flippit

@Penguin, I still don't think you've not quite got it between SUV's and 4x4s and as an automotive engineer, I can't quite grasp what you mean by "highly engineered" and "less engineered" engines. Engineering (and design) competence ( and efficiency)in vehicles is at a pretty consistent standard across all the major vehicle manufacturers ( Toyota, VW, BMW, Ford, Chrysler, Volvo, Mercedes, Renault etc etc). They each continuously progress the efficiency of their engines and hence all are within close margins because the have to achieve enforced standards in USA, Europe, Japan etc or face massive penalties. If they don't comply with standards, they soon go out of business. So these days, the cubic capacity of the engine of any vehicle is directly related to the emissions it produces. The same applies whether the engine is in a motor bike, car, SUV or 4x4 unless it is a hybrid or pure EV. That aside, the worst polluters are diesel 4x4s driven on short runs. Sort them out by installing ANPR controlled zones that exempt pure EVs.

@ penguin68, You may be clouding the issue of emissions. The main pollution culprits are not SUVs ( or cars) but big 4x4s. Whilst there is no clear definition of what a SUV or cross-over really is, it is worth understanding that SUV?s are usually car-derived. They can be 4x2 or have the ability to adapt to a 4 wheel drive. They are really life-style cars with a higher body lift that hints at being a 4x4. Mostly they are not. Think of models such as Qashki or Mocka . Proper 4x4s are invariably bigger, heavier. They have larger engines and so, in absolute terms, have much higher emissions. Think of Range Rover, Volvo, Mercedes and BMW 4x4s. More significantly, the emissions of any vehicle are massively higher whilst the engine gets warmed up. So its short journeys on the school run that really pollute big time. So let us persuade the yummy mummies to ditch the big 4x4 and go electric. They can easily afford it- especially if they can afford public school fees.

'Strewth, I think a got a strong whiff of pro LTNner. richard tudor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also a Macdonald's, Burger King, KFC and a large > graffitti wall for the children and a small > skateboard park in one corner. > > Should keep everyone happy. Locals can then have > the village square all to their selves

@legalalien Attached are the first and second notices. What do you make of the second one and what do you suggest we do to challenge this further.

@ redpost, Not correct. There is work going on at the adjacent premises on the Dulwich Village/Gilkes Place junction. This is a different site to the the rear. The rear site has been cleared and extends from Gilkes Place to Calton Avenue. The buildings on it have been demolished and the site cleared of the mountain of the debris. There is no more debris that needs to be loaded safely on trucks behind the hoarding that that encroached out on to Gilkes Place. Hence the original justification is no longer valid. The owners have put the vacant site up for sale. redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is heavy construction work ongoing, I assume > that the rear will be redeveloped afterwards > also. > > There was a forklift accident a couple of weeks > ago which spilled materials onto the closed > street, and there is much heavy building materials > to be dropped off. > > This all justifies closing off the road > temporarily rather than clogging up the road > (which you would undoubtedly bleat about).

No he didn't and frankly couldn't - given that the developer cleared the site completely last year. The developer has abandoned the project and removed the section hoarding that extended over into Gilkes Place. When the developer removed this extension, a well-connected local resident pulled the strings in Tooley Street and the Council barrier was created. This really stinks and the stink isn't going away. If you want to get it from the "horse's mouth", I suggest you phone up Ian Law (Traffic Manager) on 020 7525 2170. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree. Flippit did he give any indication of > what the ?public safety? / ?danger to the public? > relied on might be?

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why does Gilkes hold so much sway over Southwark > Council? t Because a certain person who ( shall be nameless) and who lives in Gilkes Crescent very, very near the junction with Gilkez Place Same person previously held a very senior management position with Southwark Council before going on to manage major development projects as a freelance. So, well connected in all the right places!

My OP reported that Southwark had abused the regulations concerning temporary road closures. Following this, the issue was was challenged and queries raised by several local residents in the manner specified in the notice. There was no response whatsoever. On 3rd June, one local resident managed to speak directly on the phone to Ian Law during which he was advised that the notice was illegal. He was unable to refute the charge and when challenged further his response was tantamount to "whatever, under the emergency regulations, we can close any road we want." The notice was due to expire on 10th June however it was removed yesterday and replaced with a new new temporary notice. This speaks volumes for the manner in which Southwark is bulldozing its road closure policies into effect be they temporary or LTN.

Surely this confirms that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, no matter how much taxpayers money you waste Southwark Council is deranged.

Some scarers have a photo sensor to turn them off at night.

Most birdcscarers are ultrasonic and if the batteries get low on power then the frequency drops and the sound becomes audible to humans. If this is the case buy him/her some new batteries. https://www.bestpestcontrol.co.uk/ultrasonic-bird-repellers-155-c.asp#:~:text=An%20ultrasonic%20%28silent%29%20bird%20and%20Pigeon%20repeller%20works,paved%20outdoor%20cafe%20area%20or%20inside%20a%20building.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Which is precisely why I ccouched it in my > placatory terms, with "you" meaning "anyone > reading this" - please don't take offence for > yourself or anyone else where none was intended. You seem to have had problem previously with "you". If you don't want to refer to a person , why not use "ONE"? /forum/read.php?5,2192497,2203778#msg-2203778

@nigello It may be alright for you but if you have limited mobility and are aged or infirm then it is a different story. It smacks of " I'm alright, Jack"

Getting to and from work is taking much longer these days due to greater congestion arising from increased traffic on the main routes. This displacement is caused by the road closures established by London Transport and Southwark Council. And its just not delays. There are other outrageous changes such as those to buses on Rye Lane. NOTHING will be done about this unless many of us complain. Please direct complaints to ALL of the following:- [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

You mention procedure and there again, Southwark's action was also illegal on the basis of this... """2) Not less than 7 days before making an order, the traffic authority shall publish notice of their intention to make the order in one or more newspapers circulating in the area in which any road to which the order relates is situated. """ They installed the barriers without giving 7 days notice PLUS they did not notify the public via the local newspapers. Note , I also have legal training!