Penguin68

OK - just pure speculation here, to make a point - but, what if he had been crying for help because he wanted another drink, or another fix, or someone to give him a job, or a home, or his wife back? There are so many reasons to cry for help - that's why I suggested that if someone who had had the time could listen to him it might help. But until you know the cause, you have no way of knowing the cure, and in some instances a cure isn't in anyone's gift. The proximate and immediate help you (society) can give someone in acute clinical depression (assuming that's what was the matter) is medical - once that's refused...

What part of (see emphasis) I called an ambulance and they arrived with the police and he refused to go to hospital didn't you understand. Whatever help he wanted, it apparently wasn't medical.

I complained to the emergency services and they said there is nothing we can do until he hurts someone You assume a benevolent society - I would be very worried if the mentally ill could be banged-up or sectioned at the say-so of coppers or passers by - of course sometimes it goes terribly wrong - but when someone is simply distressed, refuses help and isn't breaking the law then (I am very glad to say) there is nothing that anyone can be forced to do. Of course sometimes, if people have time, they may be able to help by listening - but a society when the well-meaning can interfere against the will of the interered with is quite a dangerous society. Individual freedom to be miserable without enforced hospitalisation is, broadly a good thing. Facilities shouod be available to help those who have decided they need it, but not to force 'help' on those who clearly don't want it. As I understand it, he could have got medical help if he had not refused that offered. The situation changes when an individual becomes a clear and immediate threat to themselves or others, but the process of 'sectioning' necessarily is complex and requires qualified medical (psychiatric) intervention.

OK, fair enough, collateral damage

And any innocent victims of this? How innocent? - either they knowingly are putting stolen petrol in their vehicle, or they are buying petrol 'off the back of a lorry' - again not the actions of an innocent. Or are you suggesting that the petrol thieves are stealing petrol and then annonymously donating it to the poor - a sort of Robin Hood collective?

The complexity of this junction (and the fact that it serves the nominal orbit route of the South Circular) would suggest that pedestrian crossing(s) be (1) offset from the juntion and (2) run as e.g. a pelican style crossing (working 'on demand' only). Although this would make the pedestrian route longer (for those approaching the crossing from the 'wrong' directions) it would offer safe crossing away from a complex traffic juntion and have less impact on traffic through rates. A crossing at (broadly) the Melford Road Junction (perhaps closing off the Overhill Crossing) would offer a reasonable crossing place closer to the junction whilst still serving the same populations as use the existing Overhill crossing. There are already lights on the other sider of the junction (past Underhill).

Just out of interest Food Banks are:- (a) staffed by volunteers (b) resourced (i.e materials handed out) through donations Which are both quite positive things to say about our society and © substantially exist to help out those who have been caught-out by unforseen circumstances - either through a sudden large non-discretionary expenditure or because they are in a transition status waiting for benefits to be paid. That is to say that they exist as a safetly net to catch those who are not being helped 'in the normal manner'. However good the welfare and benefits system is, there will always be anomalies and sudden emergencies. Efficient food banks are a valuable addition to the welfare and benefits system - and those who staff them (and who fund them through donations in cash and in kind) deserve thanks and praise. They are, in many ways, a symptom of a healthy, not a sick society. By all means rant on from the comfort of your internet mediated lives, but for those of us who have lived through 4 major down-turns - one of which, in the 1970s - was substantially worse than anything we have now, your fears of revolution are misplaced. What funds the welfare state is effective capitalism, of course there are examples where this has gone off the rails (and the market economy works on a long-run basis, with many short-term hiccups) and of course the 'too big to fail' banks need re-structuring - but remember that where a bank does really fail - there are a lot of little people (both those whose pension funds have invested, those who themselves have deposits and those who work in the banks) who would have been terminally burned by such a failure. It is the mark of a 'welfare state' economy that the hardships of the many can be shared (through taxation) across an even greater number to lessen their impact. Or would you have been happy to be paying less tax so that those whose pension funds had invested in RBS and BoS and those who had deposits with BoS and RBS should be beggarised and now be looking forward to a life of penury, and those who work in those banks would be unemployed and ditto? Bit of a run on food banks then, I would guess.

It is possible that what you heard were train track detonators - used to signal a train where track work is being undertaken on the line. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonator_(railway) use of these would be classed a 'operational railway problem' if, for instance, a number had accidently discharged together.

Many rats themselves are 'dirty' as many frequent sewers - although in 'leafy Dulwich' they are as likely to be living under patios and garden sheds. They are attracted by food, not dirt - so they fact that you have found one in your house says absolutely nothing about the cleanliness of the house. Where food is left about (i.e. half eaten pizzas in student houses) this may encourage mice - and most rodents can get into e.g. storage cupboards through gaps you wouldn't believe. If you have a dog (particularly of the terrier type) then any rat that visits is likely to be an opportunist, not a resident.

My daughter was mugged for her phone a few years ago in ED - it was in a poor condition- the back had been lost and the battery was held in by gaffer tape - the mugger handed it back and advised her to get her dad to buy her a new one - advice I chose not to take!

There are likely to be more 'injuries' than just to the very sad woman who chose (if she did) to jump - the driver and witnesses may also be victims - some train drivers never work again, as drivers, following this sort of incident. Those who are driven to kill themselves (if this was a suicide jump it certainly wasn't a 'cry for help') often have over-whelming reasons to do so - a 'recovery' with undoubtedly serious injuries and, presumably, the cause of the attempt still there, will hardly be easy, swift or indeed perhaps possible. Overall, an immensely sad occurrence, with very little chance of any positive endings. If RichJ's report of a jump is accurate (which I have no reason to doubt) then there is very little chance this was a tragic accident, which makes it worse for surviving family or friends, I would guess.

Building control do not undertake structural safety checks - they are there to make sure that correct/ specified materials are used - such as fire proofed panels and insulation depths and that the work done matches what is on the plans (for either a planning permission or a permitted development). They are there to check that building regs have been followed. They don't normally comment on the quality of the work done (but if the wrong guage RSJ was used they might notice, if it wasn't already boxed in, although they can require it to be exposed to check). The more they 'kmow' the builder's work (assuming it's been OK in the past), the less they tend to check (it's unknown and new builders who get the most scrutiny - not unreasonably). As long as the building work has been notified it's up to them what checks they make and when. If it hasn't been notified (this doesn't seem to have been) - and the work doesn't come under either planning permission or permitted development it's up to you - but you could employ your own structural engineer rather than the council's inspector. I am assuming that you are the owner of the property. If the builder has come with recommendations and is a member of the Master Builders Federation (or similar group) then you should be OK - the work should come with a guarantee. As far as selling is concerned, it's normally only changes which would require some form of consent (which isn't there) which could cause problems - otherwise buyers will tend to rely on advice fom their own surveyers. The council doesn't issue certificates of good work, just of lawfulness.

I think you will find that bees (honey and bumble) are not in fact protected (I wish they were) - there have been attempts to get them protected, but not effectively so far.

(and I see nothing wrong with a pound shop either) I see nothing wrong with 'a' pound shop (or even a couple) - but once your street is dominated by pound shops and charity shops (as I have said, look at some of the dead high streets in small sea-side towns) it is close to moribund. My point is that maintaining a false 50:50 ratio (and it is above that now, currently, it would appear) is a policy without thought. It is which shops, not how many, which are key to high street vibrancy. By the way, the very wonderful 'thingy' shop (A J Farmer) next to Callow Lockmsiths is, in my view, by no means a 'pound shop', even though it offers an excellent range and value (I am just a customer, and have no interest in it). Every High Street should have one of these.

James Specifics of any planning application (for whatever use) can be challenged - I still wish you to explain, or get your officials to, how a High St where, for instance, 30% of the 'retail' zoned sites were charity shops, pound shops or lying empty and unused is evidence of a high street 'doing well'. If you have a mixture (50:50 or whatever) of varied premises in a High Street all of which are vibrant, attract customers and so on, fine, that's probably 'doing well' - but I'd rather see some business going on than none, or 'low rent' businesses which tend to congregate in run-down areas. There is no magic ratio - to believe so and blindly act so is frankly stupid. I can understand that where the council owns property in a street and where it has competition for tenants then choosing what they believe to be an advantageous mix might be effective (though councils are not the first place I would be going to to look for effective business consultancy) but to force private owners of land only to use it in some way that the council approves of taking some ratio into account (this street has eateries, but not yours) is high-handed and unacceptable. Of course areas can be zoned for mixed retail, for industrial and so on, but once you allow a mixture of shops and restaurants then to favour incumbents over newcomers (which effectively you are by your 'policy') is to act anti-competitively - but then open market competition has hardly been the watchword of the ruling cliques in Southwark, has it? Don't try to confuse objections to specifics within an application (a roof top terrance apparently 'inches' - so I assume no more than 18 or so - otherwise your hyperbole would have been in feet) is a different class of objection to -'it's not a shop' which is what you have prayed in aid in your earlier post.

And I ask again 'what is your evidence for this?' You can add unsubstantiated policy criteria for planning decisions till you're blue in the teeth, but it doesn't validate them to include them. [And I don't recall as a voter being asked to consider this as something in my best interest?] As I have pointed out, we could have a high street full of pound shops and charity shops - this would presumably be a huge tick in your planning criteria policy box, and be a complete disaster for the area. And as soon as the planning gauleiters start to decide on applications based on the business of the applicant - 'I think we have enough Indian restaurants now, but we'll accept an application from a German one; we are now just looking for a haberdasher to move in to LL...' and so on you have madness arising. Certain types of business, betting shops, sex traders, perhaps you might take a view on, but really... In the end, if the people who live and visit here want a business - it will do well - if they don't, it won't. When politicians try to micro-manage market economies you can be pretty sure that disaster beckons. When they do it using wild guesses and groundless assumptions maskerading as 'policy' it will happen more quickly.

To preserve Lordship Lane as a shopping high street we need to keep at least 50% as shop units What is your evidence for this ratio? What counts as a 'shopping unit'? Poundstores? Charity shops? A high street with a preponderance of these 'shopping units' would not be a vibrant economic centre (visit many sea-side towns in Kent). The quality of what shops are there (a closed Iceland store v an open M&S?) and the 'support infrastructure' to those shops, which very much includes places to eat at and cafes are what makes a successful shopping area. If new eateries open and less successful ones close - then so be it. Maybe someone with a good shop idea will take up that space. What we absolutely don't need in LL is closed shop units, or ones with 'desparate' tenants - or shops converted into housing. The Wood Vale retail block is being partly turned into housing (two units gone already) - that's doing the remaining shops no favours at all.

Renata It is not the fact of the pollarding which is primarily at issue, I believe, but the timing. Most of us would accept that once trees are pollarded this needs to 'kept up' for the reasons you stated - but do do so in mid August (as I think happened in Barry Road) when the trees are in full leaf and at their most attractive seems unnecessary - either pollarding after leaf fall, or before leaf break, would not only be most suitable but also safest. Of course, that would mean the council has to sweep the autmunal leaf fall, but avoiding this cost by creating a tree wasteland in late summer does not appear to take any account of the amenity value of having trees in streets in the first place.

If the existing main roof has previously been extended i.e. loft conversion, dormers etc, then the volume of these additions has to be subtracted from the 40m3 allowance. If any extension work was done prior to 1948 this does not count towards the permitted development m3 limit - I had a pre 1948 garage extension which was discounted when I had a loft extension under permitted development. I think this also is taken into account for pre 1948 addition of dormers etc. to a structure. Remember that where part of a loft space is already being used, as long as that is within the original (or pre-1948) house 'envelope' that won't form part of any of the 40m3. This is new space - not newly used existing space. So (assuming a 45 degree roof slope), squaring off an existing sloping roof outrigger you could enclose within a new loft extension 80m3 of space, 40m3 existing and 40m3 new. Amended to put in correct 'base' date - triggered by later post

Apart from direct root damage most tree related subsidence or movement is caused by water table alterations - and removing a tree (if large enough) can have just as bad an impact as allowing one to grow - allowing the clays to waterlog and expand can also put pressure on house structures. Signs of cracking are as often related to the removal of trees as to their presence - although many signs of (mild) cracking do not signify immediate collapse but are 'perfectly normal'. Surveyors, when they see recent small cracks, often ask if a tree has been growing and was removed close to the property. It is to be hoped that the fashion for subsidence panic is beginning to wane.

Do remember that 'permitted developments' mean that they do not require formal planning permisison - there used to be rules about the %age of increased space which fell under permitted development, but I think these are now suspended, at least for outriggers. HOWEVER - there are still general rules, such as meeting building regulations as regards structure and insulation and fire safety as well as the limit on height (no higher than the existing roof ridge). So in order to give a certificate of permitted development (which any future buyer will need) the planning department does have to validate that it meets those additional rules, even though the development doesn't need to meet rules regarding planning permission, or go before a planning committee. 'Permitted' doesn't mean 'drive a coach and horses through every planning rule'. Different planning departments have different interpretations of the rules - so some will not allow mansard roofs under permitted development, for instance, others will.

Re the cherry - boughs of these can become brittle with age - in which case the best thing is canopy reduction (to reduce stress/ weight on the boughs) not wholesale removal. I would be far happier with tree management if we saw saplings being regularly planted out to mature so that very old trees could be removed leaving (quite) mature trees as replacements. One of the two (I am guessing sycamore) saplings planted out in Camberwell Old Cem has failed to go into leaf (the other, late, did leaf up) so this should probably be replaced now so that it can establish before autumn.

Renata In my experience trees are best examined for problems either in very late summer (when diseased or dying boughs are readily identifiable before the leaves on healthy boughs turn - for removal in autumn/ winter once the leaves have fallen) - or in early spring, when again boughs which have problems can be readily identified (as the leaves otherwise first break) - for immediate removal - in both cases boughs are removed when the trees are not significantly in leaf. Tree surgery in summer should be avoided except in the case of immediate (i.e. storm) damage. Similarly preventitive (rather than remedial) tree work to reduce canopy or to pollard is best conducted in autumn at leaf fall, or in winter. Apart from anything else, it is much safer to work on trees when there is little leaf canopy as the weight of falling branches during cutting is much reduced. This would reguire the council (1) to schedule tree examination and work sensitively and appropriately and (2) to make clear to contractors that only immediate safety work on trees in clear danger of imminent collapse should be conducted, say, between May and September - to maintain the amenity of the trees and to protect wild-life. At the moment, outwith any issues of over-ethusiastic safety work, the major complaints have been about innappropriate timing of work, without regard either to wild-life or to the amentity trees offer to residents (vide the aggressive pollarding last summer in Barry Road, when the trees were still at their most attractive).

They listen for the sound of running water - they go round at night, often, not just because it's a quieter time (to hear the water) but because you are much less likely to have a tap running at night. For those without meters (most of us, at the moment) there would be no way of examining water consumption anyway. Supply pipes in ED are pretty old, and road humps (and things bumping over them) can put stress on the pipes, particularly at joints. In 25 years I have had 2 supply pipe leaks - the first paid for by Thames as part of a deal, the second covered by supply pipe insurance - but Thames also paid an element of the cost. The second was in the joint from my supply side into the pavement stop cock - the first a pin-hole puncture in the (lead) pipe as it entered the house through the foundations. The second leak was a moot point as to responsibility - it was at the tenement/ pavement junction - not clear whether it was on my land or the public way. Neither leak gave any surface indication (and yes, I did see them,and they were certainly there as leaks, just not surface evident - which isn't surprising as pipes can be 4-6 ft down).

The mouths of herbivores tend to be cleaner, although e.g. rabbits can give you a nasty bite. Carnivores (and omnivores) mouth's carry an even wider range of nasties. But you are right - any wild animal bite needs immediate precautionary treatment.