intexasatthe moment

Goodness I'm sick of James endlessly repeating that Southwark are singlehandedly blocking a new primary school being built on Homestall Rd . Does he really think that if he says it often enough people will forget that national planning restrictions to protect greenbelt /MOL in London exist ? Is this the extent of his political spin ? Or maybe he thinks we're all stupid or too busy to do anything other than just swallow wholesale everything he says ? After all he's so brave and unselfish ,only being on this forum to help local residents with their problems . The London Plan says this about MOL 3D.10 Metropolitan Open Land The Mayor will and boroughs should maintain the protection of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) from inappropriate development......Essential facilities for appropriate uses will only be acceptable where they do not have an adverse impact on the openness of MOL. which does rather give the thumbs down to putting buildings on it . Wikipedia explains "planning permission to carry it out cannot be granted by a London Borough acting alone, but requires the concurrence of the Mayor of London and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government." which rather gives the lie to the idea that it's not just naughty old Southwark being intransigent .

I have heard that warm olive oil is not recommended .When it cools it just adds a seal to the existing blockage . Doctor I think .Good luck with that !

"I have suggested sites to both authorities and neither have followed them up. So we're stuck with two intransigent public bodies who both by their actions will make this happen. " I hope these sites don't include Metropolitan Open Land such as found at the East Dulwich Harris Girls site . The London Plan says this about MOL 3D.10 Metropolitan Open Land The Mayor will and boroughs should maintain the protection of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) from inappropriate development......Essential facilities for appropriate uses will only be acceptable where they do not have an adverse impact on the openness of MOL. which does rather give the thumbs down to putting buildings on it . Wikipedia explains "planning permission to carry it out cannot be granted by a London Borough acting alone, but requires the concurrence of the Mayor of London and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government." which rather gives the lie to the idea that it's not just naughty old Southwark being intransigent . But maybe James has moved on from suggesting Harris Girls and has found alternative sites ?

Brown recycling bin ,minus any bags you may nave used to bag them up ? Or have you not got one of the large brown bins ?

That's really helpful Penguin ,thanks .

Tory/Lib Dem government policies ?

As already said it's going to be a library + flats + shop Redevelopment of existing garden centre to provide a 4 storey building comprising basement storage and plant areas; ground floor Class A1 retail unit and D1 community (shown as library) unit; with 20 residential units (5 x 1 bed, 11 x 2 bed and 4 x 3 bed flats) on the first, second and third floors together with associated parking, amenity, landscaping, waste and cycle storage. http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9538657

Just a question of comparison . Pavements off Rye Lane and Rye Lane itself are in worse shape than LL and environs .

I quite agree first mate . And I can never understand why Lordship Lane pavements always seem to take priority over ,for example ,turnings off Rye Lane ,like Highshore . Or why Court Lane got fancy sinusodial speed humps .

No worries .The vagaries of the internet !( speaking as someone who recently mistakenly italicised a whole EDF thread )!

I think it's all down to experience . Someone had to point out to me that wheelchairs have 2 bars at the back ,between the wheels and parallel to the wheels,that you push down on with your foot to lever the chair up a curb .

ooh Charles don't add to the confusion .Your link takes us to Hastings ?

"Try it with a wheelchair mate. Not possible with high kerbs! Especially if the wheelchair pusher is infirm." That's an odd thing to assert ,I regularly push a wheelchair and can manage high curbs ,even after major surgery to my stomach . Negotiating the camber of some pavements that give access to front drive parking and hitting uneven pavestones - now that can be tricky .

This one ?https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/William+Hill/@51.4574061,-0.071182,3a,52.5y,121h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sKcfIzUDyIYTpngq7Y_7fUw!2e0!4m9!1m6!2m5!1sbetting+shop!3m3!1sbetting+shop!2s42+Hindmans+Rd,+London+SE22!3s0x487603be18b649b3:0x8381980c9759e47!3m1!1s0x4876039607b48ea3:0xb8fef3d2e09cdb7b!6m1!1e1 99 Crystal Palace Rd ,junction with Upland ?

They applied to a build a 2 storey new vicarage plus 2 x 3 storey detached houses . Refused in Oct 2012 on grounds that it would lead to a visually cramped overdevelopment of the site ,harmful and out of character with the streetscene and because the development didn't adequately address the impact on an existing Plane Tree .http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/254391_1.pdf Apparently the applicant appealed against the refusal ,*lost the appeal and a claim for costs . Interesting argument about the TPO'd Plane tree that had been felled before the planning application but resprouted and awarded a second TPO .http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/325167_1.pdf *sorry ,major error on my part ,applicant WON the appeal and was granted planning permission . They lost the request for costs of the appeal . I'm sure Robin -rch on the forum - will have been well acquainted with the application .

Southwark consults with Thames Water for relevant planning applications ,so I guess ( but wouldn't rely on it ) that this aspect is covered .

Possibly because the impact of sewer capacity being exceeded would be pretty scary ?

"Do you mean the old police station opposite?" "No, right next to actress pub" ?

Hi James and I'm so glad you've now got the point about the 2 m extension of the double yellow lines and that you're going to add that to your query . Hooray ! Sorry if you think I'm complicating things . It's just that the H bars and the yellow lines seem to me to be two different issues . I assume H bars were to keep the access over the dropped kerb free ,but Southwark maintain that the yellow lines are for safety reasons ,to allow visibilty .Hence the 2m extension . I couldn't care less if the double yellow lines didn't extend over neighbouring frontages . But anyway ,sounds like you've figured out the issue now . Thanks .

James - thank you for the link . While clearly a work in progress it's not quite the painfull process you described . "No I wouldn't expect Southwark Council to stick the absolute minimum possible timescales" - baffled by this remark .No suggestion of timescales, minimum or otherwise ,by me . I did ,however ask a question "do you know/can you find out what progress has been made in the process of creating an SPD ? " Which you haven't answered . I don't understand why ,when asked about the new yellow line policy you always respond by talking about white H bars . "I've asked for the white lines policy effecitvely to be reversed - old and new." The white lines policy is that they are no longer provided and that they will not be renewed . The yellow lines/waiting restrictions is that for new dropped kerbs yellow lines will be installed across the dropped kerb and for 2 metres either side . It is not offered as something the applicant can choose instead of a white H bar . It is not offered instead of repainting white H bars . So dropping or reversing the H bar policy which applies to existing dropped kerbs , won't affect the yellow line policy . So if you manage to get the H bar policy reversed it would mean that existing dropped kerbs could have their H bars repainted . But we'd still be left with the policy of installing double yellow lines across new dropped kerbs and over the neighbouring properties .

James - ok several probably = more than 2 . BUT the "several" referred to was in relation to an agreement on the SPD . As Mark has asked - wouldn't you expect some progress ,a draft for consultation by now ? But regardless of what you or we expect , do you know/can you find out what progress has been made in the process of creating an SPD ? Could you help those of us who are struggling to find the full SSDM on Southwark's website by posting links to the fragments ? You've obviously found them ,perhaps you could share ? "Council has a document about H-bars (white lines): [www.southwark.gov.uk] It appears to have been approved 8 May 2013. Let me work out under what governance this occurred. Eitherway I have asked the cabinet member to reconsider this aspect." I see that you've asked for the painting of H bars to be considered . Did you also ask for the installation of double yellow lines over neighbouring properties for new applications to be considered ? ( this is not H bars OR yellow lines ,it is yellow lines for new dropped kerbs ,no choice involved )

I'm sure that the best way to alieviate this would be a cycle only green light from Greendale that operated for 5-10 seconds before the lights went green in both directions. It would need to be either button operated or sensitive to the prescence of a cyclist so that it didn't operate when there was no one waiting. now that does sound like an answer

a post which had added little to the debate so I'm deleting it .

I think that would require a bit of glitter wouldn't it ?

red bonnet with the green body would look nice and festive ....or maybe you could paint it yourself ,add a few swirls and curlicues ?