intexasatthe moment

The report says sheltered housing but I think that's incorrect . No sheltered housing at Dawsons Heights as far as I know . And I don't think a 49 year old ,even if medically retired ,would be in sheltered accomodation . Could be wrong ,but I think it's just an error .

Terribly sad that someone has died like this . But I can't stop thinking about the impact on the family below . I'm sure many local people know the lovely Tayo and his family from his sporting/coaching activities ( swimming ,Wing Chun ? ) and it seems to bring the impact closer to home . Very sad all round .

Are you connected with the project DulwichRob ? You appear new to the forum and your first 3 posts are all related to this development .

DulwichRob - I don't agree that planning law would allow for a potentially huge building to be put on this plot . It would allow a structure built within 2m of the boundaries to have a maximum height of 2.5m .http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/outbuildings So much lower than the proposed building which would be over 4.5 metres and built up to and on 3 boundaries . The proposals for the development in the garden of 21 Hindmans Rd take up 50% of the existing garden and all of the space that currently provides external access to that garden . It is true that some of that 50% is shown as amenity space for the new build but I think it is disengenous to suggest that something with a " far bigger footprint " could be constructed as an outbuilding . And who would realistically want to put such a large structure in their backgarden ? It wouldn't provide useful storage with such narrow access ,and I doubt many would want the expense and maintenance costs of a swimming pool . Though the latter would have considerably less visual impact . The construction of outbuildings in Southwark is not quite the "anything goes " picture that you paint . . Their Residential Design Guide SPD has requirements in place for location ,impact and building materials . "Proposals must consider location of garden buildings such as sheds and greenhouses so that they minimise the impact on neighbouring properties. Garden buildings should be located to the rear of properties.The building materials used must respect the existing buildings and the overall character of the area. Garden buildings should minimise any impact on trees." Looking at the specific proposals for the 21 Hindmans Rd development I would say that sinking the building into the ground ,using roof lights and an internal courtyard ( which eats into limited living space ) in an effort to get light into the building ,and wrapping the entire top floor in wooden slats ,is less about mitigating the impact on neighbours and more about trying to force a building into a plot which just isn't suitable .

How horrifying for you ,I am so sorry . I didn't see anything ,but felt I had to at least offer sympathy . Not much help ,I know .

DulwichRob - the impact of a residential building in a back garden is very different ( for the occupiers of the new build and those of the exisiting property )than that of outbuildings and swimming pools .

Could you grab a traffic warden and ask ?

nlem - you sound still in shock ,sorry to hear that . Nice calming walk in Dulwich Woods ? I hear ,from my partner who was looking for same ,that Dulwich Park is like a construction site at present . Hope you feel better soon .

Glad you've been seen Fuschia ,sorry you weren't dealt with correctly at the time . Thank goodness you had the nouse to complain . You shouldn't have had to . What happens to those not up to complaining ? Rhetorical question ,obviously .

" whether I would choose Charter 2 over Charter 1 " - aah ,yes I see your point . What a strange way to construct ...whatever it is . A survey ? Questionnaire ? But then such things are always constructed in such a way as to produce a desired result aren't they ? Wonder what the desired result was here ?

I think you could be right Penguin ,there has to be some logic behind this . It certainly isn't the desire to promote safety or the clearly stated right for visitors and relatives to park close to dropped kerbs wouldn't appear . "Driveways that serve a single property Providing there is no enforceable yellow line, you and your visitors may park close to this type of driveway without penalty. For this reason, we only enforce upon specific request of the property occupier." And I agree about the echoing silence from some quarters .

LS1234 is right . http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200456/southwark_streetscape_design_manual_ssdm and this from DS.132 " 3.7 Parking restrictions around Vehicle Crossings a. See standard DS.002 about providing No Waiting At Any Time restrictions through and in the vicinity of Vehicle Crossings. NOTE: Broadly, in most instances restrictions are needed through and to 2m either side of each Crossing. However, for Vehicle Crossings on Classified Roads (A and B roads) restrictions are normally needed to the entire extent of related visibility splays (for which see standard DS.114)" But installing yellow lines requires a Traffic Management Order ,which can be appealed against . Maybe some hope there ?

Sidhue - when you say regs ,which regs are you referring to ? The info on Southwark's website http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/473/guide_to_parking/3069/dropped_kerbs_and_driveways is clear that yellow lines may be introduced where a new dropped kerb has been installed . "Yellow lines The council may introduce waiting restrictions (yellow lines) in front of dropped kerbs in the following circumstances: Parking is controlled in the street for other reasons (eg. the street is within a parking zone, yellow lines are needed to allow sufficient space for vehicles to pass, or road safety). Circumstances would make it confusing to omit them (eg. if new yellow lines were being installed at a junction and there was a dropped kerb immediately adjacent we would probably extend the lines across it). Adjacent to new crossovers." What particularly worries me is the reference to markings ADJACENT to the dropped kerb . Not straddling ,but adjacent . And statements like this " in most circumstances it is an offence, irrespective of the presence or absence of road markings, to park adjacent to a dropped kerb." Renata has raised an official members enquiry into the issue but has warned that officers are allowed to take up to 10 working days to respond .

It makes sense if demand outstrips supply .Which it does .It's not as if just living in the catchement area guarantees you a place .

Fuschia - I had the most awful withdrawal symptoms from Tramadol . Shaking and terrible dreams and thoughts . I don't think it happens to everyone and you'll probably be ok ,but I so wished someone had warned me of the possibility . At the time I was too affected to realise what it was ,and I think being pre warned would have helped . Could you ask fo an earlier appointment ? Does your GP think it's ok to leave it ? For all I know ,it might be fine to have that delay and I do know that sometimes an immediate X ray doesn't show up the damage ,but one taken some days later does .So what seems like a delay might be good practice ? Clutching at straws a bit here !

That's terrible ! I can't believe it . Surely further damage could be taking place if the shoulder's not correctly treated/immobilised ? Or maybe it's not meant to be immobilised ? Hope you have pain killers + movicol/prunes etc for the inevitable constipation they induce . You have my sympathy in spades .

Blimey ,shoulders are such a complex joint I can well believe that you're in agony . And from experience you can't lie down comfortably and evry little movement hurts .Lots and lots of icing helps . Interspersed with heat ,but finish on ice ,if it's too painful to consider ice . I hope you're on pain killers . You're waiting for a fracture clinic appointment ? Surely this should be urgent ? Masses of sympathy .

I think JB hasbeen/is still unwell but maybe Renata could help ?

Petsathome ( Old Kent Rd ,Blackheath etc ) takework experience placements http://www.petsathome.com/shop/en/pets/careers/careers-faq

Thanks Renata ,that's good to hear . Shame it doesn't say that on Southwark's website . And shame that another poster LS1234 was misled about it " LS1234 August 27, 06:13PM I have been told very clearly by Southwark that all new residential dropped curbs will have yellow lines to 2m either side of the dropped curb unless there is an exceptional reason. It is a new rule that has come into force this year to give cars on the road clearer visibility of cars coming off driveways, it does not apply to current dropped curbs. I was also told that existing dropped curbs that are being redone will most likely not be white lined again in the future." Clearer wording needed I think .

I wouldn't have thought so justaskin . It seems to me that the info online is very confusing and leaves loads of leeway for misunderstanding and fines to be issued . Maybe I'm dense or paranoid ,it almost seems to me that whoever wrote the pages wants them to be unclear . http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/473/guide_to_parking/3069/dropped_kerbs_and_driveways/3 This page seems to suggest that a vehicle with a wheel adjacent to a dropped kerb can be ticketed . "Dropped kerbs with access to off-street areas Vehicles parked adjacent to a dropped kerb may be ticketed and possibly removed without notice. Only vehicles that are either straddling the dropped kerb or have a wheel adjacent to the dropped kerb can be enforced." I presume ,because the following clause specifies access to single properties , this relates only to access to driveways that serve more than one property or a carpark ot similar ? But it doesn't say so . For ..Driveways that serve a single property "Providing there is no enforceable yellow line, you and your visitors may park close to this type of driveway without penalty. For this reason, we only enforce upon specific request of the property occupier." If there were some clarity about the " wheel adjacent " such as a specification along the lines of " in such a way as to obstruct access " I'd be happier . As it is it seems to leave it open to the whim of the person who asked for the dropped kerb and the zeal of the parking attendant . And why say " you and your visitors " ? Why not just " vehicles " ? Owned by anyone ,like your neighbours and their visitors ? But in any case ,this page http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/473/guide_to_parking/3069/dropped_kerbs_and_driveways/4 seems to leave the way clear for yellow lines to be installed adjacent to a crossover just because it's new . And reiterates that it's an offence in most cases ( no explanation of what those most cases are ) to park ADJACENT to a dropped kerb and makes no distinction between a dropped kerb for a single dwelling or one serving a car park . This page http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/473/guide_to_parking/3069/dropped_kerbs_and_driveways/5 says that the circumstances of when it's illegal to park adjacent to a dropped kerb have been explained - but I can't see where ,unless it's the distinction between access to single properties ( where you can be ticketed if the resident wants you to be )and other access . Can someone cleverer than me come along and show that I'm being dense and paranoid ?

Southwark say - on their website here http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/473/guide_to_parking/3069/dropped_kerbs_and_driveways/4 that the installation of a new dropped kerb is a circumstance where they may decide to put yellow lines adjacent to that new dropped curb . If they exercise that power that will prevent people who live adjacent to the crossover from parking in the road . Do people really not understand how that might create parking problems for others ? What is unclear ?

Right - I've found this "In most circumstances it is an offence, irrespective of the presence or absence of road markings, to park adjacent to a dropped kerb. Yellow lines The council may introduce waiting restrictions (yellow lines) in front of dropped kerbs in the following circumstances: Parking is controlled in the street for other reasons (eg. the street is within a parking zone, yellow lines are needed to allow sufficient space for vehicles to pass, or road safety). Circumstances would make it confusing to omit them (eg. if new yellow lines were being installed at a junction and there was a dropped kerb immediately adjacent we would probably extend the lines across it). Adjacent to new crossovers." http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/473/guide_to_parking/3069/dropped_kerbs_and_driveways/4 I'm pretty sure it's recently added as I searched a few weeks ago and all dropped kerb links weren't working . So it's an offence to park adjacent to a dropped kerb ,regardless of road markings ??? Who knew ? And the last sentence settles it really . I'm gob smacked . Your neighbour gets a dropped kerb and it becomes illegal for you to park next to it . And Southwark may ,or may not ,put yellow lines next to your neighbours new dropped kerb so that you know it's illegal . Wow . Anyone else surprised ? Or just me ?

So ,does Southwark require yellow lines that stretch across the dropped kerb AND across the frontage of neighbouring properties or not ?

" No matter that it will take out 3 other on street parking spaces in our street." Sidhue and Tandy ,so do the double yellow lines extend across neighbouring frontages or not ?