Penguin68

Pearson wrote And you should always run your proposal past the local authority in the first instance just to cover any issues over questions like this. I would say this is absolutely vital - if you do so, and at a fee, you will be given a Lawful Development Certificate which will confirm to any future buyer that your extension was kosher - which their solicitor will certainly require. Without it, (and the local authority records which support it) if/ when you come to sell your house you could be in real difficulties. One caveat on what Peason said - 'original' doesn't actually mean that - there is a cut-off date (1947 I have just discovered) before which changes to the property are deemed to be 'original' - I had this issue with a 1920s built garage on an Edwardian property - because it appeared in a post-war (1951) Ordinance Survey map (but wasn't in a 1916 map, and we could show that such building had to be pre-war as just post-war all building material was devoted to repair and new build of bombed properties and thus wouldn't have been available for a garage, the garage was deemed to be 'original' for the purposes of permitted development. I quote from an e-mail from the planning department to me:- Although this does not date back to 1947 as legally required, we will accept this as proof of an existing addition for the purposes of your Lawful Development Certificate. Edited for typos

Loft extension over the back of the house (i.e. the outrigger) tends to be much more sympathetic to the property than extensions over the front part, which can look weird and make the roof line unaesthetic. Although permitted developments don't need individual planning permission the planning department can now require certain conditions, including not allowing extensions where the materials planned to be used are seemed to be unsympathetic to the house being built on. And they can be very strict about roof lines. The days of cheap black porter-cabin extensions sitting like black-death boils on the fronts or front sides of Victorian houses are now, thankfully, generally past, although there still are extant 70's versions sadly with us. But black slate clad extensions over houses with existing slate roofs are clearly in sympathy with the original house (and I don't have one of those, in case you feel this is special pleading!).

When Sainsburies were open 24/7 they did not have a 24 hour licence to sell booze, so that section used to be sealed-off, if memory serves.

Permitted development allows an extension to the overall volume of the property up to a given %age limit (with certain caveats, e.g. about not going higher than existing roof-lines etc.). However the'start' size of the property is taken to be the size at (I am guessing here, but it's broadly right) about the war period, perhaps 1950. So any extension work done post this counts towards total permitted development. If there had already been kitchen extension work done (i.e. in the 1980s) that would 'take-up' some of the permitted development allowance. Equally where the 'outrigger' was already large, the amount of 'new' space gained by building over it may also be above the 'permitted' amount. 'Permitted' development simply means that it meets the rules and doesn't therefore need specific planning permission - i.e. to go before the planning committee. You can still apply (through the more cumbersome and costly) planning permission route for your extension. Each house is taken at its own merits, based in part on its previous history of development. You may have been refused 'permitted' development, and someone else allowed, on the same design but with different histories (or cubic footages) being taken into account. There were problems of interpretation when the new rules came in, some councils for instance allowed 'squared off' roofs but wouldn't allow mansard roofs, for no obvious reason - but most of these have now been overcome.

Strange then that at many local (SE London) farmer's markets I always seem to find varieties of olives - I hadn't noticed the massed olive groves out there in Kent.

The duster and tea-towel sellers are in Underhill Road - the lad who knocked at my door was entirely polite and pleasant when I said I didn't buy at the door - wished me a good evening and called me sir. I felt quite sorry for him - so the set-up is working for them. But do remember that they work for a gang-master and the quality of what they sell is generally dreadful.

The cost of the Royal family is ?0.62p a person, a year, according to the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10507329 That is not a huge amount by anyone's standards - not that I will be watching the wedding or participating in celebrations of it, but fair do's.

Are you sure it is the SE London Lordship Lane? - there is also a Lordship Lane in North London I believe.

There is a legitimate (Geordie) fish seller (quite a tubby bloke if I recall) who does sell round ED and does have a van - he calls round no more than every couple of months, and I haven't bought from him for a long time (always turns up when I already have a food for that day, and no plans for fish the next). When I did buy the fish was OK, but not that exciting (or, frankly, as outstandingly fresh as I was expecting). Of course modern trawlers (except for the smallest) now freeze on board, so 'freshly landed' in Hull might mean caught several days/ weeks previously and immediately frozen.

Louisiana wrote Though by the age of 5, you are certainly aware that something is wrong I entirely agree - it was the two year old 'victims' I was writing about - by 5 children are normally well aware when something is wrong, can certainly feel very upset and threatened by it, and are very likely to remember it, as you have done, although sometimes if sufficently traumatised (not a good thing) they may supress the memories. I was flashed at at about that age, but I was more surprised and amused (the flasher was known about locally and was sad rather than threatening) - many of my friends had already been flashed at by him, I was quite glad I wasn't being left out. And it was at a distance (perhaps 10 yards or so) - he leaped out in front of me, flashed, then disappeared running off into bushes - so I was never close to him when he did it.

The psycho-pathology of flashing is, I suspect, somewhat complex, but may broadly be grouped into 3 areas (of which I have personal experience, as a recipient, not a participant) of the first two. ? Flashing as an act of aggression/ misplaced ?humour? ? frequently the flashers are drunk young men, and the act falls into broadly the same category as ?mooning? ? not essentially sexually motivated but a ?display? action of young adults showing their power ? may also (wrongly) be seen as a ?humorous? act (a way of showing off and making friends laugh) ? Flashing as a fetish act where the process of exposure offers some form of sexual gratification. This group (in my experience rather sad, elderly men) are quite catholic in their choice of victim ? it is their own exposure and humiliation which is the sexual trigger for them, they have made a fetish of their personal exposure. As exposure is their trigger these may well not go any further than flashing. ? Flashing where the person being flashed is the fetish object. Here the choice of victim (child, young adult, elderly person) is very careful ? and it is the person being exposed to who is the fetish object ? it is these in particular where the escalation being discussed on this thread is most likely and dangerous. The somewhat flippant response I posted above is particularly relevant to the first of these typologies.

I very much doubt whether children under 2 would be very much upset by the sight of a flasher, though they would clearly be upset if their mother appears herself upset, responding to her mood and distress. Very young chidren do not know enough about life to be worried about things they see (and they certainly wouldn't be aware of the implicit sexual aggression indicated by flashing). Psychologists anyway have argued that most people do not have memories which go back beyond the age of three (those that think they do often have memories of being told about things that happened earlier, or having seen early pictures of themselves) - it's a function of the memory re-organsing itself and (virtually) re-setting at the age of 3 or there-abouts. So I wouldn't worry about the impact of flashers on very young children - there shouldn't be any. The standard response, by the way, by adults, of being flashed should be - "My, that looks just like a p***k - only smaller!".

If cooked chicken smells bad then it is definitely off and shouldn't be eaten. However where fresh chickens are stored in heavy duty plastic bags (not shrink-wrapped in cling film onto a tray) then, on occasion, you will get a smell when you open the bag. This is the smell of an inert gas which is a pumped into the bag - let the chicken stand in the open for a few minutes - if it then still smells it may be off, but you may notice the smell dissipate - in which case it is likely to be the effect of gassing. You will find this often with turkeys, but also with large chickens which can be packed in this way, particularly at Christmas. We are of course now quite used to fresh un-cooked meat not smelling of anything much, and can get upset when we notice that it does smell, but meat smelling is normal, particularly at room temperature. It is when it smells actively rotten (unless it is game and you like it that way) that you may need to be careful.

Although the government seems to want to criminalise gang membership (and so being a member of a gang alone will qualify you for 'guilt') in fact someone who is injured or killed and is also a gang member is still a victim, and, as regards the particular incident very possibly an innocent victim, in that they did not start or contribute to it - unless you subscribe to guilt by association - and then it's just a matter of how wide you want to draw that association - in the middle part of the last century some people drew assocations pretty wide so as to ascribe guilt and absolve themselves of crimes against the innocent. Young people go about in groups, sometimes those groups are marked by special clothing or insignia (I remember the Bay City Rollers and what their fans looked like) - if someone wearing one insignia (or linked to one group) injures or murders someone wearing a rival insignia (or linked to a rival group) this does not make the victim necessarily any less innocent than a baby in a pram killed by a random shot. To suggest that either of the boys injured or murdered over the weekend was in some way complict in the attacks on them - until we know very clearly the circumstances, is frankly awful.

I lost a card in a machine in Sainbury's at DKH during working hours - the Sainbury's people told me that they couldn't retrieve it (they have no access to the cash machines). I cancelled it immediately and I have no reason to suppose it was attempted theft but just an ATM malfunction - however note that unlike banks during working hours (who normally can access their machines for card problems) non-bank sited ATMs cannot be accessed by their 'landlords' - so even if you lose a card during working hours you are best immediately cancelling it if it is lost in a non-bank sited ATM, even where you do not have any suspicions about the 'look' of the ATM.

I have heard several quite different versions of the events we are discussing, some at least from people who actually know some of the people at least peripherally involved. Until the sequence of events is clear and agreed (and that may not be until there is a trial) almost all suggestions being made are well meaning but necessarily based on poor/ no information. There is little point in discussing solutions until the problem can be sufficientyly defined. As I said in an earlier post, tragically at times very bad things happen and they cannot always be anticipated or planned for - I suspect that every weekend there are teenager's parties all over ED, with many of the same players as were at this one; normally these do not end in this sort of way. This one did, and I am sure that with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight vision we could determine how this particular one might have been avoided. Which does not mean to say that a future tragedy, somewhere else in London or outside, could be avoided in the same way. In the end this sort of crime is committed by people, inevitably individual and unique, whose response to particular events is again individual and unique. Nothing we can reasonably do will mean that next time, different people will not respond in different and unexpected ways. If we were to stop parties in ED, or ban teenagers from ED, or fill the neighbourhood with patrolling policemen, still bad things would from time-to-time happen, somewhere. We stop it, perhaps, by changing the way people think about themselves and each other - but over a (long) time, and not by whingeing on a forum like this.

Paul 32A - I assume to be laughed at... thanks but no thanks

In my experience remarks disappear (of course, I've only seen some which have later disappeared, I haven't seen all those which have vanished) if they breach the law (incite racial hatred, are clearly libellous, may fall into contempt-of-court's space etc.) if they are clearly and gratuitously offensive without breaching the law or if they are entirely off-topic and could derail what is otherwise a focused discussion - i.e. should probably have been started as a thread in their own right. Sometimes linked remarks also get removed, even when not meeting any of these criteria where their continued presence (when what they are responding to is gone) would just be confusing. Humerous remarks don't get excised gratuitously, but where humour becomes the order of the day some threads on this forum are (quite properly) lounged. I would suggest that censorship and editing (although sometimes achieving the same ends) are driven by quite different motives. I see no evidence of censorship (but of course, as I have said, I evidently don't see everything) although I do see evidence of sensible editing, removing material which doesn't belong (for the reasons cited above) in a public forum, or in specific threads on that forum. I write as someone who has reported material which I believe breached, in particular, legal boundaries.

It seems a sad commentary on modern times (assuming that the press report is accurate) that teenagers should go to a private birthday party apparently carrying at least one gun and one knife, and be prepared to use them.

Until we have any ideas what were the circumstances/ causes of this tragic event/ events (if the incident in the car park is related, which does seem likely) speculation as to some underlying 'cause' - particularly related to recent political decisions about future expenditure (none of which would have had any impact to date) seems very much out-of-place. Dreadful things can happen anywhere, and for a multiplicity of reasons. It is likely that people locally of similar ages to those injured/ murdered will be badly affected by these events, whether they knew the victims or not, as will parents of young people who habituate the area. They are going to need reassurance and support that this sort of incident is very unusual, not just here but anywhere.

I suspect that they are not prepared to dress as clowns and ring on doorbells in a traveller manner

All this was apparently kicked-off because local businesses wanted a magic wand waved and their incomes increased - as I have said in an earlier post bringing in a posh chain will not do this - James has noted that lots of chains want to come into Dulwich - which would entirely destroy the lcoal businesses, as these can afford higher rents and change the character of LL to just 'any-old-high-street'. The way businesses increase their income/ profit is to do things better and satisfy customers more. Local businesses could act more business like - there are a number of supports to SMEs (Small and Medium Enterprises) including subsidised consultancy - maybe those ones who wanted James to do something could make use of this support to see what they could do to improve themselves and their futures. Maybe a greater focus on customer service and what's called service surround might help.

James wrote: attending South Southwark Business Association meeting where I was asked by local traders how could we get more people spending their money in Lordship Lane businesses rather than the likes of Sainsbury's This is about (must be about) improving their own offer, not relying on bringng someone else in (who might just steal their trade), so, thinking of the 4 Ps of marketing (product, place, price, promotion) - place (LL) is a given - so they need to compete on product (including service surround), price and promotion. What service (product) could they offer? - well, they could work together to offer home delivery - that might get people spending more with them and they could optimise around one delivery service to support them all. They could offer joint promotions (buy from one shop, get a voucher to offer money off in another on LL) - they could offer special price deals to encourage higher levels of purchase and so on. Relying on someone else to come in and somehow change the market environment would be hugely dangerous, as it could well be changed to their significant disadvantage - they need to think about their own marketing - but by all means think cooperatively if they can work together to boost local trade. Clearly an attractor who didn't compete with any of them and could bring-in extra passing trade is a possibility, but for that to work effectively the infrastructure (particularly local parking) has to improve dramtically - to be honest the best use (in this instance) for the Dulwich Hospital site (if it isn't to be used for local health purposes) would be as a secure, low price multi-story carpark to encourage more people to come to LL to shop - not that I am actually advocating that.

Hugenot wrote:- but may be missing the fact that in Balham M&S Simply Food opened opposite Sainsbury so it's not a deal breaker. and I would entirely agree that if that was all ED had to offer it would be attractive - however add Sainsbury's for all the run-of-the-mill purchases (with its very handy parking) to the specialist shops which already exist in LL and you get a much stronger competitive position which Waitrose or M&S would have to break into. Dulwich and ED/ WD sit as a little affluent pimple on what is still - looking just slightly wider - a relatively low income/ high unemployment area in Southwark/ Lewisham. I am not sure what the numbers are that would support a 'local' high end supermarket, but I suspect that with what's already available for us to buy in (and would thus have to be shared) the numbers aren't strong enough. I do know that advisors to the John Lewis group (and, I suspect) M&S, do know about ED and Dulwich - when Margaret Thatcher moved here that would have triggered interest - they won't just rely on the census driven Acorn and Mozaic - so failing to single us out is probably not some strange oversight, but a considered decision. If I was one of the small, specialist shopkeepers or stall holders who serve this area - where you can buy good meat, fish, vedge, specialist grocery and cheese etc. etc. I would not be happy to see a local counsellor so keen to reduce my sales and profits, and possibly drive me away from the area. Almost certainly the benefits of increased passing trade visiting the posh shopping would be entirely off-set and more by lost trade to locals. And as someone who lives round here I am not that happy to see more drivers pulled in for posh-shopping into an already congested area - those who come at night for the restaurants etc. are much less intrusive than the day-time parkers, and have more space to park in once restrictions are lifted in LL.

This whole thread is quite bizarre ? supermarkets don?t arrive at locations by petition, for goodness sake. They are very careful in how they plan their locations, dependent on:- ? Demographics/ catchment area ? there must be sufficient customers in or regularly visiting the locale (passing trade) to justify investment. Despite some enthusiasm shown on this thread (and that?s mitigated by lack of enthusiasm) I am not sure that they would actually get the footfall. ? Existing (competitive) outlets ? ED?s existing good range of butchers, fishmonger, delicatessens, cheese shops etc. (plus DKH Sainsbury?s with good parking) all mean that they aren?t going to be coming into a desert as far as their product offers are concerned. Clearly they would take trade away from the existing outlets ? but exactly the sort of people who declare a liking for M&S and Waitrose also declare loyalty to good local shops. They would be entering a fiercely competitive arena, not the ?easy pickings; low hanging fruit? they would prefer to go for (and why not?). ? Impact on their own outlets (cannibalisation) ? how many EDers who would use these don?t already buy from either M&S or Waitrose when up in town? A local outlet loses those sales, even though overall sales might rise. But what would be the marginal increase? ? Availability of suitable (size/ position) locations ? all these shops have minimum sizes and take into account issues such as transport, parking when choosing them. There are very few sites in ED which would suit. So, this whole thread seems to miss the obvious point, which is that if we were such a good choice for these outlets, why aren?t they already here? There were better choices for them in the past, and as ED becomes more ?fashionable?, with increasing numbers of good, local, non-chain outlets it is increasingly a more difficult (and probably less profitable) market for them to enter. M&S only opened in the King?s Road only when the local shops had effectively collapsed (I was living there then) and only a rather poor Safeways offered competition? that, thank goodness, isn?t happening here