Penguin68

I'm afraid from fora like this.

I would hate to think this thread encouraged anyone to get rid of their tumble-down front garden and replace it with concrete or asphalt. Gravel over membrane, yes, brick loose laid over sand, yes, but please don?t tidy things up so that you get run-off and soil drying. I'd rather see untidy beds and eroded grass than an impervious parking space.

home owners / tenants who don?t know There are quite different obligations on tenants and home owners (including leaseholders). There are many landlords who would be very happy for tenants to be undertaking, on their own budgets, remedial work which is the landord's responsibility. One of the arguments made by the Thatcherites was that selling council houses to their tenants would get them to become house-proud. I can quite understand why a tenant would not want to invest in something from which they cannot get a return. Who are you to argue about where to point what may be scare resources? I would go for investment inside the house (which is what I see everyday) before investment on the outside to please the sensibilities of passers by. I would 'invest' in my children's needs before I worry about what the neighbours (or strangers) think. There are of course issues about health hazards - where household waste in the garden attracts e.g. rats etc. - but I don't think that is the driver for this thread - it's about wanting others to spend money so that your sensibilities are placated. Of course 'pretty' front gardens are nice to walk past, and I am very happy with what my general neighbours do in my neck of the woods - and, at a certain level of untidyness it can impact general house prices and saleability - but the front gardens I see in ED, in general, may (some of them) be unkempt, but are not screaming eyesores. (In fact the worst front gardens are those where the house is in the throes of extensive and expensive makeover - where they are often effectively building sites!).

I think the point which was being made was that the stretch of Underhill which was resurfaced was one of the few where there were no potholes or surface break-up - the issue isn't about applying funds to resurface roads, but about resurfacing (first) those bits of road which are already damaged and then (if money remains) undertaking precautionary work before troubles arise. The 'wastefullness' is about fixing what isn't broken before fixing what is.

We have had an appallingly wet winter - had I planned exterior work (i.e. painting, re-pointing etc.) I would have been putting it off from about mid October! (And anyone booked in to do it would have postponed, particularly any first floor or above work in the almost constant winds) The early spring (mid-March) is often the worst time to look at house exteriors - they are just coming out of a time when weather damage occurs most frequently, and when remedy is least advised. Having said that, even during this winter there has been quite a lot of activity going on around me in the odd gaps between storms.

I was in Nunhead cemetery this afternoon, saw, at almost the apex of a tree, a parrot or macaw like bird - body and head much the same colour as our parakeets, but appeared about 1/5-2 times the size, with a very distinct red beak and a tail with blue feathers almost as long as the body. I am (very) used to the parakeet mobs which we see regularly, this had a different call, was I think significantly larger, was on its own - is there any news of an escaped parrot? - Clearly it had got to the top of the tree, but didn't look too keen on flying. There were carrion crows about, but they weren't mobbing it. I did try to photograph it - but frankly my phone camera wasn't up to the job re detail at that distance. I see the parakeets in Camberwell old cemetery - they tend to go about in bunches and often perch on the main trunks of trees - this bird was clearly a branch percher. I had two witnesses with me and had not had a liquid lunch!

Just a heads-up to anyone driving (or particularly cycling) down Whately Road this afternoon, there is an orange cover over a skip which isn't properly secured and is blowing into the path of oncoming traffic. Nobody appears to be working at the moment (they may be on a lunch break) on the house outside of which the skip is 'parked'.

The stretch of Underhill resurfaced last week was certainly one of the bits in better repair (no pot-holes or 'flaking') - but I note that the old 3 speed humps (3 of them) were replaced by long (pavement to pavement) sleeping policemen - maybe changing the speed constraints was the trigger?

Just out of interest I, and most of the other 'doesn't effect me' posters have been clear to state that we recognise that those who are worried by the perceived noise are not lying, are not 'making up' their response to what they see as noise - but we are saying that the noise isn't worrying us - even if most of us say that if we concentrate we can be aware of planes overhead. So, people wanting less noise at 4:30 in the morning, when most of us are asleep and not being disturbed by aircraft noise are, possibly, in a minority. That is not to say that the poster isn't disturbed by the noise, just that people who do not share ths disturbance (in ED) may well be in a majority. We don't feel your pain, but are happy to accept that you do. I have not accused anyone of being 'delusional' - I have suggested that there may be self-help remedies available to mitigate the very real percieved effects of aircraft noise. Delusional would be to start a thread complaining about excessive elephant trumpeting in ED keeping me awake.

Often buses can run quite empty one way (as do tubes or trains) and quite full back - they have to do a relatively empty 'out' route to cope for 'back' passengers (or vice-versa). On the longer routes I have noticed that buses can fill and empty along the way, as different populations are served - and of course as buses near their terminal (assuming that it is not a natural 'destination' spot like bits of central London) they will again empty. I very much doubt if TFL run pointless bus routes, or at least not for very long (assuming a sudden change in travel patterns along a particular route).

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Presumably some of the well-balanced, > non-obsessives will be attending tomorrow's > meeting to advise on cbt, etc.? ROFL > > I doubt it - if you don't care, you don't care > enough to attend meetings. EXACTLY! So why interfere? Trolling? Busybodying? Vandalism? I don't care about the noise, I do care about people obsessing about the noise, and like many I was suckered in by the title - 'have your say' and stayed because I didn't want a general silence in the critique area otherwise to be read as silent endorsement of what I suspect are quite minority (if very strongly held) views. Perhaps the OP should have entitled the thread - 'I hate aircraft noise in ED, only contribute if you agree with me' - and then we would have known to stay away.

I have posted the comment below on the thread relevant to recent resurfacing work in Underhill road, but post it here as well as James has shown an interest in this. Although on (the other side of) the borders of his patch it may have knock-on into his. Work on restoring the road humps never progressed past the first one (closest to Belvoir) leaving two more, scheduled to be done today, undone. Work stopped mid-morning. I assume that if it is started again tomorrow it will (again) interrupt the bin collection - making life more difficult for what most of us think of as vital workers. And if it isn't, then parking will have been blocked on the road (in anticipation of the humnp work) for an extensive time. I do wish the council and their contractors (Conway, of course) could get their acts together. They 'repair' the only part of Underhill which wasn't actually broken (no pot holes), they disrupt their own waste services on at least one day, if not two, and they discomode people living and parking locally, without ever giving anyone individual notice of their intentions. Just because of recent inclement weather conditions, it isn't a requirement that they be such a shower.

Work on restoring the road humps never progressed past the first one (closest to Belvoir) leaving two more, scheduled to be done today, undone. Work stopped mid-morning. I assume that if it is started again tomorrow it will (again) interrupt the bin collection - making life more difficult for what most of us think of as vital workers. And if it isn't, then parking will have been blocked on the road (in anticipation of the humnp work) for an extensive time. I do wish the council and their contractors (Conway, of course) could get their acts together. They 'repair' the only part of Underhill which wasn't actually broken (no pot holes), they disrupt their own waste services on at least one day, if not two, and they discomode people living and parking locally, without ever giving anyone individual notice of their intentions. Just because of recent inclement weather conditions, it isn't a requirement that they be such a shower.

Presumably some of the well-balanced, non-obsessives will be attending tomorrow's meeting to advise on cbt, etc.? ROFL I doubt it - if you don't care, you don't care enough to attend meetings.

Yes, democracy and community involvement are such a nuisance when you want to get yuor investment plans through quickly. It is an unfortunate paradox that all the elements (necessary) of a democratic and fair approach to planning, which inevitably involve (particularly with major developments) substantial amounts of time, inevitably also lead to, and exacerbate, 'planning blight' I can see no obvious way of squaring this circle - but some areas are almost constantly the focus of different plans, (if one fails, like buses, another one will there shortly) which can sequentially blight an area for a substantial period. Perhaps there should be a 5 year rule - no new plan for an area can be put forward within 5 years of the last being abandoned, unless a significant majority of those living in the area declare differently).

I don't think anyone is denying the the planes are either there, or that they are not silent. Whenever I write on this thread,I listen out and hear planes - the point is that when I am not thinking about them, which is most of the time, I don't notice them. And I am sure (and I think the stats show) that the amount of traffic overhead has not changed dramatically over time, I certainly remember watching planes overhead 25 years ago (and more) when I moved here first. So I think it is worst when you are 'plane-aware' - which is a state of mind. And a state of mind which the comparatively small number of sympathetic posters (compared with the ED Forum 'population') suggests may not be that widely shared - at least among ED Forum-ites.

but really I do not understand the need to have dedicated 'parent & child' parking. I think the point is to give cars greater clearance on side opening doors to allow children (small) to be more easily and safely moved in and out, without crashing the door against another closer parked car. It's a practical, rather than a 'priority' discriminatory practice. Of course, these wider spaces for children-bearing cars could be put at the back of the car park...

Considering some of the (surprising) negativity on this thread, perhaps 'The Rotzy' would be best

No decisions have been brought to the Dulwich Community Council to remove traffic calming measures from Underhill Road or other local roads. The road has now been marked up suggesting that the humps will be replaced on 17th March - 6 days after the initial resurfacing.

I wrote:- As I feared, the brown bin collection was not completed as (I assume) there was a clash of vehicles between Conway and Veola. The good news is that there was a catch-up collection the following day - apparently with the road on lights, and only one carriage-way available the bin men realised that they couldn't proceed without causing significant traffic problems. But simple liaison bewtween the roads and the environmental departments could have avoided this clash.

I dont mind the erratic hours I think the hours are less erratic than limited - although his month-long summer holiday is quite an extendable feast.

The talks are also good - they run a film club there as well (although the Bigger Picture, monthly in the EDT is better - though this may be a biased comment) and they also host (from time to time) plays, concerts and even opera. It's a jewel in Dulwich's (Village, East and West) crown. And if you haven't, check out the Horniman as well. Both were up last year for Museum of the Year.

The current debate on this thread bears no resemblance to its title (apart from an occasioal, ironic refrence). If this isn't now a Lounge exchange, what is?

Kim would probably second that - he appears entirely comfortable with the customers he has, and doesn't seek more. When he is publicly praised (e.g. in interviews with local celebrities) he gets quite annoyed. I admire his work-life balance ethos.

The lines outside my house and the two houses either side have definitely been extended. I have now checked and the lines at my end have the cross-piece of the T bar in line with the start of the curb drop (the small slab which slopes) - as they always have - but I have noted that further up towards Belvoir the T cross does seem to be positioned some way in to the adjacent, undropped, curb for some houses. That may account for the 'loss' of unmarked parking space. I have always taken the view that the key parking rule is not to park actually over the dropped element (the lines are only advisory) so as not to block entry or exit from drives - so the postioning of the lines, even if apparently extended, should not, in fact, act as any curb to parking which does not block drives.