Penguin68

I doubt very much whether the developer (presumably ground landlord) of the Iceland site can really be said to have 'financial muscle' in the grand scheme of things. M&S (from other posts) is not part of this consortium, nor, it appears, will it necessarily be the next tenant of the shop site. Its input has been (as I understand it) to outline what its requirements would be of such a site, were it to move in, around which the plans have been structured, and to allow its logo to be used for illustrative purposes in the application. The claims made by some people of the possible parking pressures (40 or more spaces required) are very much of the same credibility as the (obviously erroneous) statement about visits by tube (although I am guessing this may have been in anticipation of the much vaunted, (and now I gather exploded) idea of the tube being extended to ED station. However had they said that visitors would arrive by public transport, including rail to ED I susepct their 15%(?) would not have been far wrong. It's all guesswork anyway, at this stage. I suspect the planners may have taken a 'typo' into account when considering the source of customers. The planners are seeing two proposals (1) - more accommodation in ED - to many a good thing and (2) a slightly larger supermarket where there already is one. Apart from issues of disruptive deliveries (which they have set a check on) there was little, realistically, they could do to block this. Frankly, far more disruptive to locals will be the creation of a school on the old Whateley Road police station site (with the obviously high traffic/ parking-up impact at start and end of the school day, together no doubt with increased parking demands locally by those working at the school - the fuzz could park on site). All change (normally) has positives and negatives - and particularly on those living closest. If the new supermarket isn't wanted by the wider ED population - then there won't need to be that many deliveries. If it is wanted, then a utilitarian approach may be the best (for the most).

I moved here (via Clapham, Battersea and the King's Road) more than a quarter of a century ago, now. It's certainly changed, but not particularly more (or indeed much) in the last 4 years. I've certainly never found myself liking it less over that time - things I have liked have gone, certainly, but other things (often that I've liked as much or more) have replaced them. Same is true for people. As far as 'Clapham moving' - well I did that yonks ago - nothing new about that. One of the great values (to me) of the 'good to live-in' parts of London is that they are always changing. One of the reasons I don't like great swathes of N. London is that it seems static - I have a friend who's lived in Neasden for ever - his street may have different people in it now, but they still seem to be the same people as ever.

The problem here is that the dropped curb necessary to allow a car to access the driveway (nice little earner for the council) takes up as much space as a parked car - so unless you can park 2 cars on your property there is no net gain of parking (just the effect of reserving a space just for you - which is, of course, great for you). It actually achieves what all those who clamour for CPZs really want - their own space next to their house. The point about drainage is a good one - using gravel over membrane, or porous brick (which is laid, unjointed, over sand) is much, much better than concrete, tarmac or paving slabs to achieve hard standing for cars. In practice, with so many wide cars, and parked up streets, off-street parking does make for wider useable roads (without so many parked cars, plus passing spaces where there are dropped curbs) so for those travelling in many of the side streets around ED cars in front gardens do actually improve things (unless you are looking for somewhere to park!).

Does anybody else hear a man shouting very aggressively - telling somebody to fk off and fk you etc etc. at same time can hear a kid screaming. A 'screaming man' (presumbably disturbed) was reported in the vicinity some time back; see Help-ma-Boab's link above. The sequencing here is quite important - if the man is shouting first, and the child screaming after, this may be a child's response to a disturbed person - clearly upsetting, but a different order of threat to a man shouting at a screaming child. Either which way, alerting the police to the incident may allow a helpful intervention based on what is happening, rather than a knee-jerk 'child protection' response. Children living in families with someone who is disturbed may very well not be at risk, indeed with many types of illness it is the person who is ill who is at most risk, possibly from self-harming.

It is worthwhile reporting this. It may (well) be entirely innocent, but there are professionals who can determine that, if they know what to be looking for.

It is possible that you were followed in error (mistaken for someone else) - but the fact that the follower gestured to you, and later spoke, makes it very unlikely that this was any form of undercover work, even in error. I would definitely report this now (to create a time-line and history), and if you see the person again, call the police immediately. It is possible that this person is a stalker, some of whom are able to make up imaginary (to them real) relationships with their victims. Nip this in the bud, quick.

I'm with Louisa on the possible customer split. The M&S will be selling more prepared meals, I'm guessing, hoping to catch the 'rushed home before going out, don't want to bother to cook but want something 'nice' for dinner' brigade. And snacks/ dips etc. Probably not a lot of 'cook from scratch' food. I guess Morrison's will be selling more home cooking components/ ingrediants. If they get the stocking right then will be more complementary, meeting different needs/ demographics, than strictly competitive. Neither will be weekly shop destination stores - although both will offer 'unique to them' elements which might form part of a weekly shop.

Not merely will the new church, if there is one, occupy space which would have been of much greater amenity to locals used otherwise (if it is true that such churches attract users from far afield) but it will place huge usage stress locally (i.e. parking, congestion etc.) but will, as a church, be excused most taxes and rates which would be placed on any normal commercial enterprise, even though numbers of these churches are effectively very nice little earners for their pastors. I am never happier than when I see former religious premises re-used as housing, as offices, as anything other than for their original purpose; I am never sadder than when I see good property alienated to a god squad (of any demomination, creed or faith).

When the Garden Centre site was sold (which, no doubt, was a good deal for the site owner) the plans for the use of the site (library, shop, apartments) would not have left sufficient space for a full garden centre - needing both indoor and outdoor space - at best it would have left sufficient space for a large flower shop which also sold tools, pots & chemicals (i.e. the former 'shop' bit of the Garden Centre.) So Morrison's use of the space wouldn't have been 'instead of' a full garden centre. Having M&S, Sainbury's, Morrisons and Tesco trading 'against' each other should be to the benefit of ED customers - competition generally does benefit customers. Sadly, around ED the relatively small size (and relatively high value) of commercial sites means that a 'good' garden centre footprint will be hard to find/ cost justify any longer. For those who can, travelling slightly further to get to better/ bigger centres will prove OK - but of course, those without transport or ready access to transport will suffer. For bulky items (gravel, compost etc.) some firms will deliver, thus to some extent offsetting this problem.

Alarms are meant to ring for only 20 minutes before going silent (with a flashing light tell-tale if one's fitted). If there is something which continually sets off the alarm (i.e. an animal setting off the infra-red, or even - and I've known this happen - a helium filled balloon moving around through convection currents) the alarm may re-start - but it should not be continuous.

Didn't notice any interruption in my bit of ED - on BT Infinity (fibre to the cabinet)

They must be full at the crem

Although the most vulnerable (children, the old) travel for free, in the past drivers have been unhelpful in allowing passengers who are obviously qualified (clearly children or pensioners) to travel without an oyster, when it has been mislaid/ lost or stolen. Now they won't take cash, I hope they are being trained to be more sensitive about allowing those to travel who would be expected not to be paying anyway. (Obviously, there are people who look possibly too old (children) or too young (pensioners) for the driver to be certain, but in many cases it just seems to be bloody-minded/ jobsworth-ness to put them off the bus). In the old days kind travellers would pay sometimes for the stranded, but this is more complex where you have to use your own cards to do this, and can't just find a coin.

i never read her column or tim dowling's, they're so far up there own arses it's untrue. If you never read them, on what evidence? Hearsay?

Even where work falls under 'permitted development' you will need a lawfullness certificate if you want to sell, which needs to be applied for before work starts - additionally of course any work you do must meet local building regulations - which means that work may be checked during the build to make sure it is meeting them (i.e. types of insulation etc.)

Try this for starters - I think it is covered by Class A work http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.planningportal.gov.uk%2Fuploads%2F100806_PDforhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf&ei=DjmtU7vtIMHeOty5gOgH&usg=AFQjCNHP0UWknZ25YJks0dS9Sv12O5vq0w&bvm=bv.69837884,d.ZWU&cad=rja http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/100806_PDforhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf Amended to add this link A Guide to Permitted Development Rules | Homebuilding & Renovating http://www.homebuilding.co.uk/advice/project-tips/planning-permission/permitted-development-rules

It would be possible to make, as a requirement for giving planning permission, a restriction on the provision of parking spaces on-site, which might have the effect of discouraging those with cars to live there, and it is possible to place a restrictive covenant on a property which would preclude future parking on site (though that would be as part of any sale requirement) - but I see no way in which any such restriction on future residents owning a car and parking anywhere not linked to the site itself could be enforced. In theory the council could get constant access to the DVL database to ensure no car was registered at the property, I suppose, but I do not believe that a flag could be placed on the database to alert the council. Further I believe that such a general restriction would probably in itself not be legal, possibly as an infringement of human rights legislation.

"Whaddya got?" (Marlon Brando in The Wild One and not James Dean (surprisingly) in Rebel without a Cause in answer to the question - what are you rebelling against?)

If this is a shelter or council housing then your council representative may be able to help - James Barber (amongst others) is responsive - PM him if you don't wish (quite properly) to identify the house in question in public - at least he might be able to find out if it is 'official' council shelter (or if the occupants are being placed there by a council) - then the council itself should be able to respond to your issue. The recycling and rubbish rules are quite arcane (and different for different councils around us) - so it's not surprising that non UK people can't get their heads around them.

thus forcing out some of the last remaining independents. If this were to happen shops would be left empty, if for no better reason than the footprint of most LL shops is well below the square meterage that most chains would be interested in. The reason we have so many estate agents is that offices of this nature can operate in small(er) premises (notwithstanding the great misue of retail opportunity space that is Foxton's).

There is nothing wrong with 'mounting the pavement' - assuming you do so with good care as to what else is on the pavement - I have had to do so to get past vehicles blocking the way, to give room to emergency vehicles and so on. A car acts as a good barrier to stop a fleeing person - people 'giving chase' can be as responsible as anyone else. There doesn't seem to be any suggestion that the pavement mounter was attempting to hit the culprit, simply block his escape, as far as I can see (despite the less than charitable wishes from some posters as to a suitable penalty for mugging and street theft).

I expect that the contract is 'automatically' renewable - but with Dr Sarma alone - as long as he remains in good standing with the GMC (not suspended or struck-of) and continues to have the appropriate practice insurance - by taking on a 'partner' if planning to retire the existing contract can then be passed to the partner - but if he goes without a partner being appointed then the contract will lapse. This presumably is what is happening here. There are numbers of salaried GPs who would wish to move to being a partner - I am somewhat surprised one could not be found who would want to take over this practice, although single practice (which often means little or no holiday) may not be that attractive - and I do not know, of course, what other fiscal arrangements are (i.e. rental of surgery premises) which might also not be attractive - it might be that the premises would not even be available after Dr Sarma leaves.

It appears that Dr Sarma operated under a specific contract which allowed him (and required him) to appoint a partner to take over his practice if he chose to retire - which is, if I understand earlier posts, the method by which he himself took up this practice. He appears not to have done this - and since GPs are private contractors into the NHS (they are not directly employed by the NHS) there is little the NHS could have done - they don't themselves 'own' the practice, nor do they have staff they could appoint into it if Dr Sarma did not chose to continue the practice via an 'inheriting' partner. This is not like being a doctor employed by a hospital, where when one leaves, another can be appointed. GPs have always been private individuals contracting with the service to provide health cover - either individually (i.e. Dr Sarma) or in partnerships. The NHS has been told by the other private contractors in the area that they have capacity and desire to absorb Dr Sarma's list. What else could they (the NHS) have done?

I suppose the question must be, what alternative use is being considered for this surgery (where it is, that is)? It is very clearly a moot point whether the area is sufficently provided for by NHS doctors - reading this forum would certainly bell that cat. There are issues about small (single or dual) practices - and the level to which they provide effective services, I have noted elsewhere that since Dr Shipman these have been looked on askance by the powers that be. But the view that Dr Samar's whole list can be readily and seamlessly absorbed by existing practices seems naive.

Just out of interest, feudalism is, technically, the holding of land (a feudum or feof, also spelled fief) in return for military service, a system introduced by the Normans, although somewhat similar to Saxon thegn-age. William determined that all the land that he had conquered was 'owned' by him and held from him by his tenants-in-chief, in return for military service, they in turn might 'sub-let' holdings to their tenants for military service. Those working on the land came with it. The military service owed might be commuted to money (scutage - from the money necessary to buy a scutum or shield) - but the service was always determined in the 'currency' of armed support. The system was alsways flawed and subverted, ut the theory, that men swore fealty to their lord, getting revenues (land and revenues were seen as identical) in return for sworn (armed) service. Even bishops and abbots held land in this way.