properly thought through - unlike (in my view) the Phase 1 works (the raised area created on the Wood Vale side of the cemetery). The creation of the raised area is leading to massive drainage problems on the lower part of the cemetery, meaning that graves are sunken underwater and a number of them appear to be tilting/collapsing as a result. I took this picture on my way through a couple of days ago - it's worse now given last night's rain. The problem is compounded by the decision to lay down thick, non-porous roadways. This problem has never existed at the cemetery before, as far as I know, and has been entirely created by Southwark and their contractors, but no-one at the Council is willing to even discuss it or take responsibility. If they are going to do more works at the lower end of the cemetery, it would be good to know they've learned their lessons from the Phase 1 works. And if it's the same team of contractors, some of whom chose to take their breaks in the Phase 1 works by actually sitting on graves and leaning/sitting on gravestones whilst having a cigarette, then I'll be walking up to them and telling them how disrespectful and offensive they're being again, and complaining to Southwark, just like I did last time.[/end rant]

According to the TFL Twitter account:

Just received an email from Southwark Council that they are combining the Community Council Fund and the Cleaner Greener Safer Revenue fund into one single, new Neighbourhoods Fund worth ?542,000. Applications for local ED projects open now. No connection (other than I belong to a ED community group, so am on the Southwark mailing list for stuff like this).

Any excuse to post this... http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/10/dulwich-hamlet-fc-songbook-the-great-chants-from-champion-hill/