Siduhe

Re Brick House - Fergus (the owner/head baker) posted a lot about the situation re their Landlord and Gail's at the time, some of which is still up on his Instagram. The key pieces as I understand it from that were: a) Gail's had approached BH's landlord proactively to inquire about the site some time ago when BH was operating from there; b) at the time of the next lease negotiation/rent review, the landlord went back to Gail's and basically said "make me an offer" which they did; c) the landlord then went back to BH and said this is the increase, reflecting what Gail's was willing to pay for the site as the market rent (and apparently it was a significant increase); d) the increase was more than BH was prepared to pay so they left the site. I'm not sure anyone can blame Gail's for acting in a commercial way, or the landlord for wanting to maximise the value of its property, but I will say it's poetic justice that the site has remained empty for that long. I never stopped in at BH but it did damn fine bread.

I believe there is a reserve list but it's currently focused on offering key worker vaccinations so not one that everyone can ask to be put on.

Just a heads up that there were three Thames Water vans working on the leak today on Wood Vale with traffic control. It's also not just on Wood Vale but also at the top of Forest Hill Road near Francesca Cabrini. The less good news is that the roadworks say they will be there until 22 Feb so it may not be a simple fix. Hope you got your water back by now.

This, this, a thousand times this! As someone who cycles and walks more than I drive - I was pretty open minded about the LTNs (and still am to the concept). But the way that Southwark has gone about this exercise is at best, thoughtless and at worst wilfully blind to the inequities and knock-on effects. Like several posters I was really cheered to hear Catherine Rose accept that it would be necessary to monitor some of the streets and areas further away from the LTNS at the recent Dulwich Hill ward meeting. But the formal response from the Council to my enquiry about the precise area that is being looked at? Well it doesn't include Underhill, Melford, Wood Vale which were the streets mentioned in the meeting and there are "no plans" to increase the monitoring to a wider area, and yes they've spoken to Councillor Rose and are "aware" of the discussion at the meeting.

FairTGirl - as I posted on the other thread, we've been told that Underhill/Melford/Wood Vale/Lordship Lane Estate will not form part of the reviewed area for the College Road LTN. I appreciate you're making a slightly different point regarding those people who are most affected but I'd be surprised if the outcome in terms of including the views of Bradbury Oak House was any different.

Just to add to Penguin68's comments - as I understand it, the review area for the Dulwich Village LTNs will not include Underhill, Melford, Wood Vale or the Lordship Lane Estate - all of which were experiencing material impacts from the closure of Court Lane and the failure to adjust right filter at the South Circular lights to allow for the additional traffic - up until the point that Thames Water started digging up the road and put in place three way lights for twelve weeks which has given us all a bit of relief. This is notwithstanding residents being told to use Commonspace to register our concerns, which many of us have done - and where the feedback is clear, consistent and from multiple residents. I'm still trying to get a formal confirmation why but the informal feedback is that our roads are not close enough to be considered directly affected, and the review area will only focus on the area of the LTNs and the immediately adjacent roads. Which is next to useless when the roads experiencing displacement are not immediately adjacent. As I've said before, I don't think any of my neighbours or me are particularly opposed to LTNs or even necessarily to the Court Lane closure, but we'd like a proper assessment of the impacts of the displacement on our local roads - which are less safe for cyclists and more polluted for pedestrians - and the fact that many of us don't live in ?2m+ houses or have access to large gardens like Court Lane resident do (although to be fair, some on Underhill and Wood Vale do!) ;-)

If you look at your address on the Southwark 'report a missed collection' page it may tell you when your collection has been rescheduled to. Ours is supposed to be Tuesday but when I looked at the site, it had been auto adjusted to Weds - and it was collected then.

See https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/interactive-map

It's sad to see how quickly Steven has fallen out of love with our little corner of the world... Although I am intrigued as to how the OP knew that the man was married and the woman was a mistress.

Thanks for sharing - have donated!

Thanks northernmonkey - no Dulwich Wood. And our ward councillor (who is heavily involved in the LTNs) was the one who directed us to use Commonspace as the appropriate way to register feedback. Hence some of the frustration when the feedback on our road (Underhill/Melford) as recorded on Commonspace is so clear and consistent and we are still being told there are no plans to even look at it as part of the LTN review.

To be clear, I don't know what the "facts" are here - DfT could be correct or TfL could be correct or the facts may be entirely different. But where I completely agree is that this emails shows that no-one can sensibly rely on one set of data to the exclusion of everything else, which is why we need a clearly articulated and transparent approach to monitoring and analysis in our local area. I have, however, watched the changing narrative on the Commonplace sites from the Council with dismay. I was positively directed to leave comments on those sites by our local councillors to highlight some specific issues with the impact of LTNs in my road - as were several of my neighbours - and we all left similar comments broadly in support of LTNs but expressing specific points that needed to be addressed about spill over traffic and the fact that cycling had become far less safe on our set of roads as traffic was using it as a cut through to the South Circular. But now it appears that little of that feedback will be taken into account as the overall narrative isn't sufficiently positive. For my own part, it's the unwillingness at the Council or pro-LTN group to even consider that there are some adverse impacts of the current measure and some changes that could be made to help the rest of us that is really frustrating. And I'm not talking about totally reversing the LTNs, I'm just asking for some basic monitoring which is across other streets that are being impacted.

I've taken a look through the attachments to the FOI request and this (from email C) does rather jump out. It underlines the difficulty of relying on general figures and statistics to support specific local changes and why we do need some proper, transparent monitoring of effects of the current LTNs - not just in their direct area but on nearby roads. What is said in this email is very much contrary to what has been said as "fact" in support of the LTNs. So who do we believe and how can anyone make an educated decision about what is the right thing to do without being aware of some of the potential weaknesses in the data?:

I know a couple of people who are film/magazine support (make up artist/stylists etc). From everything they say and what I've seen on their social media, the organisations they work with take current shoots extremely seriously. One of them was scheduled to do an all day magazine shoot last week, all of the (reduced) team were tested at the client's expense 24 hours before, then tested again on the day of the shoot, and when one person tested positive on the day (having tested negative a day earlier), the shoot was immediately shut down and postponed for five days in case any one who attended the morning test on the day of the shoot then tested positive. I'm sure that there are variations in compliance in this industry - like there are across all industries and sectors - but we are all still watching TV, demanding new content not repeats, and companies are still trying to sell products, and bring new products to market, which requires advertising, so I don't see that shutting this activity down entirely is realistic.

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The ongoing mystery is how come the As Nature > Intended shop has re let, yet the old Threshers > remains stubbornly empty. Its been empty for > years its really baffling. I've seen two possible explanations - one that the landlord will only let as an off-licence or that there is a lease restriction which makes it impractical to change the use of the shop. The other explanation is here - /forum/read.php?30,1708874,1709030#msg-1709030 Makes less sense to me as surely the lease could have been broken by now without penalty but I guess it could be true?

Or, the "y" got autocorrected away...

Yes it's the Daily Mail (sorry) but this at Honor Oak Mansions on Underhill Road did make me smile.

Food Waste and Garden Waste collection (brown bin) is weekly but General Waste and Recycling (green bin and blue bin) have been fortnightly collections on alternate weeks in Southwark since 2011 - may be different for blocks of flats.

I thought the whole point of the extensive works in Dulwich Park was to create more water storage and using bunds to create puddles/run off areas in the park, as a store for excess rain and ground water - so as to prevent a repeat of the Herne Hill flood (after everyone recognised back in 2013/14 that the drains in the area have insufficient capacity to cope with prolonged heavy rainfall). Not aware that anything similar has been done in PR , but for Dulwich Park, I kind of thought this is what we were all expecting to happen?

Supposedly you need to book a specific collection for your tree this year, not just expect it to get picked up or drive to the tip. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/bins-and-recycling/christmas-tree-recycling There are plenty of trees already out in our street so will be interesting to see if they just get taken as usual.

She was and she protested the closure - in person and at the sham of a ?consultation? meeting set up by Royal Mail.

We got a pack of "ordinary" post today (Underhill/Wood Vale/Melford) - first in about 10 days (but we did get a Christmas card/package type delivery last week). In today's batch was a bank card I was advised by my card provider to cancel a week ago (as it had been out for delivery for over three weeks). I took a punt it would arrive eventually and it did. Helen Hayes was incredibly helpful to me earlier this year when I was trying to get delivery of a key financial document that the bank would only send out by post and it was only after her intervention and being able to point to her letter and tweets on the issue that the bank agreed to send it by another method. For what it's worth, she and her team seem incredibly frustrated that every time they raise this with Royal Mail there is a big reallocation of resources to Peckham Sorting office to clear the backlog, things get better for a week or so, but then rapidly go back to the way they were, so I'm not surprised they've taken the next step of writing to Ofcom.

Sainsburys at Bell Green has a big notice saying OAPs, NHS Staff and those with disabilities can come to the front of the line if they have appropriate confirmation of their status. Plenty of people doing that over the weekend and no-one raising any issues with it.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Three versions of the same unpleasant poster have > popped up recently. Hmm? My thought too. Tedious. Though at this rate he?ll be in the Lounge with his other incarnations soon enough.

Menu is working for me - but I have Word installed on the device I looked at it on. The website is here if that helps: https://www.familiapaella19.com/