bonaome

Heber is lovely. Great community atmosphere. A very friendly school. The kids all seem to be very happy there. It's been improving steadily over the last couple of years and the teaching now seems to match the pastoral care which I've found to be excellent. You can have a look at the website http://www.heberprimaryschool.com/ but of course you're much better going to see it for yourself. It has become quite popular in recent years. And I think Goodrich remains popular too. Probably best to put them 1 and 2 on your form if they're your nearest community schools. There's no catchment areas. Places are allocated to kids in care, special ed needs, siblings, closest distance to the school gate (as the crow flies). As Heber is only 2 forms of entry (60 kids) it's pretty eary to find there's only afew non-sibling places up for grabs, with the net effect that you have to live within a couple of hundred meters of the school to get in. You might find this useful http://www.findaschool.info/LA_map.php#!Southwark

Not had any issues with O2 either - in 4 years been here. Choose based on which seems to be offering the best deal. You could go EE if you want 4G mobile. Or O2 might be better if like me you bundle your home phone and broadband to get an overall cheaper deal.

bonaome Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's a note in the window with the details. ... including where they're moving to, something about operating out of some other business, and a telephone number and email address.

Curmudgeon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Really? > > Was open last weekend > > What a shame... They were a little hit and miss > but pleasant They've moved the shop up the Plough end of the Lane. There's a note in the window with the details.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bonaome, so you'd rather no be involved? I'm involved. I read through all of the materials of the last application very carefully and wrote to the planning officer with my views. Over Christmas, I'll read through all of the new materials in detail (I've only scanned them so far - busy old run up to Christmas at work) and I'll then write again to the planning officer with my views. BTW: You keep saying that the previous application was rejected. This isn't true. It was withdrawn before a decision had been made.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who does the time limit on objections > and the positing of the application over a major > holiday period work better for, in this case? Those of us who work full time, have busy family lives and who need a public holiday if we're ever to find the time to read through the materials posted on the planning site.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the prior application that was rejected It wasn't rejected, it was withdrawn.

Hi Admin, eastdulwichforum.co.uk does not load the site since you made thr last set of updates. I.e. the site only loads specifying the domain name www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk, if you can't be bothered to type the www. at the front the site appears dead. I believe you need to mirror the A records in the DNS settings for www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk for eastdulwichforum.co.uk - but I' out of my technical depth now and will leave it with you. Thanks

"Is 600k now *really* the threshold for anyone, like my little family, trying to get a three bed terrace around here?" No I don;t think so. See this Rightmove search http://bit.ly/LiLHxM -But I guess it depends on what exactly you're looking for though I'd have though a few in this list would fit the bill. *Sorry for messy post, the formatting toolbar has disappeared off the forum.

That's not a young man, that's a child. I assume Police will do it, but otherwise I'd inform NSPCC (who have some Police powers) with your description etc.

No CPZ, minor changes for safety improvements. See this http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=27502

Hi First Mate. The document that I think has the most detail regarding deliveries etc is this one. It proposes deliveries from 6:30am. The proposals suggest no change to the entrance to the site. They show how the proposed size of articulated lorry can enter and exit the site in a forwards gear. The arrivals and departures will be supervised by a person on the street. Currently deliveries are unrestricted. I do not know the current pattern of deliveries or whether they are supposed to go in and come out in a forwards gear (i.e. not reversing on Chesterfield Grove) and if so whether they abide by that, or whether or not they are (supposed to be) supervised from someone on the street. Do you know?

There has been a planning application to develop the property on the site of Iceland. The plans involve extending the property to cover much if what is now the carpark at the back of Iceland, and changing the upper floors to accommodate 8 new 2 bed flats. It seems that the lease on the property is soon up for renewal. Nobody knows whether Iceland wish to renew or plan to quit (pls correct if I'm wrong). M&S appear to be keen on takin the redeveloped property. Nobody knows if M&S would still be interested in the property if not redeveloped or if the plans were curtailed. The first post in the thread has links to the proposals on Southwark's website. Concerns are that the proposals would mean increased problems for residents of Chesterfield Grove from the delivery lorries making noise and damaging residents' cars and increased pressure on local parking from a) a busier store and b) the new residents. This vs. potentially neither Iceland nor M&S wanting to stay leaving an empty space on LL. Lots of people v excited about M&S both for and against. A less thoroughly discussed possibilities: no change at all - Iceland stay, no planning consent; planning consent and Iceland stay; planning consent and a 3rd retailer takes the space; etc

Vale street doesn't take rubble. Devon street takes everything.

Indeed so, I hope not to have suggested otherwise.

I think you might share you views to better effect by looking at the details of the planning application here, and sending your comments by email to [email protected] quoting the application reference number 12/AP/1340. I broadly support the proposed development, echoing some of Penguin68's points I think it may make the difference between an economically viable retail unit and an empty shell and I think 8 new flats in the area is a good thing, especially if a caveat can be attached to planning permission to make (some of) the flats available / affordable for key workers. I think there is a broader sense of community in ED than perhaps you give credit to.

Ahmed (sp?) is great. The other guy in there is lovely too. He always takes the skin off the fish for me. Fish and chips tonight then!

Thank you for the confirmation that it is just your opinion. For a brief moment I thought you had some facts to base your objections on.

How is that clear?

alsmith Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What I am on about is that currently Iceland has a > car park with 17 spaces. The proposals will have > no car park. Given this parking is used at 100% > capacity on a weekend that puts more demand on > local roads for parking. I do realise that I may have hit on the one single time in the last 20 years that the car park has been at anything less than 100% full. But I did my own informal reccy on Saturday - nice sunny day, market in full swing, popped by about noon - there were 8 cars in there.

We went to Punt Prima in Menorca - see here - and liked it so much we went back again. Would have gone back a third time but too expensive for us once we had to start paying for the child places (kids are free under 3 I think).

'Researched' alas no. But on our street it's fairly common to be unable to park (from Thursday evening through to Monday morning) and almost as common to see several cars taking up 2 spaces. Might be worth informally looking into. As has been said, if it works in Oz ...

Mark the streets out into bays. They would not be compulsory. You wouldn't get a fine for spanning more than one bay. The idea is that simply by having them people are encouraged (nudged) into parking more considerately.

If the results had been the exact opposite James, would you now be expressing reservations about steaming ahead with a CPZ? All the streets except 2 have said no. If all the streets except 2 had said yes, would you be fighting for those 2 streets to be excluded from the CPZ? Perhaps that could have been prevented by a more honest an open consultation process. Nothing fills an information vacuum better than rumour - on both sides. There are also people who are saying that a CPZ will cause them real problems. That's why they have "voted"* against it. * Yeah, yeah. I know it wasn't a vote. Can't help but wonder if the results had been reversed ... bet you then it would have been all about how people have 'voted'. Edited for typo and tidiness.

One thing that might help a bit would be if people parked more considerately. It's been mentioned on this thread before, sorry for repeating but maybe worth considering with option 2 - mark out regular spaces along the kerb at, say 6.5m or 7m to encourage people to park within them. Apparently this happens in Australia. I don't believe it's enforced with a fine. It just reminds people/makes them think a bit more about parking more considerately.