Siduhe

Welcome to the area - if you're looking for info and ideas mainly about children's activities, you'll likely get a much better response from the Family Discussion room. We live off Wood Vale and you're exceptionally well-placed for the Horniman Museum which has loads of good activities. For swimming I would look at Forest Hill pool rather than ED, but again others in the Family Room will have a better idea on suitability for children.

Pretty much opposite the last (and misleadingly named) stop on the 63 bus though. So I will almost certainly be checking it out at some point. Looking forward to it.

My recent experience is exactly the same - I've asked Lloyds to let me do three things in the last 12 months (having banked there for 20 years) - nothing crazy but I need a dollar account for example for some personal payments, and all of those requests have been rejected as being "unacceptably risky for the bank". Doesn't stop them phoning me up every 6 months when I'm about to make my tax payments and asking me if I want to invest that money in Lloyds products instead, even though I've asked them not to.

It's a tough one. We had to have massive building work done a couple of years ago to underpin our house - including moving out for 9 months. Must have been horrendous for our neighbours but they were universally great about it. I think it helped we used a small building company who were good about working to agreed hours and everyone knew we weren't exactly doing it out of choice, but still. We did feel like we needed to drop quite a few bottles of wine round when we moved back in!

I wonder if the developer's s106 proposal will be to provide some kind of ongoing financial support for the club? I don't know if this would even be possible, but it would show they were serious about securing a future for DHFC, rather than just saying that to secure the land it's currently sitting on...

Besides, another close neighbour started drilling at 8.45am, so I figure what goes around comes around. Not what I'd want with a hangover! ;-)

The house where the party was last night is about 10m from us as the crow flies. They have a party like that once a year tops. I wasn't wild about the PA and singalong either (living right on top of it) but I reckon every neighbour gets a pass every now and then (and I hope my neighbours think like that about me). So no complaints here.

Post of the month.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is also wise to consider the setting of > precedents. Once ML is opened up for use in this > way the same could be done elsewhere in the > borough. I totally agree. It's not that long ago (4-5 years) that Southwark made a bid to grab MOL in Honor Oak including the public sports facilities there (for development/use for council services). The only thing that stopped that plan is that the precedent for developing MOL is very, very limited and it was clear that a legal challenge to their plans would very likely succeed. I'm not suggesting that everything should be preserved in aspic for ever, and goodness knows I'd like DHFC to be put on a better financial footing than they are, but large parts of our open spaces and public facilities in Southwark are on MOL and I worry that this plan will effectively open them up to development too.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "There was an opportunity to put an old wrong > right and reroute deliveries or reduce > significantly the delivery vehicle size." > > This seems to me to be the nub of it. If you > compare what is proposed with the current > situation, it's difficut to make the case that > either pressure on parking or disruption from > deliveries is going to be much worse (maybe a bit > worse, maybe no worse at all, but impossible to > know). But if you compare what is proposed with > what the immediate neighbours would ideally want > the gulf is vast, but that's not how planning > usually works. I'm not sure it's right so say there's no real change in delivery patterns - at least from looking at the documents posted for all the previous applications. I definitely can't comment on what happens in practice and that may well be what you're referring to? I am only looking at the documents posted on the Southwark site, but this is what they say: The original application for the site said that there would be up to four deliveries a day (para 4.5 of the Transport Assessment Report) which was said to be consistent in terms of numbers of deliveries with what happens at the moment, but they wanted to deliver earlier than currently agreed. There is no current planning restriction in place, but there is an agreement mediated by Southwark Environmental Team which is referred in the refusal of the planning appeal. The agreement is no deliveries before 8am Monday to Saturday and no deliveries at all on Sunday. One of the key reasons for the refusal of the appeal was the applicant wanted the right to start deliveries at 7am during the week and 8am on a Sunday - and the appeal decision says: This latest application appears to be for up to six deliveries a day according to the officers report, starting at 7am Monday to Friday, 8am on Saturday and 10am on Sunday. This is why I'm struggling to understand why the change in position from Southwark. What happens currently (at least according to the documents) is up to four deliveries Monday-Sat no earlier than 8am. What may happen afterwards is up to six deliveries Monday through Sunday no earlier than 7am Monday-Friday, 8am on Saturday and 10am on Sunday.

Having had a quick look at the documents attached to the latest consultation, I have to say I'm very surprised that the latest Officer's Report recommends that planning permission is now granted. If you compare the issues highlighted in the previous two reports, they are exactly the same - and were then considered sufficient to decline permission. Unless I'm missing something, the developers are not proposing to make any real changes to their plans, but rather have produced further reports which support the suggestion that the Council should "have another think about the development". The comments in the report which suggest 6 deliveries a day not before 7.00am is workable is frankly something of a joke, when you look at what the previous Officer's Report said about this proposal and how unworkable it was. No reason is given for the change in position (other than presumably a lot of pressure from the developers). When the original application was made, there was an extremely detailed and helpful report done by residents showing exactly why deliveries of that size and scale at the site didn't work - showing traffic and turning lines into the site for delivery vehicles. The clear conclusion, which the developers appeared to accept because they withdrew that application immediately is that there simply isn't enough room for that size of lorry to service the site as it is planned to be developed. Yet all of this seems to have been forgotten or ignored in this application - and there is no similar report from residents for this application. To be clear, I'm not a nearby resident, and I will likely use whatever shop ends up in that space, so I have little personal "skin in the game". I am, however, extremely worried at the precedent that it will set if this application gets passed. Nothing significant has changed in this application. It's the same application that has been turned down in strong terms by the council twice. Not because it's an M&S or not but (in the council's own words) because the application did not take any proper account of the impact on the local area - ignored rights of way, security and traffic problems. Yet suddenly it's ok and recommended to be passed? From the outside looking in, this seems a really, really odd recommendation. Edited for spelling.

As I understand it, the software the forum runs on doesn't allow for anything other than entire deletion of threads that user has been involved in as part of a deactivation. So everyone loses out because one person doesn't want their posts to survive. It's fairly old software and this forum is managed by a group of volunteers who I would guess have plenty of other things to do. If someone feels that strongly, the option exists to go back and edit. So not an outrageous request at all, but not very practical for here I would guess.

You can edit your posts if you want to remove your posting history. Just go in and edit to replace with "." Then just log out.

Likewise Underhill/Melford borders - dip at around 7am - seemed to be better before I left the house at 7:45am.

It looks like your other thread about your website has been moved to the Lounge, probably because it's not ED specific. Also, if you post in caps, especially thread titles, it will get edited or deleted. See the FAQ and hope this helps.

Looks to me like a hoarding (partly put up and not complete) in anticipation of building works.

Program injections every six month from the vet.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 45 posts in 7 years, first post is almost an > almost archetypal BBW sock puppet post. > > I'm guessing sleeper account. I don't have your highly-honed detective instincts, but thought exactly the same on seeing the original post. Seems almost calculated to wind up pretty much exactly the discussion we've ended up in....

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Disco didn't die in 82/83 > It had a little nap maybe and came back a couple > of years later as House music!! Wash your mouth out young man. Heresy, I tell you...

I know you say other than soap and water, but I would use the lather from a ph neutral, moisturising soap like Dove. Just the lather not the soap, then wipe, then dry with a soft cloth. My mother uses part water/part white/light vinegar which certainly gets leather clean but I'm not sure it's that great for the leather - maybe if you only need to do it once it would be ok?

If only for the first verse....

I think the clue is in the preceding words, "Dee Gibson, who runs a property consultancy called Velvet Orange and specialises in finding houses for clients in Greater London"...exactly the kind of puffery that allows companies specialising in "property consultancy" to thrive.

Has been happening a lot recently with the 63 and the 363, which is inevitable I guess as they cover much of the same route in the middle. Had a moment of rare anger last week getting on a 63 which was terminated at the Peckham bus garage, then getting the 363 a few minutes behind it (which is the bus I need) which was then terminated at the old FHT. Not because of the terminations, but because the second bus driver refused to give me a transfer ticket for the rest of the 363 route, because I'd got on his bus by means of a transfer ticket (from the 63). Apparently you can only transfer once even if the bus you transfer onto is also then terminated early. *this should probably be on the Tiny Things that cause Irrational Rage thread now I think about it*

Me too. I'm reminded of a time last year when I saw a couple of guys try a neighbour's door and then disappear around the back. I went across the road, saw one of them in the neighbour's back garden and asked them politely who they were looking for, whereupon they left quickly (but also very politely I remember) back down the road saying they had the wrong house. I phoned the police at the time but they didn't show much interest or send anyone round based on my description of what I'd seen, until a day later when our neighbours got back from holiday and realised their car had been broken into at Heathrow Airport and a set of keys taken. Sometimes, you have to do what feels right in that moment and I'm grateful that people like kristen are willing to challenge this kind of behaviour rather than necessarily wait to see what happens.

I would also say weevils. Have a look at the photos in the attached links. Look in any grain based products for the source - pasta, flour etc: http://www.thekitchn.com/how-to-prevent-get-rid-of-grai-140955 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2480153/Weevil-infestation-SECOND-bag-pasta-bought-Tesco.html