Dogkennelhillbilly

The idea of parents being contractually bound not to drive their kids in is one that ought to be imposed on the many private schools around here next time any of them wants planning permission to build more.

teetomthomas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If the ULEZ is successful in its objectives to > reduce traffic as well as pollution, then the > necessity for Low Traffic Neighbourhoods recedes, > and those planters can indeed be removed. I think we'd all be happy if the ULEZ expansion is that successful.

Kartuli is very nice - and unlikely that your friends will have had too many Georgian meals recently so if nothing else it'll be a bit of a change

Put down the tinfoil hat. LTNs are enforced by cameras. It wouldn't make any sense for Southwark (which doesn't operate ULEZ and whose LTN came years after the ULEZ expansion and camera plan) to channel traffic away from roads that are covered by cameras to streets that are not necessarily covered by cameras. Amazing that some people seem to simultaneously believe that Southwark is completely incompetent AND ALSO capable of pulling off a multiyear conspiracy. #SouthwarkDerangementSyndrome

teetomthomas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What are you talking about? I'm trying to think of how far you would have to go for your conspiracy theory that LTNs are a plot to pay for ULEZ cameras to make sense. The answer is: very far indeed.

That's a conspiracy theory I haven't heard before - that LTNs are designed to fund ULEZ! ULEZ: announced by Mayor Boris Johnson in 2013. ULEZ expansion: announced by Mayor Sadiq Khan in 2018, with plans for camera network expansion. Emergency Active Travel Fund: announced by Tory UK government in May 2020. LTN: implemented by Southwark in June 2020. I suppose of course you could imagine that Southwark Council, the UK government and the Chinese government have been conspiring since 2018 to launch COVID on an unsuspecting population so that TfL could buy some cameras.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > we don't need additional nursery > places - which is clear from the unfilled > positions in the multiple nurseries in the area. Is that true? What's the source for this? ED is nappy valley and they were like hen's teeth a couple of years ago. I don't see significantly fewer kids around as a result of COVID (although that's just anecdotal observation obviously). > we won't be going back to the pre-pandemic work pattern so that's largely a mute point. Hah! A selection of white collar knowledge workers of bourgeois East Dulwich might be working from home 2-3 days a week, but for most people it's straight back to the old ways. The tube is rammed, trains are busy, Central London is looking busier

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I suspect it will be ANPRS camera enforcement > and wont be just boundary entry or exit, and a > little bit like the TV licensing people saying we > know you have a non ULEZ complaint vehicle. So > expect investigators who may record if a non > complaint vehicles is parked in different places > and no charge paid. Let's not speculate about stuff if we don't know.

Yes - you enter your details on the TFL website and then any time you enter the ULEZ and or Congestion Charge zone, they automatically bill your bank card. It saves you the hassle of remembering to log in/call up and pay every time.

I'm not enthusiastic about chain bars (esp ones with "bottomless brunch" 🤮) but...it's a fair distance from Lordship Lane. I'd see it as competition more for the nine other coffee shops in the Village and esp the Crown and Greyhound, which continues to have rubbish service. Chains haven't always had a good time in Dulwich - Cafe Rouge just died in West Dulwich, and the site of the Real Greek has had a stream of franchise failures. Even the Real Greek seemed a bit quiet for the first couple of years (not helped by prices) - but with good outdoor space, a lick of paint, and really charming staff, they seem to be doing well now.

Yes, that's right! It's on the South Circular next to the tennis courts, at the foot of the rail bridge. It actually looks like a really nice space- they've done wonders with the setting.

It's not a shop and it's not Dulwich or Peckham but...the kids playpark in Brockwell Park now has a little kiosk in it. It's serving coffees, teas, juice etc and the food is thankfully of the snack bar variety (bacon rolls, egg and chips etc for ?3-6) rather the Colicci Dulwich Park offering (hummus and guacamole skewer, ?13.50).

Peckhamnearbe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Very poor taste. Agreed. There's much more "mob" than "justice" in "mob justice".

Once. It's not a toll payable each time you cross the boundary. Drive for 30 seconds or 23 hours - cross the boundary once or fifty times - its all one charge. Same as existing congestion charge.

Redemption Coffee has opened at 29 Dulwich Village. It looks very clean and nice, with two big benches and tables outside. I haven't been in to actually drink the coffee or eat the pastries yet!

It is still there. I don't know how secure it is. The little bike shop in there is attended through the day.

Ring cameras are easy to hardwire install if you've got a traditional doorbell handy already (although I had to change my transformer, which was no more complicated than changing a fuse) BUT you have to pay a monthly subscription for online video storage and if the network is slow, it'll take a few seconds before the app on your phone shows there is someone at the door. (The doorbell will still dingdong using your old chime though).

bonaome Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > As the drawing I've linked to shows, the build out > is wider than the space a parked car would take up... I don't know what Jedi mind > trick they were trying to pull when they sent you > measurements, but as far as I know a narrower road > space will make it harder for two buses to pass > each other. As the drawing you have linked to shows, the road is 6.5m wide at the buildout on Whately Rd and 6m wide on Fellbrig and Cyrena. The buildout is wider than a car but there is still sufficient width because parking on the side of the street opposite the buildout will be prohibited - as the drawing you have linked to also shows. Your sarcasm and stories of tigers and Jeremy Clarkson are totally misplaced. #SouthwarkDerangementSyndrome

You're looking for a black lamppost about 6m high, with a camera on top instead of a lamp. They are located to cover every junction between the South Circular and all roads on the "inside London" side of the circle. Sometimes they're 100m or so inside the boundary- not necessarily right on the corner.

richard tudor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Which like LTN will see a great influx of traffic > which again will move the problem to another area. > The whole thing > has not been sensibly thought through. ?? in > Southwark's eyes only Not sure you've sensibly thought through your comment, bud. It's not even Southwark's scheme. #SouthwarkDerangementSyndrome

I'm in favour of parking restrictions because they're the only sensible way to ration scarce road space and air, but there's no excuse for them being confusing.

.

Director General of CERN Fabiola Gianotti, struggling with the ticket machines at Nieth Dulwich (which to be fair are not very intuitive).

> First sort out the 5000 empty council properties. Not true. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes that is entirely true, although nearly 900 > empty council houses as shown in the FOI and > documented by Southwark Council themselves is > nothing to be proud of. Most of those "empty" council properties are actually being redeveloped. It's just not true that the council is sitting around with huge parts of its estate empty for no good reason. https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/southwark-council-plan-to-bring-almost-4000-empty-homes-back-into-use/ The right to buy is madness. Second homes should be more heavily taxed.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If only there was another route available, > something like a way through the village, which > would allow traffic to flow around this problem. > 🤔 Some kind of permeable barrier, that emergency vehicles and traffic could cross when directed by a police officer, you mean?