LondonMix

Its not due to rent increases. I called about this when it was first listed. ateFord Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh yes I see the ban: > http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?3 > 0,915467 > > Okay, but at least does anyone know if it was due > to rent increases? Lack of business? Owners trying > something new?

Correct Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the lease has been up for sale for some > time.

You don't have to have a party wall agreement. All you have to do is serve the appropriate notices. Once that's done, neighbors can come to any separate side agreement they want.

Yas, why don't you stick to the facts of this situation. It makes 100% more sense to redirect parents to other vacant state nursery slots in Lewisham as Fairlawn has done than to run their nursery at a loss. The funding for the nursery has not been cut-- Fairlawn, like all nurseries, get their legally proscribed funding per pupil from the LA. Enrollment is down at the nursery according Fairlawn and they cannot afford to continue heavily subsidizing the nursery with the primary school's funding. These aren't opinions, they are the facts as laid out by Fairlawn themselves. That you continue to argue that there is no fall in enrollment despite the fact Fairlawn has made this explicitly clear shows a complete unwillingness to acknowledge any facts that don't support your campaign. One would hope you 'd instead explain why despite these facts, your position makes any sense. The vacancies at other state nurseries both in Lewisham and Heber show that the supply of places exceeds demand for them in the system. This has nothing to do with cuts to disability payments. Stop trying to confuse people just so you can get more signatures. Its very inappropriate.

The new increase is but the entire system was revamped a year ago. If you house was worth less than 1m, you save stamp duty compared to the old system. If its worth more than that though, you are paying additional stamp duty. So to move up the ladder (at or above 1m) has become relatively more expensive.

End of digression... So what do people think about the plan for all schools to become academies with longer school days?

"And I would still like to think that most people given the choice between working and claiming would choose work." I don't know. What I do know though is that getting the chance to do work that is meaningful to you is the greatest gift you can have in life. That doesn't mean working for a charity but something you find challenging and interesting most of the time. I know people who are on benefits and they aren't smug and happy but quietly bitter. We need work as human beings to thrive psychologically. I also know people who make a lot of money and hate their jobs and are miserable. What I really hope for my kids is that I set them up so they can genuinely choose what they do for a living. Not necessarily make the most money possible but be happy in work. If you have that and solid interpersonal relationships I think 90% of the battle in life is won.

I hear what you are saying Blah Blah. I think in some communities unemployment is almost endemic. However, my father in law sat on benefits for the better part of 15 years because and I quote "He'd only be making 50 quid a week more working." Part of that time he was on disability for an issue relating to his hands. However, he was more than capable of work. My brother-in law's wife's father was made redundant in the same area fairly recently and has really struggled to make ends meet as the work is very low paying. However, he breaks his back doing two part time jobs-- one involves doing deliveries. Her mother has severe back problems but works part time at a school though I'm sure she'd qualify for disability if she tried. Despite living in ED, I'm not under any illusion of how hard it is and I also understand why its tempting at the margins for some people simply to choose not work rather than kill themselves working thankless and at times unrewarding low wage jobs. With that said, my father in law is now a pensioner (he started working at 15 so had plenty of qualify years). The new tests may never have applied to him so maybe its harder now for people to do what he did. I'm always really torn about this topic because it hits very close to home. Its not just some abstract policy or ideological talking point.

Hmmm, Otta if that's true, then I'd be generally supportive of steps to reduce the incentive to abuse the system.

I don't think so Tomskip. I think state nursery place demand is falling as evidenced by the fact another outstanding primary in Lewisham have places to take in the kids from Fairlawn affected by the closure. On the SE23 forum thread linked to by another poster, parents said it was because the hours (not full time) were inconvenient for working parents. I imagine this only works for full time working parents if they use a flexible childminder or a nanny in addition to the free nursery hours. Not everyone with a nanny will use this though as they'll likely be no savings and the main benefit would be socialisation (which is great).

The builder isn't party to the party wall agreement. Its between the neighbours. A builder doesn't even need to be appointed. I'm not saying don't get a party wall agreement but don't get one because you think you get extra rights. The official guidance makes it very clear that the main benefit is an agreed basis of the condition of the house before work starts by an objective 3rd party that's well documented. If you both feel comfortable you can take pictures and agree the condition between yourselves, you'll still achieve the main benefits of a partywall for this type of work. If you feel out of your depth documenting something like this though, go ahead and appoint a shared surveyor who can do a thorough job.

I've seen people take the piss and I've seen people genuinely in need. I have no idea how many people are taking the piss though and if its worth all the distress and agro it causes the honest people needing help to catch out those that are taking advantage of the system. I don't know if anyone has seen any estimates on this. Otta, how many people (as a percentage) would you reckon are in some way taking the piss?

The 11.5k is a bigger tax cut starting today through to 2017. Here's the math. The current rate 2015-2016 is 10.6k. It is increasing by 900 quid by 2017. The tax savings is 180 quid for every single person who earns at least 11.5k per annum. There are approximately 29.3 million tax payers in the UK who will benefit from this change. The total change in revenue for HMRC like for like is about 5 billion. Now remember that once you earn more than 60k, you start to lose your tax free allowance meaning many high earners do not get the tax cut above (which is fine). The increase in the amount of income taxed at 20% after the tax free allowance is 1,500. That amount that would have been taxed at 40% is worth 600 in taxes. Approximately 4.7m people (16% of total tax payers) pay the 40% tax rate currently so that is a like for like loss of revenue of 2.8b for HMRC. I think both tax cuts are inappropriate but I also think its hypocritical for people to complain about tax cuts others are receiving while saying nothing of the one they are happily accepting for themselves. Particularly if they also complain about any of the cuts in the budget... I haven't seen Resolutions analysis but they must have been analysing all the changes in the budget (sugar tax, pension changes etc) rather than income tax changes in isolation. I'd be interested to see the link. right-clicking Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sigh!! what will I do with all that money? > > the Resolution Foundation, warned that the richest > households would be the greatest beneficiaries > from next year's tax changes. > > From April 2017, no one will start paying income > tax until they earn ?11,500 - up from ?11,000 from > April 2016. And the threshold for the higher rate > of tax will be raised from ?43,000 to ?45,000. > > The Resolution Foundation said that would mean the > poorest 20% of households gaining just ?10 a year > on average, while the richest 20% would gain ?225.

The builder is liable with or without a party wall agreement. The party wall doesn't create any new rights for either party whatsoever.

I was talking about public liability insurance for accidental damage which a good builder should have to cover things that might happen (and do happen even with a good builder). If you are concerned about shoddy work, just casually ask your neighbours about building control inspections to make sure proper oversight for the LA is in place. That should be more than adequate and is in your neighbours best interest as well. Good luck!

I agree with miga. Its more affordable to extend than move for more space, which is one major reason people do it. Malumbu on your dystopian dictatorship how much space would we all get? Would we just get sleeping pods like in Japan?

No- if you put down in writing the access rules and time work can take place and get photo documentation of the full condition of your house so that you can make a claim for damages if anything occurs you'll get most of the benefit of a partywall agreement. Make sure your neighbours builder is insured though. Derek b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Our neighbours are planning similar works and have > asked if we would mind not having a party wall > agreement to save costs. We get on really well > with them and don't want to be difficult or damage > our friendship. Would we be mad to agree?

Of the 614 views, you've collected 30 signatures since you first posted this. The problem with petitions is that unless someone starts and anti-petition, the often silent majority who don't believe in wasting limited local revenue don't have a voice. The good news is that its very unlikely to succeed come what may, though I am sorry you are losing an outstanding nursery place and the disruption that entails. I just don't believe you've made a compelling case and have found a few of your statements intentionally misleading regarding the facts of what's going on.

Got it thanks. So you still get working tax credit but you don't get the maximum above the income threshold. I'll edit more former post accordingly

I don't think people extend houses unless they want to utilise the additional space. I agree someone wanting a 4 bed may think its better to buy a 3 bed and extend it themselves (its saves the money upfront and builds equity) but that doesn't mean they don't want 4 bedrooms. In fact for many, doing work might be the only way they can afford to get the space they want. I say want, because no one needs space-- humans used to live in caves and 100 years ago 11 people would easily live in a small Victorian terrace. What we want / feel we need changes over time and there is nothing wrong with that. Less space has been shown to cause people higher levels of stress, particularly families.

The increase in the tax free amount to 11k is a much more significant tax cut in terms of loss of revenue but of course I imagine that tax cut is a popular one so won't be quite so reviled in the press! JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Do you mean increasing that tax threshold in > 2017 > > to 45k vs 42.5k? Do you also disagree with the > > tax free allowance going up to 11k? d > > > > > > JohnL Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > It was mentioned on Sky - the money taken off > > the > > > disabled almost > > > exactly matches that given to 40% rate tax > > > payers. > > > > > > Reverse Robin Hood - George looked unmoved > > though. > > Benefits me personally :) - but don't like to see > the > disabled hammered (GO disputes they are being and > says > more is being spent - but even Sky disagreed). > > The fact the figures were similar was mentioned as > Robin > Hood like - in reality no real link :)

Can you link to that definition JohnL. The gov website says that there is no max upper income threshold to qualify as it depends on your circumstances-- i.e. how many children you have etc. Looking at the official tables on line I can't reconcile what everyone here is posting about-- not that anyone is wrong, I'm just confused

Do you mean increasing that tax threshold in 2017 to 45k vs 42.5k? Do you also disagree with the tax free allowance going up to 11k? d JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It was mentioned on Sky - the money taken off the > disabled almost > exactly matches that given to 40% rate tax > payers. > > Reverse Robin Hood - George looked unmoved though.

This doesn't eliminate working tax credit but it will reduce how much people above that threshold are entitled to for certain elements of working tax credit which in turn is a function of their broader circumstances. right-clicking Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jah Lush, > > I think you might be a little off the mark! By > lowering the threshold will allow more people to > be eligible!! > The ?3,850 is the minimum you have to earn before > tax credits kick in as apposed to the existing > ?6,420.

Yeah, s/he is usually on a bike. I like eccentrics who look like they are enjoying themselves as well.