Penguin68

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.

.

Today I drove past the 'works', (I use that word completely wrongly) - a cursory glance suggests (I do hope I am wrong) that the Chinese granite slabs do not have beveled edges on the road side - if that is so they will, until they wear, very readily cut into tyres which scrape against them - for instance when trying to park close into the pavement. We had this problem when the pavements in Gallery Road were redone - the AA man who then helped us said that this type of problem was very common with new slabs. So do be very careful.

James Barber wrote (today at 11.10am):- Hi P68, How can a build out that does not protrude any further than parked cars "strangle" lordship Lane? [i actually wrote ...another attempt to strangle (sorry, calm) the free flow of traffic in LL - but let it pass] But he also wrote, today at 09.21am :-They will hopefully calm traffic but primarily ... Either the build out does have an effect on traffic or it doesn't. Up to you to make your case, but at least make it consistently.

James Barber wrote:- They will hopefully calm traffic but primarily make the entrance to our market much more attractive. Can I just remind everyone that 'our market' effectively operates only on Saturdays (I know it's available for operation on Fridays, but this is a very muted occasion generally) - and for only 12 of the 24 hours then - so for 13 fourteenths of the week the extended pavement is making only the entrance to a side street (one of many) 'more attractive'. And I am not sure why a wide stretch of empty pavement is peculiarly more attractive than a narrow(er) one. It would be good to put street seating there, of course, as it would be, I would argue, to have something growing there, although site lines on exiting the street are still an issue. But to argue that this is really anything more than another attempt to strangle (sorry, calm) the free flow of traffic in LL would I think be naive - Southwark Council is not spending the sort of money it is on the build-out to beautify a market it doesn't really care about (it's a very middle class market, with virtually no 'real' street traders) - it's up to us to make our environment more attractive if we wish to - wide empty pavements don't do that for me, I'm afraid. We could make something of the space, but it will probably end up as, at best, a cycle park - and give less space for pedestrians then before.

I am afraid you are stuck with it - but you could try having a chat to them, particularly about noise on their early starts. We have had the same thing, with outsize white vans that take up two normal car park spaces. It's annoying but unless they are actually lorries you won't be able to do much about them (you can get traffic orders which stop large commercial vehicles parking in residential streets, I think). At least they are away during the day when you need to park outside your house.

But this is about medical data sharing, not registrations with GPs - important but entirely a different issue. And most of the data being shared is anonymised - you can break this anonymity in some circumstances, and it could be breached accidentally - but it wouldn't get you to next-of-kin data if you did.

Based on your timing it will not be the NHS that has sold your data - GP practices are private business or partnerships that have a contract with the NHS - but they will not have had time to supply the NHS with your data and that then to be marketed by anyone in the NHS. This does appear to be a prima facie breach of data protection - I would not however complain to the practice manager (for fairly obvious reasons) but to your registered GP at the practice. However it is most normal for insurance companies to sell on data like this (because they have the volumes to make this worthwhile). I doubt whether it would be worthwhile for a GP practice. Is there any possibility that you (or your boyfriend) have shared details about next of kin with an insurance company or website - particularly motor insurance? Or with DVLC if you have changed your address and applied for a new driving licence registered at your new address? (I am assuming that you have moved to be changing GP). I believe people can get access to some DVLC data - you may have put next of kin data on that.

Even if bought to split it will still have a cost associated in bringing it up to saleable (or rent-able) value - particular when letting requirements are more stringent and mortgage interest relief no longer available. Buying, converting and selling-on as two flats is more likely now, I would guess - but those costs will be higher than uplift as a single house - you will need two kitchens for a start, and low-end installation will lend to low-end sales prices. The other issues raised above will still all need to be addressed.

I am not convinced that a 6 Bedroom house (which implies a family) will sell around here much over ?1m without something like a convincing garden - with a (probably ramshackle) garage in the middle of it this must go and you are probably looking at another bit of work to bring the garden into selling shape - that's more money, time and effort. A side entrance (to feed the garage) clearly has benefits - but it also has security issues - more expense to address. I am now guessing you could be tying up money for a year or more before the house is ready to go - and that's assuming you are buying as an investment. Buying it as a home, with all that needs to be done is even more problematic - I don't think you could move-in in under 4-6 months - (assuming everything went swimmingly, and still leaving stuff to do) - which means funding two abodes. Someone who could afford the asking price couldn't afford the time for a slow self-doer-upper I am guessing.

I tend to agree that to budget for your higher estimates - up to ?350k - would be sensible until the full picture can be made clear. On the view that, even if fully done-up to a high standard, the likely best price in the current market for that layout and location will be around the ?1m mark - then paying much over ?650k in current condition (unless there's a really compelling surveyor's report showing no significant structural problems) won't even get you your money back. I'm not sure that your ?1.3m - ?1.4m 'done-up' price isn't too high. It could take a good 5-6 months minimum to put right - with good builders and a good project manager. If there's a problem with the roof this weather has just knocked a few more pounds off the value!

The 'garden' (interesting there are no pictures of that) has a garage plonked into the middle of it - side access is clearly a good thing, but that layout looks awkward. It is clearly a fixer-upper - but it seems priced as a 'fixed-up' entity. With the loft already converted the potential is all in it being made rather more than just habitable. There does seem to be damp - this may just reflect something easily fixed (gutters or flashing) but may be something more worrying. If there has been a significant flood (perhaps through the roof or issues with internal pipes), what is the wiring now like? Stripping out the awful carpets back to bare board would be something - but are the carpets perhaps hiding problems? The decor suggests that nothing has been done to the house since the sixties (at least). I suspect that may also be true of wiring etc. There could easily be ?100k of work necessary, if not more (that's assuming there aren't structural horrors lurking). Would the house then (done-up) be worth ?1.3m? Sales around it (as in the e-flyer) don't really seem to support that.

I have seen troughs with 'hot lips' lobelia http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https://theplantfarm.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/salvia-hot-lips.jpg&imgrefurl=https://theplantfarm.wordpress.com/&h=640&w=640&tbnid=ZAftW5GE4SP4-M:&docid=2DirfyMlNddktM&ei=uh_bVd3xJMLWU56sq_AB&tbm=isch&ved=0CC4QMygKMApqFQoTCN22lIftwccCFULrFAodHtYKHg in Wimeroux work very well - they are hardy and can be encouraged to be low growing by pruning. They grow OK in my garden in ED, so I suspect they would work on that site.