panda boy

Just found a note on my car (left today sometime, 19th Jan) saying that roadworks will take place tomorrow (20th Jan) around this junction. It appears cars parked within around 20m of this junction have notices to move your vehicle or it will be moved. Nice to have such a long period of notice... Can find nothing out about these works, either posted locally or on the Southwark website. Any ideas as to what this is about greatly appreciated.

Would like to add another recommendation for Aria and his plumbing skills. Had a non-emergency toilet plumbing issue which Aria had sorted within 3 hours, from first call to completion. Very fair price, excellent professional and polite service, highly recommended. Definitely top of the list.

> We've been through this before on the other thread round about the time someone was claiming body liquor would be running along Forest Hill Road. I'm not claiming anything of the sort. I am quoting a survey commissioned by Southwark and performed in October 2015. It can be found here - http://bit.ly/1Qu532O This link was provided by a council representative. Have a look and you will hopefully appreciate the sheer amount of information I am having to go through. Just to add, a lot of this information was supposed to have been made publicly available when it was produced, or at least I was told I would be informed when new information would be available. I have had to repeatedly ask for it. Call me cynical but it's telling I have finally received a response after the work has started. Someone also claimed the flooding issue in COC had been solved, which is patently untrue as 2 days after the last heavy rainfall we had there were headstones in pools of water, (I have pictures as proof) and water running from the cemetery onto Forest Hill Road.

> Theres only one thing to do and thats move to SKY they are very good and no problems and cheaper than virgin Having had experience with SKY in the past I would recommend the exact opposite of this, a thousand times over. I have Virgin broadband (basic cheapest package, just broadband and landline) and have never had such fast or consistent broadband in this area, although I think i'm fortunate as someone had previously installed a fibre connection into the house. Fastest download speed has been 53MBS, slowest in the evenings where I would expect a reduction was 33MBS. I download and upload large files often. Occasionally the router will update itself Would be interesting to know why others on the same road are having such problems. (I'm not an employee of Virgin or Sky.)

> the discussion is/should focus about what the council are doing vs what the pressure group object to/want. Couldn't agree more, although, and once again, this is not a binary Council vs SSW issue. I, and others also have a voice in this, and am starting to notice the points I have raised are largely left unanswered. I'm finding this remarkably odd. Does anyone have any opinions on; Timescale of the project significantly changing. Costs. Council accountability and transparency. Council conduct in the face of significant opposition. Potential for increased flooding due to the plans.

> Let's hope she does not try and put the tyre place out of business when people stop. She was fine with me when I pulled up to wait for a new tyre. I explained I was waiting to see the tyre fitters. She didn't appear to have a problem with this.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How are you getting on with your FOI documents? > > Ready to share? > > John K I have received some documents from a previous FOI request. They do not detail some of the figures I would like to see, and think I am entitled to see. So I will have to raise a new FOI request. I assume this will take time. Some patience may be called for. Do you not think it odd though that the council have stated their 2012 estimates are still current working costings, yet I am invited to raise an FOI request to access more details about costs? If there are more details about the costs, why cant they share them? Why are they hiding behind an FOI request? Personally I find this a delaying tactic.

> Can we just differentiate between challengeable statements of fact Indeed, can we also broaden the horizons of the debate and include Southwark councils conduct, as this is the core of my argument and objection. Timescale - Plans for COC have been moved forward by 6 years with no explanation why. Costs - Still based on 2012 estimates. Council response - "please raise an FOI with the information Governance Team". I find this to be less than satisfactory and far from transparent. This is public money, shouldn't they account for it publicly without the need for an FOI request? Projected costs of the grave plots upon completion - their response was still vague about this but "for example a plot for 50 years will cost somewhere between ?1,000 -?1,500" still making them among the most expensive in London. Reaction to public opinion against these plans - Council response "A widely publicised consultation took place in 2011 to consider future plans for burial provision." A survey which identified there was no majority appetite for burials within the borough, and was a broad consultation without any detail of these plans. "Also in 2015, the local community was given the opportunity to review the plans for the cemeteries and contribute any feedback." This period was when the council revealed their plans and was when public opinion started to grow against them. They have so far been unable to accurately address the fact they have and are ignoring what I believe to be significant public opinion form this point. Potential for flooding - I have now been provided with comprehensive surveys which appear to address this. Although I am not a surveyor of any kind so reading and understanding these documents is proving time consuming. However one particular phrase has stood out: 5.1 Conclusions 5.1.1 The Stage 1 and 2 Risk Assessment undertaken of the proposed development in accordance with the EA guidance, Pollution Potential of Cemeteries, R&D technical Report P223?, has identified the site as having a groundwater vulnerability rating of ?very low to low?. However, as the predicted total number of annual burials is above 100, the site falls into a ?proposal with high risk? As I say I am still trying to digest and understand these documents, but this phrase "proposal with high risk" is initially concerning. I still question the sanity and cost effectiveness of removing mature trees and replacing them with fewer less mature trees, and the subsequent loss of benefits they provide. In reference to the Councils statement that their plans "have actually been designed in conjunction with the London Wildlife Trust" I am still waiting for more detail on this, and what London Wildlife Trusts involvement has been. I know the LWT has performed a variety of habitat and wildlife studies, but I don't believe this qualifies as the plans "being designed in conjunction with".

Fair enough Sue, I would hate for this thread to degenerate in the same way as the previous one.

John K > Do you disown "Lewis Schaffer" and all his false > statements? > > John K Considering this thread was started to focus on the cemetery issues and move away from the previous one that somewhat degenerated away from the point and was subsequently moved to the lounge, how do you think your comment, and it's repetition adds to the debate? Welcome to the forum Blanche, and good luck.

> The long term context was set at the end of the > nineteenth century. Eh? How so? How does the 19th century relate to what's happening now? > Was it Lewisham residents who provided public > opinion against the plans for Southwark to use the > burial ground provided with foresight by > Camberwell Vestry/Council? I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand the question or it's relevance. > Any sense that the SSW petition was an honest and > informed is now in doubt. I could say exactly the same thing about Southwark councils conduct. To make such a broad and sweeping statement, you really should add some detail.