Penguin68

As burial in the plots is paid for, and is not cheap, the council will get its money back, or at least get back the running costs of keeping the cemetery viable as a cemetery. The bits which are now overgrown are dangerous - with burials unstable and graves opened by tree roots. There are old trees in amongst the new growth certainly, these were almost certainly the trees originally planted in the cemetery (or later, as those parts were still in regular use for burial) - as you can see still in the tended bits now. These are not now nor have they ever been 'Southwark Woods' - this is a complete and fictitious spin, as is much in the tendentious petitions, now being supported by a councilor in whose ward the cemetery does not, I believe, fall. Burial grounds in London have always been re-used - this is being done in an entirely proper way. Certain groups chose not to have themselves interred with other groups - to say that they have been excluded is again spin, and rather nasty spin at that. If you look round the cemetery you will see a multiplicity of ethnicities and religions there - as you expect in a municipal cemetery, generally reflecting the mix of peoples who live 'locally'. And that is the point of having local cemeteries - so that those who wish to mourn a resting place have one that is convenient for them to visit. What makes me really angry is that there are, locally to us, vast areas of parkland, genuine woodland etc. etc. - we are absolutely not starved for green areas in this bit of SE London. And yet you would think from the outcries that this was the last green area in an urban wasteland. I do not want to preserve a dangerous area of un-cared for scrubland - used in the past for fly-tipping (and how much more of that can we expect now that large item collections are to be charged for?) If the council cannot use this for burials (which are income generating) - don't expect them to spend a penny on upkeep (I wouldn't). It's a cemetery - for burying people - it's not and never has been woodland - (not since the Conquest anyway, and probably before) - the 20-40 years scrubland growth there now reflects a dereliction in duty of proper care by the council, not an opportunity. Considering the genuine dangers that the area actually presents - if the petitions work then, as a council, I would surround the scrubland element with a 10ft high chain link fence (to keep children and fly-tippers out) and leave it to rot. That would be a reasonable investment. And if further burial is to be banned on all the site, then seal it all off, or sell it for housing development. There is no way I would want the council spending money on what clearly is being thought of as someone's private playground. We have ample parks and green spaces meant for that purpose already.

we need someone who understands the process and who can be trusted to represent the majority- think of yourself as our unofficial councillor elect. Unfortunately, despite perhaps in this instance representing a larger slice of those prepared to express an opinion - and doing a great deal more legwork on this case, Robin can only 'represent' at the margin, our real elected representatives (I am not in ED but an adjacent ward) actually have chosen a different (if apparently numerically smaller) camp to join - and it is they who can actually make (as opposed to plead the case for) decisions. Sometimes democracy isn't, well, that democratic.

I think the anger may be being directed at those who use 'common' facilities without considering the impact of their behaviours on others. Which has spilled over onto those who match the primary characteristics of the first group but are, in fact, cognisant of the needs of others. There are mums who allow their children to disturb others without even attempting to do anything to rein them back. There are home workers who occupy cafe spaces (often tables for e.g. 4) for a much longer time than 'normal' cafe turn-overs would anticipate. Not every mum, or every homeworker (or even a majority) - but enough to make those who are neither wary of being with them. Or indeed angry that their pleasure has been diminished because of them and angry 'in advance' should it happen again. Or avoidant of the enterprises which encourage or allow them. Of course this type of classification means that mums who monitor their children's behaviour, home workers who are sensitive to occupying space without 'paying' for it get blamed for something they are not doing, but we are animals that have succeeded by our ability to model situations and make rules - and this is just an example of that.

A neighbour did the latter, paid the architect in full for it (stupid) and has now found that the builders have left the site, with work remaining unfinished (mainly finishing-off stuff, but new rooms not really usable till it's done). With no direct relationship (or leverage) on the builder things aren't too happy. Generally you need to stay on the plot, so if you use a builder you make sure that they are following the plans - (with the proviso that however good the plans appear to be, it is often a good builder who will note that something in the plan isn't actually feasible). But builders do follow plans (excluding those implementing local road schemes, apparently) - so they won't try to impose their ideas, unless the architect gets it wrong (or unless the plans don't match local building regs). Having someone local and experienced can be helpful, they will know the council building inspectors and what they look out for. That's also true regarding the type of house you have - if it's 'typical' for the area a local builder will (very probably) know the necessary tricks for installing internal stairways to best effect. Depending on the work you (or the builder) may well have to involve a structural engineer as well as an architect - particularly where a loft is concerned regarding loadings etc.)

Well loads of credit to Mr Balfour on this.

Dear wulfhound - the points I was making were specifically in response to Mr Barber's assertion/ implication that the London Cycle Network's point was to fight anthopogenic global warming. I must admit I see it as more important to allow the safe® use of bicycles and to encourage people thus to use bicycles - the greatest impact I believe being on their own health - with, I suspect, virtually no measurable impact on either CO2 or world temperatures. Most of those I know who cycle regularly (children apart) do so instead of using public transport, which itself continues to run whether very very full or just very full in rush hours. [some may cycle rather than drive to stations, in which case their saved car journeys are relatively moderate].

James Barber wrote: - The amenity of cleaner air for example can be damaged by the presumption of peoples right to drive along any and all streets. Amusingly, it was the drive for diesel - promoted by the anti-carbon brigade and supported by the coalition government - which brought us the poor air quality associated with the diesel engine - modern petrol engines are, in fact, much less polluting (carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant - it is the necessary gas for the growth of plants, and is exhaled by all mammals). The major source of carbon dioxide (accounting for well over 70-80% in the atmosphere) is water vapour - but I suppose Mr Barber would like to see the back of that. And the ability to travel freely and easily and quickly IS an amenity. And yes, I do I do 'presume' to drive along all and any street not otherwise forbidden - and indeed if Mr Barber is suggesting that there should be some form of ghetto for car drivers (of which he is one, as I recall) then I am quite worried for him.

It is worth considering that if (following the full operation of schools and medical centres) the traffic levels rise, that may evidence actual need. The road is not some cul-de-sac or back-water, it links two A roads (as I have written too many times before). Living on roads which are link-routes as well as being residential (I live on Underhill, so I do know what I am talking about) can be irksome, but to deny their utility is frankly foolish. We live in an inner suburb - it's a really nice and leafy inner suburb, but it's not an isolated village or peripheral urban area. Of course traffic should proceed carefully and at a suitable speed, and of course there may be some roads which are too narrow for some types of traffic (heavy lorries and artics) - but as soon as we start making roads impassible or exclusive we start to detract from the general amenity of living in ED.

if we're to collectively try to stem global warming There are two issues - those of cyclists' safety and impact on climate - I suspect that the carbon cost of all the work that has gone on to create cycle roads in town (including the traffic hold-ups etc. etc.) will require a huge amount of cycling replacing motorised transport to even reach neutrality. You need to look at the whole carbon cost (if you care about these things) not just the headlines. BT, in a study done a number of years ago, determined that teleconferencing was carbon positive compared with travelling to meetings, but not nearly as much as you would initially have thought, once you costed in the carbon costs of the technology needed to support teleconferencing - from power to terminal equipment to transmission and switching equipment etc. etc. Cycling (the process) may be more carbon friendly than motor powered transport - but do not think that cycles, cycle clothing and (very specifically) cycle specific infrastructure does not have a carbon cost. Where this infrastructure causes motor vehicles to drive inefficiently, including lengthening driving or waiting times these are additional carbon costs which can be attributed to cycles.

James Barber wrote (inter alia), about 'free collections of bulky items - withdrawal' - decision suggested more good (sic) would be donated to charity with no evidence for this assertion. To add to this - charities will not, generally, accept goods which have material/ stuffing etc. where these are not confirmed as being fire retardant treated. Many older items of furniture either have not been treated, or the labels confirming this are now missing. These are precisely the sorts of items (together with mattresses) which can be dumped to the general detriment of the environment. Where they can be of course, donations to charity are good (or re-use via Freecycle etc.) - but this is often not possible, whatever the wishes of the owners.

The petrol station in Underhill was a car dealer, a petrol station and an auto-repairer. When I was a young driver (nearly 50 years ago) this combination was very common - I'm not sure I can think of anywhere now locally where you could buy a car, get it repaired and fill it up.

It is worthwhile perhaps noting that this whole mess (now abandoned cycling improvement notwithstanding) was mainly started in order to 'improve' conditions for those travelling to and from the two schools (Alleyn's and Jags) - thus impacting approximately one hour a day of usage - weekdays only, school time only - or approximately 210 hours a year - which were also the hours when this junction was 'traffic awkward'. At other times it offered no general problems. The fact that the coaches serving the schools are now hugely adversely impacted (i.e. turning circles) with the impact on other traffic and particularly cyclists, that (by report) the diagonal chosen for pedestrian crossing ins't the one that pedestrians actually choose to use and that normal traffic is now travelling more slowly and (for cyclists at least) apparently more dangerously does suggest that, were this not something undertaken by a 'public' (and hence, in reality, unaccountable body) then people would lose their jobs. If I had agreed a project with employers, and then done something entirely different, my feet wouldn't have touched...

The Ros Atkins in the link is male.

yet their proposed TOR states: "We have no desire to simply push the problem elsewhere. " Yes, it might say that - but be realistic - in what way is closing a through road not going to shift traffic using it elsewhere - do you think that closing a road makes the traffic disappear? This is not a non-zero-sum game - the traffic that isn't on Melbourne will be somewhere else. Melbourne wins,someone else loses. A strategy which overall reduced traffic levels throughout ED (and didn't shift that traffic somewhere else) is not going to be achieved by tinkering with one street's topology.

If so, well trained media savvy person - not surprising the bandwagon is rolling so fast.

I suspect (and I may well be wrong) that some people may have 'estimated' car speeds along Melbourne and taken the view that three quarters of cars were speeding. It is very easy to get speeds wrong. The narrower a passage, the quicker, often, vehicles seem to be going. And much of Melbourne is narrow. Three quarters (a suspiciously round figure if such an estimate, rather than based on formal weighted sampling) then got extrapolated for credibility. As someone who did deal with statistics professionally (and is aware of such things as sample error etc.) I would always prefer to present figures rounded conveniently - so a 76% sample based result I would present as 75% or 'three quarters' - others are won-over by spurious accuracy. I believe that many of those in the barrier group are entirely well meaning, although clearly they do want to shift the problems of living in a heavily populated area with relatively poor public transport (particularly east: west) onto the shoulders of others. I am more concerned about those who want (for prejudices of their own) to leap on, and indeed encourage such a bandwagon, and who are happy to run with claimed levels of support, as well as claimed levels of speeding, which do not bear much scrutiny.

Mr Barber's evident dislike of cars, car usage, by proxy car owners, people who pass through or visit his ward using anything more than two wheels (and those unpowered) is almost touching in its consistency, as are his novel methods of interpreting and communicating facts - once again, Melbourne Road links two A roads and, for some, at some times is a natural route between different areas of Dulwich - particularly for those living in adjacent and otherwise 'land-locked' roads. Roads (even residential roads) other than those initially designed as cul-de-sacs were never built for the sole and exclusive use of those actually living in the roads - they have always been links between one part and another. Attempts to make public roads private (attempts he has regularly supported and lauded) are hardly the watch word of liberal democracy, I would have thought, but smack more of the 16th and 17th century enclosure acts, making public land the private cynosure of the wealthy (hoping, by getting a gated community, to make themselves even more wealthy, in this instance). Hey ho - I look forward to the attempts at rebuttal.

It will be very dependent on setting-off time - the S Circular can be murder at some times, and it seems difficult to predict.

The problem the Lib Dems had was that they failed (as did the Tories) to explain what a coalition government might be - in particular that there would have to be horse trading of favoured ideas. It would have been possible for those Lib Dems not in office (there were a few) to have honourably abstained on the student fees vote - thus demonstrating at least some reluctance. But, as I have already suggested - once we thought that there would be a coalition with the Lib Dems this time round (again) but weren't clear who they would join, then many voted for the principle party with which they hoped the Lib Dems would join - rather than the Lib Dems themselves - as they might have ended up with the other party instead. If I want Lib Dems to work with Labour - but a vote for them might end up with them working with the Tories again, then I'll just vote straight Labour - which gives me the better option (and vice versa). No one (and I do mean no one) who votes for any party (nationally or locally) necessarily subscribes whole-heartedly to each and every manifesto commitment - (I suspect that's true even of the candidates themselves). We tend, (many of us, I suspect) to choose (fanatics apart) what we consider the least worse selection of commitments and the least worse option of leaders and candidates. Not absolutely always, some candidates have a personal following that transcends manifestos. But mainly.

Really no good reason that there should be traffic along there. Should hopefully open up another safe corridor for cycling into the City from South and South East. Glad to see that cycles aren't traffic, perhaps they could keep off the roads where traffic does go? ... Oh, I see they are just not traffic when it suites, then. Presumably cyclists wish to use these roads to go where they want to go to - well, just like motorists then...

I suppose I'm an old cynic, but I do begin to feel that the hugely extended works both there and in Townley are extended so that, once they are finished, we will think things have improved, when they have only actually improved compared with the mess the road works have created - we won't be able to remember back to the time before the changes to realise that things may not be any better, or conceivable may actually be worse. Well, you can fool some of the people...

To be fair to Conway (god this sticks in the craw) it is not unusual (or indeed bad practice) for customers and suppliers to work as 'partners' - particularly where there is a service or call-off contract situation. However the obvious lack of either timeliness penalty clauses or (it often appears) quality assurance penalty clauses shows the initial procurement and contracting staff in Southwark to be well below par when it comes to setting or policing effective contracts - had they been in a commercial firm they would have been fired. It is also unfortunate that building and construction services have had a long history of corruption - particularly linked to local authority supply - I am not suggesting that this is the case here, but just because of the history very effective policing of contracts and perhaps some show of 'arms-length' relationships might have been a better call to reassure the paymasters (that's us, eventually, as local and national tax payers, in case you've forgotten). However, Conway is presumably not the driver of the mad Southwark alone Chinese granite policy which has done much to add to the time failures here (both in terms of delivery and of ease of fitting) so I am sure the blame can be spread quite wide (not that, of course, any blame or censure will actually be applied anywhere).

Since the Tories won a majority we've seen what they wanted to do all along and were blocked when lib demos were in a coalition with them. The irony here is that the Tories included items in their manifesto which they knew would please their most extreme supporters, but which they expected to negotiate away in a coalition - the failure of the Lib Dems to win sufficient (indeed hardly any) seats has left the Tories with manifesto commitments they really didn't want. Of course, once the Lib Dems made it clear that they might back either horse (Clegg still pro Cameron, Cable definitely for Labour) then potential Lib Dem voters who might have wanted a Tory government 'softened' by Lib Dems, or a Labour government ditto, realised that they couldn't know what they were getting by voting Lib Dem, so voted for the main party they would otherwise have liked to see in coalition with the Lib Dems. Simples (and really, quite funny).

So, basically, the whole point of these terrible works were to make things better for cyclists, the one element of the work that will not now (may not ever) be completed or even effectively started. And how much has this cost us (directly, council expenditure or TfL, indirectly through disruption and lost time)? And I am sure that not a single official or elected representative will come out of this smelling of anything other than roses - as usual.

.