Andrew1011

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Co-op used to be Somerfield. That wasn't that > long ago. It's had one or two previous incarnations before Somerfield. All pretty grotty.

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If a business having two or more shops can be > called a chain (can it?) then aren't Burro e > Salvia (2 shops), Boulangerie Jade (4 shops) and > Oddono's (6 shops) chains? And did they replace > chains or...? When most people think of 'chains' they think of shops like Boots, Superdrug, River Island, Specsavers, Topman, W H Smith, Ryman, Pizza Express, to name but a few. None of those mentioned by you are anywhere near their scale and certainly don't spring to mind when people speak of the homogenisation of high streets across the country. When I moved to East Dulwich it barely had shops let alone chains, although the largish Co-op store was still operating on most of the Lordship Lane site between North Cross and Shawbury Roads. Oh and a Tesco, roughly the size of a small Tesco Express, and still the size of the current shop unit, on the corner of North Cross Road had recently closed down. I can't recall which supermarket company then had what is now the Co-op, but it was a smallish chain and not one of the big four or five. maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not trying to stir things... honest. We believe you... honest.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I see there is some working going on there > at the moment. Does anyone know what the story > is? I'm sure I read somewhere very recently that Picturehouse are taking it over. Anyone else hear this?

Oh Jeremy, don't get overwrought about it. I don't think you've quite got the hang of this social media/discussion thing.

RobbleMuji Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm glad a great bakery and cafe opened down the > road from me, and employs local people. Not wishing to disappoint and assuming we're talking about the same place. I tried hard to like it but the lukewarm tea and one extremely large sugar (I don't take it but my guest wanted it in her very very poor real mint stalk tea) bowl in the place - needing to be retrieved from other tables by customers - didn't impress me at all. /moan.

That's a very labour intensive and potentially stressful way of doing it though (I had to call the council on Friday too about a faiure on its part and encountered the same problem), even on a normal day when all the IT is working. I still recommend contacting Helen Hayes MP and letting her deal with it on your behalf.

MrBen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fox - is that you? Funny I was wondering that too.

stringvest Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry would like to add, I don't mean to offend. > Generally there are a lot of IDIOTS everywhere, on > bikes, in cars, in motorbility scooters (which are > another pain at times), and idiot pedestrians, who > step off the kerb in headphones, texting .... and > there are some sensible people doing the right > things as well. Thank you. Such are the pressures of modern life. There's no going back to the 60s and 70s. I used to cycle to work until a near miss with a black cab on the Waterloo roundabout (I was on the roundabout at the time; he wasn't). I drive now and am frequently appalled by the antics of a lot of cyclists (and motorcyclists) everywhere in London. I've even had one lycra lout undertake me at high speed when I was reverse parking outside my house (nowhere in sight when I began the manoeuvre) and giving me the finger and other abuse when we nearly collided. I do empathise but, as road users, we all need to be considerate to and accommodating of each other, EVEN those who don't know, or choose to ignore, the rules of the road. I also understand the need to let off steam here regarding such matters, so don't be put off doing that. Better that than getting into a verbal or physical altercation on the road.

rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- recent one, so Jenny's not imagining it. Absolutely right.

Hear hear.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Even Mr James Barber is now falsely calling this > overgrown area "Southwark Woods". > > SE22 Magazine, Issue 126. page 44. Really? I never had him down as an opportunistic bandwagon jumper.

I'd strongly advise you to contact Helen Hayes MP via [email protected] now, or call 020 7219 6971 on Monday. The parliamentary recess has begun so Helen won't have any more of her weekly constituency surgeries until September, or I would have strongly advised you to go to one now (as I did last week in respect of a daft local road closure proposal). However, Helen or her constituency staff will be around over the summer and will deal directly with the council for you on issues of this kind, and hopefully save you a lot of time, effort and resources yourself.

DiD Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I come from the approach that we should imagine > how it could work, rather than why it couldn't?. > happy to organise a meeting if enough people are > interested. Very good approach when it comes to this kind of initiative, but you're probably going against the flow on EDF. Good luck with it. *I tend to buy Cranks' bread from Sainsbury's (?1.45).

Jenny1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've now communicated with the teams at Southwark > who manage community councils and constitutional > matters and wanted to update the forum on what > I've been told. > > I talked to Southwark because I had concerns that > there may have been muddle in this whole process > that led to residents of Melbourne Grove being > represented as having backed a 'petition' to block > the road, whereas in fact they were simply > expressing a wish for general traffic calming > measures. > > The information I now have has reinforced my > concerns. > > Southwark's guidelines say that a petition can > only be presented to a community council for > consideration if it's signed by more than 250 > people and must contain 'a clear and concise > statement covering the subject of the petition and > on each page of the petition' (for obvious > reasons). The document submitted to the last > Dulwich Community Council met neither requirement. > It contained instead a long statement of concern > about the speed and volume of traffic on Melbourne > Grove and a request that a barrier and other > traffic calming measures be considered. This is > signed by five people and is what's called a > 'deputation request'. Attached to this are further > pages (with no statement at the top of any of > them) carrying the signatures of 133 people. > > It's apparently common for 'deputation requests' > presented to community councils to be backed by > lists of signatories. However it would be a > mistake to call such a document a petition in > favour of a specific measure. > > I'm talking to residents on Melbourne Grove and > adjacent streets who share my concerns and will > keep the forum updated. Good stuff.

The relentless gentrification of Peckham.

Who, them or us?

No point posting here you should be contacting the Southwark Council about this. And they won't the reading the forum, it'll be too early as they'll all still be in bed with hangovers. ONLY JOKING, but I thought I'd be the first here to say it. /curmudgeon mode ;-) From that playlist it sounds as though they'd be of 'a certain age' and should know better. I'm having a similar local problem but it's more of a persistent up to 3am "Livin' la Vida Loca" issue. I'll be reporting them too next time.

There's been a traffic light camera at that crossing for years; on the EDG side facing Village Way. Is it a replacement of that or a completely new camera at another point?

Some people need to vent their feelings (they may already have separately notified the council) and, in doing so, also alert local people that something antisocial has happened or is happening. Social media isn't always meant to be a precise form of communication and different people choose to use their own different conversational, but still often very useful, styles, for example: "To the @#$%& in the beige trousers and blue t-shirt at 2.20 this afternoon...", etc. Vive la difference!

The Minkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The one area Southwark seems to neglect is > collection of small recyclable items like kettles, > phones etc. Yes, it is strange they don't collect those things but there is a receptacle for smallish electrical items at the Sainsbury's recycling centre.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it was the word 'inflict' which may not > have gone down well though I would have to agree > that that's what someone would be doing playing > music in the park. I've just realised what Dulwich Park is missing, and what it could really do with - a band stand!

mockingbird Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This seems to be in limited email circulation. > However - it provides an opportunity to comment on > the effectiveness and procedures of the Dulwich > Community Council generally and on any specifics > of conduct. So a chance to reflect on this > particular funding allocation perhaps? > Note deadline of Weds 15th July for responses. > > Dear resident > This is a gentle reminder to ask you to give us > your views about your experience of Community > Councils to help us improve them- if you have not > already done so. > We would therefore appreciate it if you could > please take a few minutes to give us your views by > answering the questions on the online > questionnaire by going on this link (Just press > the control button and click on the link) > > http://tinyurl.com/nqtsbct > > All responses are anonymous and the deadline for > answering the questions is Wednesday 15th July > 2015. > We are writing to you because your name is on our > list as having attended one of our community > council meetings and/or activities and regularly > receive information about community council > activities from us. > We look forward to hearing from you soon. > Thank you for your cooperation. > All the responses are anonymous. The last section > of the questions asks people to provide > information about their age, gender etc. This is > because Southwark Council holds equality as > central to the day-to-day delivery of its services > and engagement with our diverse communities, and > this information helps us measure and analyse how > well we are engaging with all those who live and > work in the borough. This also forms part of our > legal responsibilities under the Public Sector > Equality Duty of the Equality Act (2010). So, for > example knowing that people from a certain age > group are not attending the meetings, can help us > adapt our meetings accordingly. Please also > remember that this information is very useful for > our work but you are not obliged to answer or > complete any or all of it. > Please be assured that London Borough of Southwark > holds and manages data in strict accordance with > the Data Protection Act 1998. Southwark Council is > the data controller for the purposes of the Data > Protection Act. No personal information you have > given us will be passed on to third parties for > commercial purpose. > > Correspondence Address: > Grace Semakula > Community Council Development Officer for Dulwich > I Southwark Council > Housing & Community Services Dept, I Community > Engagement Division I P.O.Box 64529 I London SE1P > 5LX > TEL: 020 7525 4928 > Mobile: 07852 334 065 > Email: [email protected] > You can now be involved in community council > discussions online, please go to > https://forums.southwark.gov.uk or visit In My > Area web page for Dulwich > Be involved in consultations: > http://www.southwark.gov.uk/consultations > Follow us on facebook. > http://www.southwark.gov.uk/residentinvolvement > The date of the next meeting Dulwich Community > Council is Wednesday 9 September 2015, 7pm. Venue > tbc Very good idea. And perhaps including something about how initiatives local to one road, coming from nowhere and which have implications for the wider community, can be slipped in under the radar if a 'deputation' is quickly organised, possibly with insider assistance. There needs at least to be a cooling off period to allow for proper and wider consultation before a costly, limited in scope and non-strategic 'feasibility study' is agreed and embarked upon.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm signing of from this topic until we have > further developments on it. Now there'll the chance to discuss people's thoughts this proposal without being diverted by James, and perhaps even organise opposition to it.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Jenny1, > The noise issues from bumps is mostly from raised > treatment - where the whole cross roads is raised > e.g. junction of Melbourne Grove with East Dulwich > Grove, Barry Road with Goodrich Road. But full > bumps do sometimes cause problem especially if not > precisely installed. James, you appear to have misunderstood what people are actually saying and the breadth of the concerns they are expressing.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is it just me or is anyone else confused how it's > possible for James to check the signatures on the > shredded petition but not the subject matter ? Yes, I was a but puzzled by that too.