Dogkennelhillbilly

Don't think we can afford to spend much more money on cycle parking because it's nice to have. Don't you know we've got endless wars in the Middle East to pay for?

Aha, that's the one! Thank you. I hadn't understood that there are various planning subcommittes as well as the main committee - but I suppose that makes sense in a borough as big as Southwark! Highlights: planning officer recommends approval. Space for 195 kids. 45 full time jobs and 5 part time. 0700-1900 Monday to Friday. Competition with existing businesses ike next door is not a relevant planning consideration. Site empty for some years, last used as members drinking club, with large former bowling green at the back. (I didn't realise this - good that the kids will have outdoor space). Sufficient space for onstreet parking and servicing. Transport plan implemented in response to first consultation. Heritage acceptable, Grade 2 listed. No comments from Victorian Society or English Heritage. Basement for staff use only (unlike next door which has kids in basement iirc?). 120 letters of objection received inc about transport but also overdevelopment and "harmful noise" of kids playing in the play area. (This last one seems like impossibly mean NIMBYism, and the letter writer should have a word with themselves). Report drily notes that with adequate supervision there should not be significant events of children laughing or shouting, and overall noise impacg is insignificant. 12 letters in support. Transport obviously the big one. Suggested that 11% of kids and 17% of staff would arrive by car, and that surrounding streets have sufficient parking to absorb that additional traffic at pickup and drop-off. Developer to build more cycle storage, have transport plan, and refurbish crossing on EDG.

Sorry, that link isn't working (for me at least), and it looks like the Planning Committee's next meeting is 30 Nov, for which the agenda hasn't been set. 🤔 Am I looking in the wrong place? (Probably) https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeId=119

As an occasional cyclist, I don't think more money needs to be spent providing more locking spots for bikes. There are a million lampposts and railings on Lordship Lane and I've never had to look far for a lockable place out the way. Bikes are not regularly getting stolen because the thing to which they are attached failed - it's more often because the locks are chopped off or absent in the first place. TBF it might be different for people who need overnight storage and can't get their bikes in the house, and people who have boxbikes for deliveries and moving kids.

Usually but not always.

It's striking that while castigating the council for being slow in releasing the raw data, OneDulwich is happy to make assertions and speculation that are unsupported by data. For example, in that post there, it suggests traffic inside and outside the LTN may have increased, that the "true" net effect of other schemes has been understated etc. Other "issues" it raises are easily explained e.g. Q: why do the consultation and travel data show different results? A: because the group of people who responded to the consultation (anyone with an Internet connection) aren't the same as group of people making real life journeys through Dulwich. As a private pressure group accountable only to its funders, that is of course OneDulwich's prerogative. It's not a publicly funded body like a council. Has OneDulwich published the origin of its funding or is that still in the dark?

I don't really understand the Express. Who is its target market? Every other paper has a clear demographic. But who buys the Express?

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Very, very few people were wearing poppies on and > around LL this morning. I found it rather > disappointing, even more so than the fact fewer > business owners are selling them. (The sorting > office at Peckham was the only place I saw selling > them on Friday.) Did you see the post from the RBL volunteer above about how you could pitch in to fix this? You're obviously quite disappointed.

Is it Community Speedwatch that's being referred to? https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/safety-and-security/road-safety/community-roadwatch >Very interesting, thanks. Found a few schemes > around the country, very clear that people should > be visible and operate during the day, neither of > which is true for these ones. Yes - just like police officers should wear cowbells around their utility belts. It's only way to give burglars fair warning that the cops are around.

The best and most effective way to limit population growth is to sustainably develop poor countries. The UK-born population is already shrinking, just like many other industrialised countries.

The focus on Khan and criticism of him having police escorts is odd on this thread when a) two MPs were recently murdered by political extremists of different stripes and b) Khan has sod all to do with the Dulwich LTN.

On the upside the new SDM hardware shop seems quite clean, organised and well-stocked. Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bon Coffee has opened up on Lordship Lane to > replace "Truly Scrumptious". Seems like the usual > coffee and croissants fare. No seating so far - > maybe after the C-word recedes..? It now has benches outside and a modest selection of pastries.

"Small" St Christopher's has now reopened as a dedicated kids shop. Looks good. Meanwhile, booze licence application has gone in for the old bookie opposite M&S on Lordship Lane for...Megan's Deli, another casual dining place (and sister to the one in Dulwich Village). Thank God for that - if there's one thing that East Dulwich is calling out for it's another twee coffee shop.

They're coming in a way... https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/mandatory-speed-limiters/

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When I were a child...one fave was to put it in a cow pat Same for me. The tough work was bringing the cow pats back to East Dulwich from the countryside

Call me a conspiracy theorist but I suspect this is not the first username "Tezza" has had...

Was that vehicle signed up to Autopay? It's only been 9 days since ULEZ expanded so a penalty notice (or whatever) probably would have arrived yet.

Plenty of opportunities for people who feel strongly about poppies to get involved with the Royal British Legion any time of year. I think the local branch is on Barry Road. https://www.britishlegion.org.uk/cards-results?tag=volunteer Between social distancing and the collapse of commuting, I'd imagine it's got a lot harder to sell poppies at train stations etc over the last couple of years.

James_C Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unbelievable what has happened to our area ! What > will happen next. First the LTN and then this !? Let's not lose our sense of perspective.

Slow moving traffic. A green line would be flowing traffic.

I did briefly Google for it but I haven't been able to find a full source for that 43% figure. There's a difference between "I didn't know it started this Monday" and "I didn't know the ULEZ was expanding".

Froglander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I checked if my car was compliant a few years ago > and it was. Also rechecked recently and it still > is and it?s an older petrol car. There has been a > fair but of notice in my opinion. It's been an active topic on discussion here since at least July 2016. /forum/read.php?5,1697790,1698204#msg-1698204

Musician (Saint Etienne) and journalist Bob Stanley buying jam jars in Farmers.

nivag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mrwb Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Why do there seem to be so many burst water > mains > > these days? > > > > I've lived in London 30 years odd and don't > > remember these continuous problems till 10 or > more > > years agao. > > Lack of investment from Thames water over the > years due to paying the fat cats at the top more > money equals failing infrastructure. Actually backwards - investment while Thames Water was public sector was woefully poor. One of the conditions of privatisation price increases was that there would be massive increase in infrastructure investment and minimum spend year on year - regardless of how much "fat cats" are being spent. Privatisation of monopolies is generally a rubbish idea but under investment in water and sanitation infrastructure in London is evidence of the opposite argument!

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What happens if you take your number plates off? > > That?ll make it harder for them. > > And take the windows out too, that way nobody can > stick a ticket on your Windscreen. TFL HATES THIS ONE SIMPLE TRICK If you don?t drive, you don't have to pay the ULEZ fee.