sambobia

A surprise to read a poor review-but that's what the forum is all about. I'm a regular at kuki and have only praise for shingo, paula and Australian lady with long red hair-I've see them all churn out some amazing cuts and colours.

So, who indeed cut your hair?

I have complete faith that both paula and shingo will insist on rectifying your experiences.

A heads up to Urbanara. I ordered stuff for Christmas and impressed with quality of goods and service. I decided to return an item and they collect with no quibble. Nice.

Www.urbanara.co.uk

I've noticed caged chickens in a back garden. I wonder if they will attract foxes?

AlexC Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ah, the good old EDF. Someone posts something as

> they are feeling positive about the area that they

> live in and within minutes the vultures with a

> chip on their shoulder swoop in to rain on the

> poster's parade.

Spot on...and splendid metaphors -- vultures, chips, rain etc -- to boot.

For my money, ED is great as it is.

Yes, Ed is lovely. A London gem.

And many thanks to James Barber for all his hard work over the past year. I appreciate the work he puts in on the forum and think we would be poorer without it.

Thanks for the update, James. Sounds v sensible.

The 'nutters' remark is an unfortunate distraction from what is a perfectly sound idea. I'd estimate at least 50% of the passengers alight at ED during rush hour.

I suspect if the Lane is busy with locals, with a few hefty police patrolling, this will be deterrent enough.

Whereabouts on Melbourne Grove?

Sorry to hear about your unfortunate experience.

Atticus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Southwark council have said that the reason

> Landells got approval and Archdale didn't is

> because sometime during 2010(?), Southwark's

> interpretation of the rules changed

>

> "55 Landells Road, was made under a former and

> different interpretation of the General Permitted

> Development Order 2008"

That would account for the confusion. There are plenty of other cases, in addition to Landells, where a loft extension over the rear outrigger has been approved, in circumstances identical to Archdale.

Archdale have resubmitted their application, so it will be interesting to see what happens. Having made and adhered to one interpretation of the rules, Southwark would need a very strong case for switching to a different interpretation, thereby creating the inconsistencies mentioned above.

Like Shankley (and Atticus), now thoroughly confused. Atticus's case (as I understand it) concerns an extension to the original dwelling and a loft conversion (therefore, Classes a and b). I can find no part of the technical guidance which prohibits a loft conversion on a side return built as part of the original dwelling, even if this means raising the height of that (side return) roof.

Specifically, Class B, Technical Guidance:

'This provides permitted development rights for the enlargement of a house

consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof.'

And, again, Class B:

'Additions and alterations made to a roof to enlarge a house (e.g. a loft conversion or

the replacement of an existing flat roof with a pitched roof) will only be permitted

development if no part of the house once enlarged exceeds the height of the highest

part of the roof of the existing house.'

'The highest part of the roof of the existing house.' Confused? Er, yeah....

Congratulations. Thoroughly deserved.

Surely, Southwark have got it wrong. The technical guidance is quite explicit (p32): 'the highest part of the roof will be the height of the ridge line of the main roof'. The main roof, not a secondary, lower roof:

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/100806_PDforhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf

Additions and alterations made to a roof to enlarge a house (e.g. a loft conversion or

the replacement of an existing flat roof with a pitched roof) will only be permitted

development if no part of the house once enlarged exceeds the height of the highest

part of the roof of the existing house. If it does, planning permission will be required.

The highest part of the roof of the existing dwelling house will be the height of the

ridge line of the main roof (even though there may be other ridge lines at a lower

level) or the height of the highest roof where roofs on a building are flat.

Me too: in favour of Sunday opening.

pablogrande Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> One thing that would help a lot of the shops is a

> custmer service course, I can think of at least

> five I won't shop in due to poor attitudes.

Spot on. I have experienced woefully poor service on occasion in several ED independents, though consistently excellent service in others.

What I personally want is to preserve the existing integrity of the Lane, and its body of independent shops. These do much to give ED its neighbourly feel and, in my experience, often beat the supermarkets on quality and price.

This means opposing further supermarket expansion, aspirational and otherwise.

Pie, or possibly pies, for me. Does anyone know if she is there Thurs/ Fri?

I once saw one of these ATM recording devices, shortly after it was discovered. It was very well disguised -- I would never have realized it was there.

Comprised a grey piece of plastic which fits across the top of the ATM. In the centre was a minute hole, behind which was a camera connected to a mobile phone, presumably sending pin nos to the criminal who installed it. Amazing piece of kit, really.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> The latter yes, but it's pushing it to say there

> is no demand for an extened market on Saturdays -

> quite a few people on the thread have welcomed it

Yes, my reading of the thread is that the Saturday extension has broad support. Less so Sundays and weekdays.

Yep. Me too.

> I fully support the extension and the

> pedestrianisation, it's a fantastic

> asset to ED...

TonyQuinn Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Madger, I suspect the battle has already been

> lost....unfortunately Dulwich is no longer the

> Dulwich we fell in love with way back. It has

> become, and this is a fact, Clapham. When the

> Clapham hordes, and their friends at Foxton's

> turned up, then this is the logical conclusion.

Please God no!

Madger -- entirely agree. Great posts.

I wonder else can be done, beyond opposing the extension? Can the offending bars -- and only two are mentioned above -- have their existing late licences revoked? What would have to be done to bring this about?

...if you are going to do it, don't stay in ED. Move to Clapham.

I'd add a recommendation for Cliff: on time, honest, identified the problem, reasonable charge. Wouldn't hesitate to call again.

As entertaining as this little spat is, can we just clarify one point? Post-2012, ED station will have more trains per hour to LB? And this will apply at all times -- days, evenings, weekend?

chantelle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Your high demand, limited supply argument falls

> apart in light of the recent downturn - prices

> fell significantly despite high demand, limited

> supply and low interest rates.

Not really...There is a degree of short term volatility in property prices. ED property prices fell sharply in 2007 but have since recovered.

But don't confuse this with the underlying fundamentals. Supply is largely fixed. It cannot adjust, much, to rising prices. Demand in ED -- for all the reasons outlined above -- is high and likely to remain so.

Rising interest rates may curtail demand somewhat. Prices may fall. But set this against a fixed housing stock, an expanding, increasingly affluent population, and a taxation system which favours buying over renting etc. This is what drives the market.