Jump to content

Recommended Posts

as an afterthought, I have often wondered why parks are locked at night. it is not difficult to find gaps in railings and lots of people can easily climb over the fences. those who intend to sleep in the park simply don't leave at lock-up time.

DavidH could you try to contribute without the personal attacks. Even if you don't agree with Councillor Barber, you can still frame your arguments civilly. Not every elected official is good enough to talk directly to their residents online, so we should respect that at least.


On the subject of closing the parks, I have always assumed it is not to keep the bad guys out, but to keep the good guys out, so that they don't get harmed by the bad guys. I could be wrong though.


What annoys me on the park issue is when St Francis Park closes early, well before dusk, because it has been rented out for a private party. This is usually accompanied by an over-officious suit with jangly keys yelling at everyone to get out. I suppose it's good that the council is able to raise much needed revenue in this way, but still quite annoying when I get kicked out of facilities I've helped pay for.

Hi eastdulwichhenry,

St.Francis Park is provided by Sainsbury's as part of the original agreement for their supermarket to be built.

The legal agreement states the park will close at sunset and open at sunrise. If someone tries to eject you tell them their in breach of Sainsburys Legal agreement. Frankly I'd refuse to move on principle but undersand reticence to do this.

Email me such occurences.


We need Sainsbury's to deliver a park of the quality envisaged inthe agreement.

davidh Wrote:

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

> my observations to james barber were merely

> banter. we do know each other even though we do

> not share political philosophy. so myob, you two.



Maybe so, but we all have to wade through it!

Hi,


any possibility to have less flights flying above the people living in ED? When I am staying at some friends' houses in different parts on London, both south and north, it is nothing like that. Why is this part of London so exposed? Is this fair to people living here?

Thanks

Can I once again ask for something to be done for Lordship Lane's pavements.


Especially between Franklin's and Property in Dulwich.


Negotiating that area this morning with buggy and two kids just highlighted the many uneven surfaces, mis match of materials and huge puddles there are there at the minute.

Hi Luana,

I'd recommend you join Heathrow Action Campaign Against Noise HACAN who fight excessive noise for all Londoners. Our area is increasingly suffering aircraft noise. Partly because we're so close to Heathrow's landing flight path and partly because of London City Airport who are rapidly expanding and recently given rights to increase its flights by 50%.


Hi Mick Mac,

I was promised this pavement area - or at least the council part - would be puddle free and flat during the Autumn. I'll chase.

Hi Luana,

I've just received tihs email from the Dept of Transport I would encourage you to respond the night fligts consultation:


From: Night Noise

To: undisclosed-recipients

Sent: Mon Nov 11 11:15:31 2013

Subject: Night Flying Restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted: Stage 2 Consultation

Good morning,


I am writing to let you know that the Department for Transport has today published its second stage consultation for the next night noise regime at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted Airports from October 2014. The consultation can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/night-flights.


This second stage consultation follows an analysis of responses to the first stage consultation issued in January 2013 and this consultation includes a summary of these.


The consultation closes on 31 January 2014. Details on how to respond are included in the document?s executive summary.


We are sending this message to those who responded to the first stage consultation and other relevant organisations for which we have contact details, in particular those within the aviation industry, local authority representatives, airport consultative committees, environmental organisations and local community groups. As this may not cover all possible interested groups, please disseminate this to your own stakeholders with an interest in this subject. For those who do not have access to the internet, we will be happy to provide a hard copy of the consultation on request by emailing [email protected] or calling Colin Dunn on 020 7944 2216.


Regards,


Tamara Goodwin

Aviation Policy Implementation

Department for Transport

James Barber Wrote:

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

>

> Hi Mick Mac,

> I was promised this pavement area - or at least

> the council part - would be puddle free and flat

> during the Autumn. I'll chase.


Thanks James. Thats good news.

It would be nice if the relevant businesses also improved their frontage at the same time to be uniform with the paving - but they would probably tell us to mind our own business. :)

James, do you have any idea when the road works at the bottom of Wood Vale and Forest Hill Road are going to close? I believe it should have ended appx two weeks ago. The traffic jams backing right up to Crofton Park are becoming very tedious and it makes the junction with Brenchley Gardens even harder to negotiate... HELP

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, AFAICS, the "civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300" were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...