ianr

Can you give us a link to your information source please?

It's an interesting question. Might it be the sort of thing you could raise with a councillor -- by way of investigation rather than complaint - - to see whether there might be scope for improvement? One possible obstacle that comes to my mind is the possible inflexibility of existing traffic orders: whether or not they can be fairly summarily temporarily overidden.

ED is included in the 17 August closure set (or just possibly 15 August, depending on which part of the page you trust more) listed at https://metro.co.uk/2025/07/25/full-list-25-poundland-stores-confirmed-close-august-23753048/. Here incidentally are some snippets from their annual reports, at https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02495645/filing-history. 2022: " during the period we opened 41 stores and closed 43 loss-making/under-performing stores. At the period-end we were trading from 821 stores in the UK, IoM and ROI. ... "We renogotiated 82 leases in the year, saving on average 45% versus the prior lease agreement..." 2023: "We also continued to improve our market footprint through sourcing better store locations, opening 53 and closing 51 stores during the year." 2024: "The ex-Wilco stores acquired in the prior year have formed a core part of this strategy to expand our store network. We favour quality over quantity and during the period we opened 84 stores and closed 71 loss-making/under-performing ones."

Some apparent headway made against organised crash-for-cash crime, reported in a recent police press release. https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/news/city-of-london/news/2025/july/ifed-executes-five-warrants-across-east-and-south-london-in-major-crash-for-cash-investigation/

Just for information: I see that the Licensing Sub-committee has the Tesco application as item 1 on their 24 July meeting agenda. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=172&MId=8329. The officer's report to the committtee provides a good succinct summary. I see, from (original) p.31 of the full public pack, (or more conveniently the supporting documents) that Tesco Legal Dept on 12 June reported that they'd agreed with the police's suggested conditions to be attached to the licence, and the police accordingly withdrew their own representation. That leaves just one representation, from a member of the public, to be dealt with on the day. I still think it's not necessarily to be presumed that Tesco will definitely be taking over the premises. I see that Poundland themselves were granted an off-sales licence on 21 Feb 2023, and surrendered it on 3 July 2025. I'm not sure they actually ever used it themselves. Did they? https://www.southwark.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-09/Statement of Licensing Policy 2021-2026.pdf is a full statement of the policy and its application, for thems as is interested.

If you look at the application linked to in the OP, you'll see it's a Licensing Act 2003 one, in this case for the purposes of sale by retail of alcohol and for the provision of late night refreshment: "TAKEAWAY COFFEE/ HOT SNACKS 2300-0100". IF the shop counts as a Hot Food Takeaway, then section P48 of the Southwark Plan https://www.southwark.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-09/Southwark Plan 2022 reduced 1.pdf , which appears to be the latest one linked to on Southwark's site, will I presume be applied in any planning application (Is there one?). It says: "New hot food takeaways will only be permitted where: ..... 3. The proposed location is further than 400 metres from any existing or proposed primary or secondary school’s boundary; ....." It incorporates policy laid down in the National Planning Policy Framework, and thence the London Plan. Over the years KFC, and others, have taken a number of appeals against local planning authority decisions on Takeaways to the Planning Inspectorate. Some have been allowed. KFCs 'commentary on evidence contained in London Plan Topic Paper: Hot Food Takeaways', https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/nlp_ad_91.pdf may be of interest to some. I'm guessing it's referring to https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/london_plan_topic_paper_on_hot_food_takeaways.pdf of 2018, but haven't yet checked.

In what part of the page do the links of the sort you're talking about appear, and in what circumstances?

No, it's the AA. https://www.nationalworld.com/arts-and-culture/these-are-the-uks-best-outdoor-pools-and-lidos-new-lido-league-reveals-top-swimming-spots-5218853 "Experts from The AA analysed 164 lidos and outdoor pools for the average monthly Google search volumes, average Google review scores, Instagram tags, entry and parking fees, as well as the average maximum temperature and hours of summer sunlight at each location, to determine the very best swimming spots across the UK."

Has anything emerged as to how the reported misinterpretation of rules ruling out proxy votes occurred, or what the specific fault was? I've found and looked through https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Labour-group-model-standing-orders-2023.pdf, which afaics seems to be a prime relevant document. It allows for local council Labour groups making minor amendments to cater for their council's particular form of organisation. I've not seen any _explicit_ mention of proxy voting in the model SOs document itself. I'm attaching my notes on it. re_Labour-Group-Model-SOs.txt

The Leader of the Council gets a larger Special Responsibility Allowance than plain Cabinet members: £58,427 in 2023-24, rather than somewhere in the £30k+ range. See https://www.southwark.gov.uk/about-council/councillors-and-mps/councillors/allowances, which includes links to full tables of payments made to all councillors for the past seven years. There's a list of Cabinet members at https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgCommitteeMailingList.aspx?ID=302

Incidentally, Southwark seems to have possibly adopted a requirement of swift boxes in new-builds anyway, and I think they're not the only LA to have done so. I recently added to to my post in https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/342208-free-swift-nest-box-installation-in-se22/#comment-1703954, the edit:- [ 30/4/25, 18/6/25 ETA To answer my own question: I see that 4 swift nesting boxes were actually required at an earlier stage of that same developments application. In the 4/4/25 Decision Notice of application 24/AP/3740 is: "8. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the swift bricks details approved under 24/AP/3596 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority ]

The reference to helicopters (plural) is exceptional. I don't think I've seen any instance, here or in any TV police-at-work series, where more than one at a time has been said to be involved. A google search found, in the first three pages, just two cases, since 2010, where two helicopters were reported. In both instances these involved police forces in two adjoining county areas, where perps in cars were being sought immediately after robberies.

Does it deal at all with the question of the anticipated per capita future costs of necessary repairs to or upgrading of the ?still largely old underground piping across their area, and how that compares with future risks existing in other areas? I wonder too whether the latest apparent concentrated spate of leaks is attributable at all to the heat. TW say that they have not made any dividend payments to external shareholders (among them a Candian teachers pension fund) since 2017. There have been like payments, though, to their holding companies (?Kemble, and Thames ?something), reportedly I think to service debts to them. Thames Water annual company reports are available online. Ofwat have also published about leakage.

Do you know what the motion was? Why does your list only contain 335 lines?