ed_pete

No points, unless you can show your working out UG.

2

This is dreadful from Southwark on Instagram. Advertising the Garden Waste service as ?only ?25? like it?s a supermarket bargain of the week. Firstly it?s only ?25 for the first year and secondly how many of those ?25?s have paid for this advert ?

Top end just past the junction with Court Lane, where once stood the Fire Station.

How often do you eat out Lou, and how often locally ? If you feel forced to indulge in pizza then I feel likewise about curry about which I can honestly say I haven't partaken of on LL in over 15 years.

Not sure a Megaflow would make any difference. They're only as good as the incoming pressure/flow rate and the below site recommends a minimum of 1.5 bar & 20 l/m http://www.megaflo-unvented.co.uk/megaflo-installation.php Maybe try calling Billy Hunter - he gets a lot of recommendations on this forum for boiler installations and as he works locally he may be able to suggest a solution to your low pressure. /forum/read.php?30,1321936,2031100#msg-2031100

Agreed. I've seen no change in drivers attitudes (including my own) to the 20mph limit and police numbers are too thin to bother. Interestingly the City of London Corporation are proposing a 15mph limit. https://londonist.com/london/transport/city-speed-limit-15mph

Thames Water are supposed to guarantee a minimum of 1 bar pressure. Their code of practice says "As a guide, your first tap in your home, usually your cold kitchen tap, should be able to fill a 4.5 litre (1 gallon) bucket in 30 seconds with all the other taps and appliances turned off." https://www.thameswater.co.uk/-/media/Site-Content/Thames-Water/Help-and-Advice/Customer-Commitment/Codes-of-practice/Your-water.pdf

ZT - my comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I'm sure that this is simply a corporate response to (a) the blocking of the Asda merger, (b) falling market share to the likes of Lidl and Aldi. I have every sympathy for those elderly or disabled customers who would find this service difficult to use. Personally I have used Sainsbury's online service for about 5 years now and although not perfect - and not suitable for everyone - it works for me.

James - I'm not looking for a conspiracy but this really stinks from my perspective. The street-by-street data was available for the collation of the consultation report but someone must have decided it shouldn't be included. No reason creditable reason has been given. It was made available to yourself and the other councillors and you have used it to make your recommendations. Concerns about data protection were used as an excuse for not releasing the information to the public to enable them to counter your proposals, concerns that must now be seen as false on the basis that this information - though we do not know in what form - will be included in Richard Livingstone's final report.

James - so you originally said that the street-by-street CPZ data couldn't be made public because of "due to data protection concerns." Now you say it is to be included in the final report. I don't get this. It looks as though you are deliberately withholding information that will be released after the recommendation has been made so that you can make your argument unchallenged. It's also interesting that your recommendation of the "East Dulwich Grove Area" rather than the "Melbourne Grove Area" was made partly on the basis that "it contains a group of roads where most residents oppose controlled parking", to quote your article in SE22 magazine. You have yet to demonstrate the group of roads west of the Melbourne Grove / EDG junction have a majority in favour. As I have said before, in that area we have a group of roads where we have 4 for, 6 against and 4 undecided. Hardly a majority.

ZT - do you still sit in your car at filling stations and wait for the attendant to come and put the fuel in ?

Loutwo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It seems our local historic ties with > Indian/Bangladeshi eateries is slowly coming to an > end. A heritage going back over 40 years now. If > we continue to lose these cherished stalwarts of > LL it will be the beginning of the end. "Historic ties", "Heritage", "Cherished stalwarts"....Wow ! You been on the vino again ? Keep up the hyperbole though, it's brightened the end of a pretty crap week.

Keep trolling trying.

From the TW website it seems that they can now force people to have a meter whether they want one or not. What legal powers do you have to fit the meter? We have the right to fit meters under the Water Industry Act 1991 section 162, under our Resources Management Plan for 2015 - 2040. This act grants permission for water companies to meter domestic premises on a compulsory basis in areas which have been determined by the Secretary of State to be of serious water stress (this includes our region). We will always try to fit your meter outside where we can. However, in some cases this may not be possible, so we?d need to fit your meter inside your property. We will make an appointment with you to do this. As Foxy says they're now fitting smart meters which transmit their readings hourly (seems excessive). Unclear how they are powered but given they expect to fit most in the street then it wouldn't rely on the domestic power supply. @Foxy - I have a 4 adult household which showers and baths daily and use a washing machine and dishwasher regularly and I water my garden occasionally. I have a meter and I pay less than you are so I would have thought you could make a significant saving.

0/10, must try harder.

James - you wrote: "Yes our recommendations are based on a fuller set of information than is currently (un)available publicly. This is due to data protection concerns. " I assume that you meant unavailable. As someone that works with personal data and is familiar with Data Protection legislation I would like to understand exactly what the "concerns" are and why they are preventing the information being made public. I am not asking for the details of individuals. All I am asking for is the for/against/undecided numbers for each street in your proposed area. How does revealing that cause data protection issues ?

@golilocks: To quote an earlier post from someone within the Herne Hill/North Dulwich CPZ. "It does deter commuters. I live in the Herne Hill/North Dulwich CPZ and since we've had a CPZ introduced in April 2016 we can park in our own street after having terrible parking problems due to Lambeth introducing a CPZ near Ruskin Park." So it seems the commuters that were parking near Ruskin Park - possibly because they need to work at KCH or use Denmark Hill station and as a result of the Lambeth CPZ moved out to other nearby streets where there wasn't a CPZ. The result: another CPZ. "in the scheme of the costs of owning and using a car, its unlikely to be a significant number who would value the saving over the convenience." I beg to differ and because James is unwilling to share the numbers we'll never know.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JohnL Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Poll shows (as well as some Brexit party gains) > large Liberal Democrat and Green gains in > London. > > > > I still suspect there's a lot of "Don't Knows" > in > > the raw data. > > The Lib Dems and Greens do not have many Policies > of their own. > They are both just against most of the Polices of > other parties. Or you could say that the other parties are just against the policies of the LD's and Greens. What piffle.

There is no mention of the brown bags in the leaflet so my presumption is that they may collect them but once you've run out that's it. Not sure that the libraries will want to take on the admin of selling the bags in future.

Stopping the brown bag collection is stupid. I only have a small garden and cannot justify the space/usage for brown bin and use maybe a dozen or so bags a year. Now I will either have to borrow space in a neighbours bin or take them to Devon Street. Madness. (BTW I already have a compost bin).

James, you say that ?the majority of people in the area I have proposed above want a CPZ on their road too.? The information on how many voted in favour or against from each street is not available in the consultation report so is it something only available to a select few ? Why has it not been publicly disseminated ? Are you making recommendations based on information that isn?t in the public domain ? Did the majority of people in the Glengarry/Tarbert/Thorncome/Trossachs/Hillsborough/ East Dulwich Grove and East Dulwich Grove Estate vote in favour of the CPZ ? What are the numbers ? For those that live in the East Dulwich Grove Estate, on which road were they voting for the CPZ to be created, as their streets are pedestrianised. You say that your proposal has "boundaries which make sense." Make sense to whom exactly and on what basis ? You have already divided one road into two - Melbourne Grove and excluded the part (South) that is both closer to the Station and the School and Health Centre than other roads that are included. You are also no doubt aware that 2 hour operation times doesn't deter commuters. They simply set an alarm on their phones for the time the 2 hour window starts and pay by text from work. This happens all the time in Herne Hill/North Dulwich where there is a CPZ.

James - for some reason you have emphasised that residents were asked if they want a CPZ on their road as if this is the way the CPZ will be implemented. It seems to me that you are making this point to deflect from the fact that overall, in the consultation area the majority of residents voted against the CPZ a significant point which you choose not to mention at all in your summary. However as we know, your recommendation is not on a street-by-street basis, it is based on a selective area where you have managed to find a majority in favour. Your area includes the streets to the west of the East Dulwich Grove junction with Melbourne Grove, near the new Charter School and Health Centre. According to the consultation the results for these streets are as follows: East Dulwich Grove - against Glengarry Road - undecided Trossachs Road - for Tarbert Road - for Thorncombe Road - undecided Hillsborough Road - against East Dulwich Estate - 2 for, 4 against, 2 undecided, 2 no response. So in total we have 4 for, 6 against and 4 undecided. Hardly a majority. Within the East Dulwich Estate, on the side closest to the railway, there is a large area for residents parking between the estate and the railway line fence. I walk through here regularly and there are always parking spaces available. So, were we to discount the responses from those streets within the East Dulwich Estate on the railway line side where here is adequate free parking provision, then we have 2 for, 6 against and 4 undecided. How, on that basis is that representing the residents desire for a CPZ ? Furthermore, how can you exclude Melbourne Grove South ? part of which is closer to the new Health Centre than the above streets - and include those above ? Surely visitors Health Centre visitors will soon realise that they can park for free there and you will suffer the classic displacement ? I look forward to your response.

Same here and the council marked them with double yellows in the recent CPZ consultation pack.

/forum/read.php?20,1960283,1960283#msg-1960283