Siduhe

I walked past the other day and a tall blonde lady was opening up for the builders with the biggest dog I have ever seen. Looked a bit like an Irish Wolfhound, but black rather than grey. She said "slowly" when I asked how the builders were getting on. Great news and just what the parade needs.

I think Libra means that a lot of Labour MPs are getting a bit nervous about their majorities and feeling "on the chopping block" come the next election. Hence why some of them may be a bit more inclined to challenge the Government on the 10p rate.

We got a copy of and responded to the consultation. We didn't vote for a "feature tree". That said, I actually think the size of the roundabout is about right considering the pedestrian crossings at the start of Lordship Lane (which I would personally like to see moved a few feet back onto the Lane, but that's another story). It forces traffic (including buses) to slow down, even when the entrance onto the roundabout from the right is clear. I've seen a couple of drivers have very near misses with pedestrians on the crossings coming off the roundabout, which might have been considerably worse if the cars had been going faster.

I believe that a number of the property websites have prevented propertysnake from taking listings off their websites citing copyright.

Games shop (3 of a kind is a poker hand to me)...wishful thinking on my part perhaps...

Why has it historically been a toll road, or why do the College continue to maintain the toll? If the latter, I'm pretty sure the College website makes clear it's to limit the amount of traffic using the road and to ensure the road's upkeep. People who live on the Dulwich Estate are entitled to two free tollgate passes (providing they pay their service charges) as well, I believe - not sure if it's all people or just some roads.

Thanks both. At the risk of sounding like a complete girl - how is the cycle across Burgess Park? I would be cycling back around 8/9pm most evenings and Mr Siduhe would need some serious convincing about that bit (although looks pretty easy to cycle round if you don't mind the Old Kent Road for a bit longer...

ratty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would never cycle the E&C - go through North > Peckham to Old Kent Rd, then through the borough > to Blackfriars - nice and easy and 20 mins tops! > Really is a joy this route (apart from the old > kent rd bit but that's only about 3 or 4 mins!) ratty, could you give a bit more of a description of your route - this is exactly what I would like to do, but the couple of times I've tried, I've failed miserably to find a route that doesn't involve the E&C? In particular, would be really interested to know which bits of North Peckham and where do you come off the Old Kent Road to avoid the E&C but still get up to Blackfriars?

Someone I know in SE1 had this recently - she was assured by the person who visited her it is nothing to do with council tax banding (which is managed by the Valuation Office Agency, not the Council) but was very focused on things like heating efficiency, whether she had insulated her roof and whether she shared her access to her home with any other dwellings. Southwark have to do this for their own council managed stock in any event, as part of the Decent Homes project.

Not strictly East Dulwich, but I got a similarly bizarre email this morning from a company that I book a lot of travel with - until I looked at the date that is... "Buckingham Palace set to become the ultimate British B&B In a move that will shock traditionalists, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II today announced that Buckingham Palace, the official residence of the British monarchy since 1837, will open its doors in October this year to paying hotel guests."

Fuschia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Which bit of melford Rd is to become one-way, and > which direction? From Underhill to Lordship Lane. The really narrow bit! A good idea IMHO, but will make turning into that group of streets from northbound London Road/Lordship Lane rather more complicated. We have asked if they are planning to let you turn right into Wood Vale.

Is orange ink the opposite of green or purple then? (Pro rather than anti)?. Also think this is a good idea for residential streets, providing it's accompanied by some sensible traffic calming measures rather than a camera on every corner. Basically I'd like a zone that's effective, rather than people just speeding up and slowing down to avoid cameras like they do in the 20 mile an hour zone off Grange Road in SE1 for example.

Ah, thanks - that makes more sense - wasn't quite sure how they were going to carry that one off. The map we got hadn't been copied very well so a bit difficult to work out the boundaries.

Anyone else received this from Southwark Council? Was on our doormat last night - but think we may have been one of the first to receive it as the consultation also proposes making part of a nearby street one way (Melford Road) and some other changes which will make it a bit more difficult to access our house. Can't find anything about it on the Southwark website, but essentially proposes a blanket 20mph zone across East Dulwich, including Lordship Lane, in an effort to cut down on traffic accidents and personal injury.

Likewise, very sorry to hear your news.

Also, some of East Dulwich is on the Charles Booth poverty maps. You could maybe show that somewhere which is now very chi-chi used to be marked as a slum in Edwardian/Victorian times... http://booth.lse.ac.uk/cgi-bin/do.pl?sub=view_booth_and_barth&m.l=0&m.d.l=0&m.p.x=10366&m.p.y=11676&m.p.w=500&m.p.h=309&m.p.l=0&m.p.p.l=0&m.t.w=128&m.t.h=80&b.p.x=17968&b.p.y=18012&b.p.w=500&b.p.h=309&b.p.l=1&m.v.x=353&m.v.y=17

Everyone will use wikipedia though, non? There's still a bit of the Great North Wood at the very top end of East Dulwich (actually, probably mostly in Sydenham, but starts in ED). Misleadingly named, the Great North Wood was actually a huge oak forest in what is now South London - also known as the Kings Wood. Oliver Cronwell seized ownership of it after the English Civil War, and there's a disused track/tunnel which runs through the wood where trains once ran from Peckham to Crystal Palace. Most of this is courtesy of this forum (Sean in particular I think?) but I've read it elsewhere too.

Was around Underhill Road at around 1:30 and very noisy too. 2 possibilities as I understand it, looking for an individual or vehicle or (more likely) looking for a cannabis farm using heat detectors (as they have to be heated up at night they rather stand out).

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On the results so far I notice that 60% say there > should be no parking restrictions, yet 89% think > there should be restrictions for estate agents' > vehicles. > How does that work? I think it's the use of the words "special restrictions" at Qu16. I interpret that as most people don't want general parking restrictions on residential and business users, but do want special restrictions on estate agents, taxi firms and car salesmen (but not on tradesmen). Clearly the Foxtons effect at work, but see also Felicity J Lord, Wates (is it them with the Beetles?) and so on...

Interesting question. There's no requirement for majority approval before a CPZ is introduced that I'm aware of. A number of councils (such as Lewisham) make clear that if there isn't a majority, a CPZ won't be introduced. Southwark simply say, "there will be a consultation where you can express your views" and then "if a CPZ is approved"...with no detail about the approval process. However, the reality is, I suspect that any Council would be mad to bring in a CPZ against the wishes of the majority. The overall number of responses/pro/against to the consultation would be made available under FOIA and discussed at the various meetings where the CPZ was approved. And the decision is potentially subject to judicial review in theory. Just did a quick google and can see that some people/companies have actually threatened to judicially review the introduction of CPZs, so I guess it does happen.

*Bob*, not sure I can offer facts which will totally support peckhamboy's hunch, but here are a couple: 1. One of the reasons that so many London Councils appear to be keen on consulting and then introducting CPZs is that Transport for London actually pay for it, so the costs incurred in setting one up don't even have to come off the Council's bottom line. 2. The TFL guidance on applying for funding for a CPZ (2007/2008) says (para 7.4.25) "It is generally expected that CPZs will generate revenue which may then be used to extend a parking zone or create a new one." http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/LIP-Guidance-Final_2007-08.pdf So, if I understand this correctly, a Council can consult on introducing a CPZ, then put in a speculative bid for funding from TfL, wait to see if they get it and then either bring the CPZ in or not. This was an issue in Haringey a while back. Not suggesting that this is what is happening here, but it's interesting that TFL are happy to come out and say that it expects the CPZs that it funds to create further funds to either extend or create new parking restrictions...

Who did you speak to at the Council, Parking Enforcement or Disability Services? You can certainly ask the Council to review whether the provision of the disabled space is still appropriate and, if not, amend the traffic order that requires it to be there. However, they won't just look at whether the individual who originally needed the space is still there, but also at how many other disabled spaces there are in the surrounding areas and so on. I would speak to disability services, since they are the ones responsible for putting the spaces there in the first place, they will have the best idea how to go about getting it removed.

As recently discussed on another thread (the one about a group of kids on DKH, I think), young people are far, far more likely to suffer violent and other street crimes than adults. I mentored a group of teenagers at an inner city London school last year and the year before, and it appears to be a fact of life for many of them. They expect to get jacked for their phones, beaten up for looking at someone the wrong way, even for walking on the wrong side of the street. However, I agree that it's probably always been that way although the severity of the crime may well have increased - ah, found the thread here. For myself, 12 years in London, one mugging (in Canary Wharf at Christmas of all places). Not aware of any of my close friends having been mugged either.

macroban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For the particular case of this thread a defence > may be possible if the butt was dropped within > Somerfield's curtilage and not on the public > pavement. Ah, but wouldn't you then be flouting the smoking ban? Which has a max fine of ?200 ;-)

boosboss Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On the Southwark Website, dropping cigarette butts > is qualified as dropping litter and the stated > fine is ?50. So why are the Community Wardens > issuing fines of ?75? Southwark Council/ > Envirocrime > > As it is Southwark Council issuing the fine, you > may have some grounds on challenging the amount > charged. The maximum possible fine increased from ?50 to ?75 on 1 April 2007, and was specifically intended to raise the fine to a level that people would see at out of all proportion to the offence committed, IIRC. The ?50 fine wasn't seen as having a sufficient effect. Looks like Southwark haven't updated the website.