LurkyMcLurker

This thread isn't about Melbourne Grove south. Keep it on topic please. We're talking about the works at East Dulwich station. There's a thread with 9 pages on that topic in this forum, surely we're not adding any new insight by talking about it here. I went and looked at the proposal online for what's happening at the station. To me, the biggest points of the works at the station are the following two points from here:https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking-streets-and-transport/improving-streets-and-spaces/making-our-streets-greener/east-dulwich extending the footway over side roads with access maintained for cyclists and emergency vehicles at junctions with Melbourne Grove, Derwent Grove and Elsie Road a modal filter allowing cyclists and emergency vehicles only I often see people talking about the challenges to ambulances as a key objection to these sorts of changes. As people have now gotten used to the roads not being accessible for everyday drivers, surely this is a net positive?

The area has a high level of pedestrian traffic from people commuting to work and students to the local secondary school. What do you mean "minimal return"? For you personally?

Yes we'll all be shaking in our boots at the sight of the constant CARNAGE.

It seems way more likely they'd park the lorry right next to the shop on Railway Rise. How did you come to the conclusion they'll simply block half the road? Ultimately I think this is a good change. More space for people walking around the station. I commute to/from work via ED and a lot of people exit the station and turn right towards lordship lane. Even beyond the daily commuters there's all the students from the nearby secondary school and any time there's a DHFC match it gets busy.

They're gathering? Are they plotting something? Is the public's safet in question? Better not go and speak to their parents. It sounds far too dangerous. Go straight to the police.

I'd recommend just using the Hub's website to get caught up on this. I'm not sure why it wasn't posted at the very beginning because it is always best to go to the source especially since the original poster just copy/pasted directly from their news: https://carnegielibraryhub.org.uk/the-carnegie-library-hub-is-at-a-difficult-juncture/ The older EDF posts look irrelevant to the issues the Hub is having with the council since the main issue stems from a decision from the council in 2023. It doesn't look like the council is shutting down the library, but revising the library's operators terms, which then has prompted the operator to determine it'd be better to shut down than continue on? Their 3 main points of contention don't mention the council kicking them out, but rather reducing their scope within the building. "Consequently, the trustees and team have decided that, with Lambeth as a principal stakeholder and with the new restricted terms of tenancy which Lambeth appears unwilling to materially negotiate on, we are not able to fulfil our charitable objectives and have no choice than to set a timetable for an orderly close. We have informed all of our partners that we no longer have secure tenancy and will be closing by the end of December 2024 unless we can urgently agree terms that foster success for community use aligning with our charitable objectives." "new restricted terms of tenancy" doesn't equate to "we no longer have secure tenancy". To me this reads as they're fed up and would rather close down due to their frustrations. That seems fair enough to me, but I think they should just say that, since it's how the entire thing reads to me. I've been to the library loads of times with my child for parties and school events. It's a lovely place and it would be better if the Hub could continue as it is, but this also gives me the vibe that if they can't have it their way then they'll shut down entirely.

A quick google search found it. "New Southwark Plan - Borough Views" is what you want. Also, you could search something like "Southwark Council Protected Views" and it comes up. Anyways, The council's taken this upon themselves to protect a few views of St Pauls from within the council's boundaries. It's not the same as the protected views that result in the designs of properties in the city like The Cheesegrater and The Scalpel. The most important part is this: "Development that exceeds a Threshold Plane is likely to harm a viewer’s ability to recognise and appreciate St Paul’s Cathedral and is therefore likely to be refused." It doesn't seem that the development in the photo harms both the viewer's ability to recognise and appreciate the cathedral therefore it was given permission. It does look like for it's gone right up to the line of what is acceptable and stayed there.

You're looking at the developments on Glengall Road. I'm pretty sure it's the development with the contractors HG for Southern Housing Unfortunately it's not a protected view so it wouldn't have been a consideration at the time of application to the council.

The choice to build PBSA has nothing to do with trying to find space for students at local universities like King's. PBSA, Coliving, and BTR developments generally concern themselves with their proximity to local transit within larger cities. While East Dulwich isn't the best connected station in the city, it's good enough and the development is in a prime location. Combined with the massive demand for PBSA, it's no wonder the majority of the development space will be dedicated to students. If any element of this development should change it should be dropping PBSA and building more homes that can be purchased.

They're really going for the hard sell on why we should care about this. The bit about new PBSA properties freeing up local houses for families in nonsense. A very important factor to developments like PBSA and BTR is the development's proximity to transport links. It's unlikely that the students that would be occupying these spaces attend the nearest university or even live in East Dulwich. "By providing accommodation for them it is hoped the houses will return to family occupation" - The Savills article I link below reports that 5+ room houses to let have dipped by over 31% since 2019. Know what's a really good way to free up housing for families? Just make more housing for families. PBSA properties are fantastic investments because the occupants can never own, the demand continues to be strong due to low supply, which pushes forecasted rental growth. Here's a really good Savill's publication on PBSA from earlier this year: https://www.savills.com/research_articles/255800/346721-0 I'm all for new homes being built, but this development should be pressed to drop PBSA and simply provide more homes available to individuals or families to purchase, and not just provide rental income to owners in perpetuity.

The changes aren't being made by anyone whose set foot in the DKH Sainsbury's more than once a year, if ever at all. Biggest overhead for the company will be paying staff. So it's easier to put the responsibility on the customer to scan and pay without input from an employee. Lots of people will gladly take on that responsibility (myself included). It's faster for me to scan my own items, pay, and leave without input from a member of staff. I also don't need to queue which saves me time. Is it a good thing? For me, yes. For others, maybe not. Some people would need assistance and probably enjoy the social interaction. Anyone who isn't tech savvy probably finds it frustrating as well. I'm not sure if those members of staff would have lost their jobs or been offered an alternative within the shop. Anecdotally, whenever I'm in Sainsburys it seems to be split pretty evenly between shoppers and staff picking up items for home delivery. Changing the layout of the shop would also be a decision from corporate. In the past, I'd be in and out of Sainos in 25 minutes because I knew what I wanted and where it'd be. When they changed the layout, it was probably 35 minutes for 2-3 shops. Now I'm back down to 25 because I know the new layout. The point is, during that time when I'd be in the shop an additional 10 minutes, it was likely I'd end up in an aisle with products I don't normally browse, and it's likely I saw something new I hadn't seen before and I'd considered purchasing it, if not purchasing it. I bet Sainsbury's have statistics showing that they see an increase in sales in the month after a shop layout change. As long as people keep shopping there, and as long as internal analytics deem these processes worthwhile, things will not change. Best way to make any sort impact would be to vote with your wallet, I'd assume.

It is widely accepted that over-exposure to mobile phones makes people forgetful, irritable, and confused. Perhaps you should practice kindness as said brain fog is likely causing a lapse in their judgment in relation to your freedom pass. Perhaps your own over exposure to mobile phones is making you forgetful? The owner of that Londis has been dead for twenty years. It's a Gail's.

JAGS do a kids party hire. https://jagssportsclub.co.uk/jags-kids/#kids-parties They section off a portion of one of the basketball courts and provide a bouncy castle and other soft toys for kids to play with. Was a great place to hold my child's recent birthday party. £205 for 90 minutes. All things considered it made the party pretty affordable and really easy. We really only had to show up, set up food, pack up and leave. There were 2 teens on hand to do the set up and breakdown of the bouncy castle and they helped clean up. You're responsible for bringing your own food and drink. I don't know if alcohol is allowed or not. All in all, really recommend them for a party if you want to keep it easy. We hosted one there and have been to 2 or 3 more at the same place and each time it's been a breeze from the hosting and attending perspective.

Souplantation closed permanently due to the pandemic. It's also a really unfortunate name that didn't age very well. I'd welcome a Chipotle. It's the sort of place I'd pop into on a Friday night after getting out of work for a fast dinner. I'd rather a space have a tenant than be vacant. Ideally I'd want small businesses, but I don't think it's practical. Larger companies will beat out independently owned every time. They can afford higher rental rates, sign longer leases, and are generally the safer option for landlords. This will continue unless schemes are going to be introduced to heavily assist smaller businesses. Schemes better than what currently exists, which is a pretty low bar to clear.

There's more people whinging about people whinging about poundland than there are people actually whinging about poundland.