Penguin68

Rumour has it that it was 35%. Satisfied? Classic.

London water pressure should be 1 bar (a bar is the pressure required to lift water by 10 metres). Your shower is probably set to take up to 2 bars, rather than requiring that pressure. 2 bars is an expected pressure from a normal domestic power shower pump.

With all due respect Penguin68, this is for the local authorities to decide not for you! If the local authority is to divert cash from 'my' needs to 'yours', then I think I do have a say in it. Once the local authority determines to break any funding formula to favour a 'special case' then other electors have as much right to argue they should not do as to argue they should. That is why local authorities agree a funding formula to be universally applied. In the case of this nursery that formula does not derive sufficient cash for them to operate solvently. With more takers the formula would work in their favour, but they don't have those. It's economics 101. And the decision to close was theirs, not the authority's, as they (absolutely properly) determined the best use of their resources for their primary education delivery.

The deficit is pitifully small. We just can't see why the local authority can't save it. And that says it all, really. Local authorities have to treat each class of call on our money fairly - they cannot (should not) differentially support a nursery (or anything else) because it's 'wonderful'. If the deficit is that small (though what is its trajectory?) why not raise money yourselves to meet it? Why should other tax payers lose money for their favoured cause (or even their favoured nursery) to meet your needs? If each signatory to your petition had instead given ?10 maybe you would have already raised enough for this year's cost over-run (sorry, don't know the actual figures). But then an e-signature costs nothing. If the cause isn't worth digging into your pockets to support (but instead trying to dig into other people's) maybe it isn't that important to people other than you?

Well the governing body of Fairlawn should all be sacked really if they knew this was coming! And after offering places for this summer! Presumably, had the offer been sufficiently successful then closure could have been avoided. Had they not tried to fill places they would have been equally open to criticism. They were between a rock and a hard place on this. In the end, like many businesses, they were not able to make an offer which sufficiently met their customers' needs. People are looking (I would guess, long time since I was looking for nursery provision) for a 5 full-ish day cover - which would mean that a close to full-time job could then be maintained. Although nursery education is good in and of itself for children in their socialisation and development, it also is often there to meet parental needs for day-time care. As others have said, it always sad when any institution closes which you have used or relied on, but sometimes it cannot be avoided. I must also add that I am not sure what a petition is meant to achieve. The governors of Fairlawn cannot afford to maintain a facility which is losing it money, and indeed would be acting improperly if they did. The council could not justify making additional support over and above that offered to other nurseries for this one. The only actions which could save this 'business' is for more customers to want to buy from it. They don't. Signing a petition is nice but it gives no revenue to the nursery. You might be better to work to raise money to allow it to continue (too late, actually, probably for that). Signing stuff (other than a ballot paper) achieves, normally, very little. It is virtue signalling, but otherwise ineffective.

Definitely use overground. Stops by the museum itself (although access from the station side still isn't possible, but planned).

I believe that at least one registered director is a family member of the lady in question.

The only complaint I've got is the way the owner talked to her staff. If you check company registrations you will find that the lady you assume is the owner (and who acts very much like an owner) is not in fact one of the registered company directors of the company owing the business.

In general it works sensibly, so if you can find any neighbour in your block who does know which is 'their' fencing side then it us likely yours is the same. One clue is that fence posts will be on the side that is responsible for fencing that side. Nothing to stop you fencing a side that isn't yours, you're doing your neighbour a favour, but it is a courtesy to discuss it with them.

I think a lot of the items in the cafe dated back to when it was a cafe/ antique shop - and this was unsold stock (such as the collection of lights which gives it its name). If the owner does sell the lease it is not clear that any of these items would transfer into new ownership - except by separate treaty, and probably at a premium. If the ownership does change I wouldn't assume the business will continue on 'as is' as regards the look of the place.

Glad to report that they are now open (indeed, in the spirit of the Blitz, rather more open than usual). As only cigarettes and money (as far as I can see) were taken, and the fresh vegetable rack covered in shards of glass, everything else is in stock.

The general grocers and CTN in Wood Vale was attacked last night; shutter padlocks cut and plate glass window smashed - the till was taken and smashed open on the forecourt (coins scattered about) and cigarettes taken. Police were there 30 minutes ago - I would guess they will try to open today, if they can, but things are in a mess. Very sad, unnecessary and depressing. These are good people who offer a good service and range of products.

and I am sorry that it is having to close though. As the lease has been on offer for some time now I suspect that it may well continue trading until (and if) an offer is made and accepted. Unless the overheads are greater than the revenues it makes sense to continue trading rather than having an asset (the lease) lie fallow. Indeed, even if there are losses, these may be discountable (for tax purposes) against any other revenues associated with the trading company. The business may be more valuable as a going concern than just a lease on an empty building. The lease being on offer does suggest that the business may close, but the timing of that closure is by no means certain or imminent.

Wasn't fond of the mice (note plural) either. BUT (amended to add) there were/ are elements of charm in the eclectic collections of crockery etc. The wide range of teas (assuming they were fresh) was admirable and the coffee was normally good. But the cake display was, when I went, always parsimonious, and there were often items on the (drinks) menu listed but not available. Haven't been there for some time. Things may have changed. But I have found many better (and even better value) places elsewhere on the LL strip and adjacent.

I think the lease has been up for sale for some time.

The builder is liable with or without a party wall agreement. The party wall doesn't create any new rights for either party whatsoever. This may be true, but the builder may be more difficult to persuade (outwith legal recourse) if his insurance is unhappy to pay out. And there may also be issues about consequential loss. Of course it is possible to proceed without such an agreement, and 9 times out of 10 (possibly 99 out of a 100) this will all be fine. But it is the tenth (or hundredth) time that it may be an issue. Your risk.

What you have to take into account is that a party wall agreement (amongst other things) documents the state of your house before the work starts - that is a good starting place to negotiate from if the builder does cause any accidentla damage - which might include e.g. cracking in your walls caused by work on the other side. If you really get on with your neighbours you could take photographs 'before' and get them to agree these - but a party wall agreement does give you a legal framework - their builder would have to put right any consequential defects but it's much easier to get this done if such an agreement is in place (and you may find their insurance will require such an agreement in place before they agree to pay out!). Whatever your relations with your neighbour, these agreements exist for a purpose.

Yes

The problem is that the motivation for these crimes can be quite different - opportunistic theft for gain or benefit, casual vandalism and (for things like hub caps and insiginia) 'collecting' mania, which seems to come in waves - a remedy and precaution against one will not necessarily deter another (although some of the things described above do not fall into the 'low level' crime category, in my view).

Much of the problem with the practice (and most others) is in meeting scheduling - a system which allows both real-time on-line and in-office scheduling - which has to 'cope' with 9 diaries (possibly more with non GP staff on the roster as well) - most of them not standard 9-5 meeting times, which has to cope with expected no-shows and avoid selfish over-booking, which has to leave time slots for emergencies appointments as well as for routine elements is actually non-trivial - and amongst other things a good system has to incorporate queuing theory algorithms. In the recent past the system, as far as I can gather, has had management interference to suppress and then release appointment slots to avoid (I am guessing) people booking up too far ahead on the off-chance that they will need to see a doctor in the future. It has also relied on office staff triage to judge both urgency and appropriate level of medical support - and these are not necessarily fully trained people in triage systems. The most recent problems (again I am guessing) may be an attempt to get a 'clean start' when a new booking system is introduced so that its value can be more immediately judged. This may (or may not) be a good idea. At least I am getting text alerts to remind me of appointments (and these are also logged on the IT system - which does seem to work for repeat prescriptions). Not all is uniformly bad, some things may even be improving. We may just be in an uneven transition period. At least the practice is trying to change - which suggests it is aware that problems exist - that not all the changes are necessarily always positive on all fronts is, I'm afraid, pretty typical of process changes. And existing staff (who will always resist change, that's just a rule of thumb, unless they are the authors of it) may not be responding well in a transition period. Amended to add - my experiences more closely match those of Growlybear (above) than others on this thread. Maybe I've just been lucky.

How much of this is actually 'new'? Many junctions already have some double yellows on them (not necessarily 10 metres - and that clearly is overkill for many 'slow' roads) - so how much is actually additional? I ask not because I think it's a good idea (I don't) but because if you are to make an effective case against, then actual increased (as it were) parking reduction and not a back of a fag packet calculation would offer better evidence. I suspect that most of these roads already have 5 metres of restriction (or self denial restriction) - so are we talking perhaps 4.9km additional space lost, rather than 9.81km? And what percentage is this of the overall 'parking space' available on these roads for the 3 wards? Don't get me wrong, as I said I'm agin it - but I would like to know exactly what I'm agin.

Is this one of the services which is due to move to TfL in the next couple of years, and is there (if it is) any chance of getting someone from TfL to your meeting (the holding of which I can only applaud)?

There are excellent incinerators available locally (think metal dustbin with big holes punched it it) - these will reduce wood and paper to ash - but when they are first alight it is good idea to be prepared to damp down surrounding areas as they can be quite fierce. Remember to separate papers a bit - if you try to burn them in big wodges even with this type of incinerator they may not burn through. But they should burn quickly and efficiently - and smoke from papers isn't too offensive (but watch out for neighbours' washing)

Why can they not take on more doctors to see patients or extend the surgery opening hours? Cost? GP practices are private business or partnerships - they are paid on their NHS contract for the number of patients they have and for undertaking specific health care procedures (such as vaccinations and inoculations, certain types of health check etc.) This money arrives regardless of their costs - more doctors or longer hours open mean that the surgery operating costs go up, but their revenues are fixed (or at least, not associated with their costs). All practice staff are contracted to the practice (not the NHS - although some types of primary care NHS staff may work out of doctors' surgeries - such as Health Visitors and Psychotherapists in the IAPT programme).

Leaving knives on the floor at a children's party is a little different to possibly 'turning your ankle' whilst walking through a wood. But maybe, and Southwark's warning notices suggest they think this is so, leaving gaping and unstable graves and grave furniture partly obscured by undergrowth and scrub is quite similar to leaving knives on the floor - if, for instance, young people (say teenagers) were to go chasing through 'the woods' unaware such hazards were there. If the cemeteries are to become simply leisure areas (as wanted by ssw), such actions would not be unlikely.