tomk

The title of the thread is inflammatory. The OP and others should remember that you are writing about an identifiable professional whose reputation you are effectively attempting to call into question on a public forum. Bad form. I would say he is the only victim of mud slinging that actually matters.

clay clay and more clay.

There is a fair amount of movement but there is also a waiting list which almost certainly isn't empty. The main school office will be best to advise. The closer you live, the better as one of the admissions criteria is proximity to the school. You may be better to move before he gets a place rather than waiting until afterwards, if the place is the priority. Good luck.

It's entertaining and in places very well-written. Sadly it is also very bitter and lacks any answers to the issues in education. It has no validity in terms of educational arguments but to fair I think it's meant to be more polemic/entertaining counterblast. I liked the line about Pupil Premium funding paying for Harry Styles to show his backside in a vain attempt to entertain, but at the same time she misses the point here - teachers under the new ofsted framework are not expected to 'entertain' (as before), just help all students to progress. Gove's focus on progress and the 4Levels of Progress she attacks are actually incredibly helpful and positive moves in terms of forcing all schools to face underachievement at all levels, especially those students without the home backgrounds to push them on. I also welcome progression up the pay scale based on the progress the students you teach make. Teaching has changed and it's not the profession she wants it to be, neither will it ever be, thankfully. On the plus side she is right about the pensions, but I'm not sure how much Gove is to blame there. And teaching is truly exhausting every day, but it has always been like that. Ultimately I found her cynicism a bit depressing, especially in someone who is so young.

Both great pubs and eateries.

> tomk, there is another 'desirable' retailer > apparently ready to take on the site as is without > increasing the footprint of the building > And due to their popularity, parking stress would still occur as customer numbers increase and employee numbers increase. Only difference re parking is the removal of a small underused car park. That was the point I was making - that the only way to guarantee no increase to parking stress is to leave everything empty and undeveloped.

Possibly there will be some increase in cars looking for parking spaces in the surrounding streets. I don't see it as likely to be a significant increase though. If we're not careful we will just block all changes on this basis - keep shops unpopular and units empty so that residents (who declined the cpz offered) can park without stress.

Most streets directly off LL are already very hard to park on and would not be attractive options for car-driving customers/employees. I think if there were to be any increase in car use and parking from these, it is more likely to affect streets slightly further afield eg bottom of upland, CP road etc, where you can still walk to Iceland/M&S in 5 mins. And that's totally ignoring the likelihood of public transport being used. Re. the flats, 2bed inner London flat dwellers who live on a well-provided high street with a short walk to two rail stations (one the EL London) tend not to be high users of cars. Maybe 5-8 cars max from the 8 flats? Parking in the area is not easy at all, but I really don't see how this development would have a significantly negative effect. I sympathise about the delivery vehicles, though presumably most local residents moved into the street after the supermarket was in place - so deliveries are not exactly a surprise.

It did appear that the original application was refused due to ?parking stress?, which seemed barmy for a Zone 2 shopping destination which has suffered from ?parking stress? for at least 10 years. I can?t see how removing a small car park will make any significant difference. They also seem to have compromised further on the delivery hours, which anyway seemed reasonable in the first application. I really don?t get the objections, unless you live directly bordering the site and want no change at all for the entire time you choose to live there. I do sympathise with this position, but the application has always looked broadly sensible.

Dell, hansler rd

Would hazard a guess that as a family business, premises owned by same family, the 'lease' may not be that watertight/official? Re. Boycotting, this would only really affect the business coming in. Unlikely to be the new landlord'a directly-owned business. The boycott would have to last for years and make the unit unleasable to affect the landlord.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yup. But the changes at east croydon or Hayward's > Heath after that only add 10 minutes Thanks. Do you know much about the schools? I am fairly relaxed on primary schools but have never heard anything good about state secondary schools on the south coast?

Thanks. Is the 18.23 last train back from london bridge? Looks like it here http://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/service/timesandfares/LBG/LWS/tomorrow/1815/dep#outwardJump

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Having moved to Lewes.....ooooooh 8 days ago (but > spent a lot of time there in last 6 months) I can > confirm streets are very quiet of an evening but > the pubs and restaurants are lively enough > > Definitely doesn't compare to lordship lane bustle > of an evening but time comes when that's a good > thing Are you commuting to london?have thought about lewes and close by but cannot see an evening return train that doesn't take less than about 2 hours with 2 changes?

Not local to cardiff, know it really just at face value. Brom&beck Both suburbs. More like cyn coed (I think) but some way from kings - I'm guessing at a 10-25 minute drive depending on time&traffic.