ed_pete

.. And what are you going to do them. Sit back and admire the space?

MarkT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Then there is spin. If you've said no, your option > of whether it should operate all day or for 2 > hours is really not what you would like but rather > your least objectionable option, but the Report > implies support for the overall scheme: > "? 65% of respondents would like it to operate > Monday to Friday." > This really, really bugs me - questions 10 and 11 should have an explicit option for "No I do not want a CPZ" - very poor biased design of the questionnaire. I will use the "Other" to express my preference - "1 minute @ 3am on Dec 25th only" should cover it.

I am planning to submit a Freedom Of Information request to find out how much it's costing.

ianr Wrote: > Dr Gary Fuller of KCL Environmental Research > Group, was interviewed on BBC R4 PM programme > today. From which: > > "There's a calculation that's been done that says, > if you take one of the most modern wood-burning > stoves, > it's equivalent to driving about six of the most > modern heavy goods vehicles up and down your > road." Interesting that one of pro-CPZ lobby justifications is the basis it'll reduce pollution. I wonder how many own wood burning stoves ?. Accepted that they aren't used all year round though. It'd be interesting to know whether monitoring can tell the source of the particulates.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What is this consultation pack that people are > referring to ? Is it a hard copy delivered through > the letterbox ? > > How can I get a hard copy of the plans ? > > Does seem a very short consultation period .And > only ONE drop in session for non business people > ? > > My pack was delivered on Saturday but the same documents can be downloaded from here (separate ones for West Peckham and East Dulwich). https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-projects The consultation has now been extended to 7th Feb due to "due to late mail delivery of consultation information" - (Hmm..no surprise there then). https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/eastdulwichparking/

chazzle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > With these CPZs, is the permit specific to one > CPZ? So, if you live on the border between two, > you can only use one side? This could be a real > pain. Pretty sure that the answer is no. Your permit only allows you to park in your CPZ, not others. Not great for those that live close to the border or who have a need to park in another zone in Southwark.

Nah. Not yet. 2021 at the earliest. There is a new Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) that replaces the old Congestion Charge Zone and you have to pay extra if you car doesn't meet certain emission standards. In 2021 the plan is to extend the ULEZ to the North and South Circular boundary. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2017/april/gla---mayor-plans-to-introduce-ulez-in-april-2019 ETA - cross posted with Spencer

rendelharris Wrote: > Can we please stop calling cyclists dangerous when > they add no danger to the environment at all; the > only thing that makes the roads dangerous and > unhealthy is motor vehicles. I'm a daily commuter cyclist and I would never say that. There are plenty of nutters amongst all road users and pedestrians that cause danger to others. How about the guy who knocked down and killed a woman at Old Street ? https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist-charlie-alliston-jailed-for-18-months-over-death-of-pedestrian

@RH, I guess my point is that those that wish to have a CPZ on Copleston Road are asking all car owners on that street to pay for a permit when there are adequate parking spaces at certain times of day. CPZ's are emotive subject and IMO I think that most people will have already made up their minds based on the impact on themselves. Most people will not be swayed by air quality arguments or care about the knock-on to the neighbouring non-CPZ areas or the affordability for other car owners. If you regularly experience problems parking near your own property, believe a CPZ will solve this issue and are happy to pay for the permit then I guess you'll be in favour. If, like my household, you don't use your car much during the week (in my case there are usually more spaces at the weekend) then I guess you won't.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > What evidence is there that commuters are using > > the side streets off Lordship Lane? I can't > > believe that people drive to ED from outside > the > > area in order to park up and then get on our > > 'amazing' public transport services into > central > > London. > > I don't know about around Lordship Lane but I can > definitely say that in Copleston Road - about > equidistant from ED station from the bottom of > Lordship Lane where we are - large numbers of > commuters come and park up and walk down to the > station every morning. "Large numbers" would imply that there are lots of empty places for them to park in !

Please stay on topic. Train punctuality isn't related to the impending CPZ consultation. OK, you might argue that if the train service is poor perhaps less people might travel by train etc but come on, you know what I mean n.

East Dulwich and West Peckham CPZ Consultations to start in January. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-projects/east-dulwich-parking-study-and-healthier-streets-consultation https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-projects/peckham-west-parking-study-and-healthier-streets-consultation

2/3 means on the border of 2 and 3. Considered zone 2 if travelling to Canning Town from central london. Considered zone 3 if travelling from a zone beyond 3 and getting out at Canning Town.

Taekwondo at JAGS Sport Club http://jagssportsclub.co.uk/courses/taekwondo/

There are many guides on the web to solving these problems but most require a modicum of technical know-how. Maybe the simplest option would be to try downloading the MS Updater Troubleshooter and see if that sorts it. https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/help/4027322/windows-update-troubleshooter

Ta - I plan to send a query the CAB. I'm hopeful that this will all be amicably settled but in case it's not I going to need to find out what my options are.

Just looking for some advice. I while back my wife and I went to a nearby showroom to discuss baths. We were very specific about the type of bath we needed - it had to be "D-shaped". It is sited against a long flat wall and neither end is in a corner. We agreed on a model and a price and was subsequently sent an email quote for the bath and some other pieces that we also required. The quote detailed the bath manufacturer, range and size, but didn't specify the model number or that it was D-shaped. We accepted the quote and asked for the order to be placed. We were advised when the order had arrived and the shop was happy to hold it for us as we were waiting for workmen to do the work in the bathroom. Anyway yesterday the bath and other items were delivered and the bath is a different model but from the same range and size (essentially its square at one end, intended for corner placement). I have been back to the showroom who have said that they ordered what we asked for and that is what we've got. They are going to speak to the distributor and see if a swap can be done but there are no guarantee's. Question is, where do I stand legally ? I am able to reject the bath and request a full refund ? I accepted the quote but that wasn't specific in terms of the actual model.

Maybe attend the next quarterly neighbourhood policing meeting and ask them directly. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1973036,1973036#msg-1973036

I'm not sure what you mean. "Load bearing" is a term normally applied to walls that are used to support the property structure (roof and floor joists). Are you planning on building a wall on top of the engineered floor or just plan to place something heavy there ?

I'm a lino fan. Marmoleum in sheet (rather than tile) form. Seems that it's not so popular these days and is being replaced by LVT (which are easier to lay I would think) and also needs an experienced person to fit (which is increasingly hard to find). Still, works for us.

Can't ghosts see in the dark ?

Welcome back HonaloochieB !

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > KidKruger Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The sale of sorting office was never about RM > > customers and probably all about > asset-stripping > > the property portfolio. > > > To be fair, the East Dulwich delivery office was > no longer fit for purpose as it could not handle > the amount of parcels and packets with the > increase in online ordering. Yes but I guess that they could have shifted some of the delivery routes to Peckham - and left the remainder at East Dulwich. The prime motivation for the move was to be able to sell the site and make some money. As an aside, there was a RM posties bag (empty) just left on the pavement down the street from my house all weekend. I've never seen this happen before and to me it's just another sign that all is not well.

I've been wondering what was going on there with the makeshift gate to the back garden. I see the owner is also having to apply for a certificate of lawfulness for the existing house, to use as a house of multiple occupation. IMO that place is an eyesore, and the hedge needs cutting back. I would have thought that this new house - with inbuilt garage - would have impacted on the right to light for the houses next door. The design isn't going to win any awards - it looks pretty dull to me.