LurkyMcLurker

Yes it's a misunderstanding. The other properties aren't referring to other locations that Tesco will be opening up, but other properties in the immediate vicinity of the poundland. You'll notice they're flats. It's likely the spaces above and adjacent. Likely on the same parcel of land. They could have made a mistake, but they probably didn't.

The person behind the till won't know about whether or not an assignment of their lease has been purchased by a company like Tesco. Poundland was sold for a nominal fee so it's unsurprising that the location may close soon. As well, for what it's worth, someone working in the shop is likely to have their job impacted by the shop closing, so having loads of people going and asking them about the potential closing of their shop isn't really nice. "Hey, hear you'll be out of a job soon. Know much about that?" The best resource you all should be using for queries about planning details of new shops is the council's website. As was stated on the first page of this post, there's an application lodged for multiple changes at 29-35 Lordship Lane with the client as Tesco. They wouldn't lodge these plans unless it was happening, or at least extremely likely to happen. The application is on the council's website here: https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=SVW246KBKF500&activeTab=summary

Yep this is the one. Looks like it's from the 30th of May to the 16th. Issued a week before going into practice. So deep. So corrupt. We need to see how deep the rot goes. When we inevitibly found out what scoundrel is behind this unlawful travesty we should campaign for them to be beheaded. How dare they.

Every additional hour worked and every additional worker employed costs more money. Especially if you start going past the workers' regularly scheduled hours. The question then comes down to what is most important? The duration of the works vs the amount of money spent on the works. It could probably get done faster, but the costs would probably rise outside of the budget allocated.

I feel like there's a perception of all this roadwork causing chaos all over the area, but I don't think it's the reality. There were works at Red Post Hill for a few weeks, but that ended back in April. The temporary lights at ED station are gone now. I think last week? The work at south circular seems to be set to complete soon (at least the documents from the original post state today, the 6th) Now there's the work at Peckham Rye, but that started after Red Post Hill finished and nearer the end of the work by south circular road. ED Station progressed pretty quickly. You could see the crews working right down the road. This seems pretty standard for a metropolitan city. I got my kid to school and myself to work each day while using public transport without the congestion becoming anything more than a mild inconvenience. I don't know what peak efficiency looks like for roadworks across a wide area, but I feel like this wasn't wildly inefficiently or not thought through.

I don't think Southwark is trying to kill off car drivers. If they were, it'd be a whole lot easier to just shoot them in the head. Widening pavement seems way less effective.

I noticed that there's a pole right next to the loading/unloading area. It doesn't serve any purpose right now. It's too tall for a typical bollard (and there's only one) and too short to be used as a street light. I imagine it's going to be a sign at some point. Not sure why it wouldn't just be finished since the works have moved on from directly outside the M&S, but what do I know.

Is it really that messy, though? I don't think it is. It's inconvenient. It's unpleasant. It's not a disaster, though. I go through Red Post Hill and Grove Vale 5 days a week and I've never seen the traffic backed up to such an extent where these works interfere with one another. If they did? Of course it'd be a disaster. Of course that'd be worth demanding someone to answer for what's gone on, but that hasn't happened. It seems to me this is more likely an incovenience across a broad area where you can possibly interact with multiple areas undergoing work. That's annoying. However, it's not like these works were unplanned or left in a state where traffic lights didn't exist or didn't work. It's not like work has started then sat completely unresolved for ages and ages without any work occurring.

How about we go straight to the source then if you think it's questionable: Here's Unite Group's annual report: https://www.unitegroup.com/annual-report-and-accounts-2024 Download the PDF and you'll find the 97.5% occupancy rate. You know a lot of these news sources exist because digging through annual reports is laborious and not immediately accessible to the masses. They're reporting on what Unite Group, a public company, is reporting. It's making something more digestible. They're not just making up numbers. They'd end up without much business if they were. PBSA is a big industry. Here's another take (though a year older) from Cushman and Wakefield: https://www.cushmanwakefield.com/en/united-kingdom/insights/uk-student-accommodation-report Like CBRE, they're also reporting supply shortages. Again, to be occupied by students.

I think a lot of people here are just speculating about empty student accommodation properties. Student accommodation developments are very popular because they provide really great rates of return for the owner. A large student accommodation owner, Unite Students, saw 97.5% occupancy across their assets in the 2024/2025 academic year. They have many properties in London; https://pbsanews.co.uk/2024/10/09/unite-students-reports-record-occupancy-rates-in-q3-2024-update/ Here's a bit from CBRE on PBSA properties in London from May 2024: https://www.cbre.co.uk/press-releases/london-plan-policy-fails-to-deliver-affordable-student-accommodation - "According to new research by CBRE and QX Global, the gap between demand for PBSA and available supply in London currently stands at 100,000 – 105,000 full-time students, underscoring how demand for student housing has outpaced supply." - The development pipeline in London isn't keeping up with the demand. Ultimately this development wouldn't be built if student accommodation wasn't in demand. It's proximity to the station means that a student could get to any number of universities easily in a short span of time. Is it ideal? No. Would more affordable housing be better? Yes. Is speculating about channel migrants occupying the space uninformed idiocy? Absolutely.

They can explain it away with all sorts of nonsense. "There's no sign" or "I parked herejust two weeks ago" or "I only need to get milk". The reality is they just don't care. Their convenience takes priority.

I did witness it and I don't think differently. Not sure why you think I would. Am I supposed to be distressed or something? People parking where they shouldn't doesn't take away from the overall good that widening the pavement will do. It's just become evident that some measures will need to be taken to dissuade people from parking there.

Yes this seems like a consistent issue. There isn't a sign indicating you can't park there so people just do it.

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.