Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This subject has been going on for some time and there are verious issues all of which are in the hands of Southwark.James Barber is fully aware of the situation but can only act within the 'rules'.As it stands officialy Dulwich Van Hire can continue to trade using the public road as storage but are limited to parking 8 vans on the surounding streets.


So as far as Southwark are concerned Dulwich Van Hire are doing what has been asked of them and continue to trade without restriction from Barrys Off Licence.


I do not accept that this kind of activity can be allowed and would urge all affected to contact James Barber directly to air your veiws.



MN

I don't believe they should be able to trade as a van hire business withough having suitable premises on which to store their vans (not on the already overcrowded surrounding residential streets).


When they applied for planning permission to change the use of the site on Barry Rd from business to residential, my understanding was that they forfeited the right to trade as a business from there, yet they effectively continue to do so. You can't have your cake (the residential development of the business site and taking the profit from that) and eat it (continuing to run the business despite not having sufficient space to do so) IMO.


I'm not sure what the latest is though.

I agree with Mellors.


Please let James Barber know your views.I have contacted various departments at Sowthwark and it is difficult to find the right people to talk to.The crew at Parking Enforcement were as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.


MN

Hi James


Taking my dodgy Hat off for a moment as this is something that needs to be looked into as at times I have noticed 4 Dulwich Van hire vans parked in Upland road, and equivelent numbers in Barry road.


can you let everyone know what the Planning Enforcement team are doing about hte situation, what they have said and also what actual powers they have to enforce with ?


Many thanks

  • 2 weeks later...

I think the idea can be revisited because the vehicles are effectively unsold but tradeable commercial goods.


It's thoroughly against the law to use the public highway for commercial storage.


I'd like to see the same law being used to get rid of estate agents' fanny wagons.

Hi, this is Shine from Barry's Off Licence.


It has been brought to my attention by a customer, that the residents of Upland Road have been facing a severe inconvenience from Dulwich Van Hire. Therefore I have spoken to the manger today of Dulwich Van Hire and have informed him of the inconvenience they have been causing, and have requested that no Vans should be parked on Upland Road as of immediate affect.


I have also told him that they have to find a permanent residence for their Vans other than the local residential parking or we will not be able to offer them office space at Barry's any longer. I have given them one month to do this.


Barry?s has always been a community shop which has been established for 30 years. We have a very loyal, trusted and supportive customer base and as you all know we are all very approachable people. So, please if you any queries or problems concerning Barry?s Off Licence please contact us either, by visiting the shop, via email: [email protected] or via a phone call: 02082990443. I have now also signed on to east Dulwich forum where I will also be available for contact


Thank you very much.


Kind regards. Shine Bedi.

Hi this is Shine again from Barrys Off Licence.


I have been in constant contact with the Dulwich Van Hire management, and have made it thoroughly clear to them that the Vans have to be moved off the local residential streets as soon as possible as I do understand that they have moved away from Upland Road to other nearby streets.


I know this extremely frustrating for our local residents; however I do feel I am getting through to them. Keep you all updated.


Thank you for all your support.

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

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

> maybe they could move into the old wood yard when

> it is cleared as a temporary home till they find

> somewhere else ?


This is a great idea. Joined up thinking etc.

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

    • The main problem Post Offices have, IMO, is they are generally a sub optimal experience and don't really deliver services in the way people  want or need these days. I always dread having to use one as you know it will be time consuming and annoying. 
    • If you want to look for blame, look at McKinsey's. It was their model of separating cost and profit centres which started the restructuring of the Post Office - once BT was fully separated off - into Lines of Business - Parcels; Mail Delivery and Retail outlets (set aside the whole Giro Bank nonsense). Once you separate out these lines of business and make them 'stand-alone' you immediately make them vulnerable to sell off and additionally, by separating the 'businesses' make each stand or fall on their own, without cross subsidy. The Post Office took on banking and some government outsourced activity - selling licences and passports etc. as  additional revenue streams to cross subsidize the postal services, and to offer an incentive to outsourced sub post offices. As a single 'comms' delivery business the Post Office (which included the telcom business) made financial sense. Start separating elements off and it doesn't. Getting rid of 'non profitable' activity makes sense in a purely commercial environment, but not in one which is also about overall national benefit - where having an affordable and effective communications (in its largest sense) business is to the national benefit. Of course, the fact the the Government treated the highly profitable telecoms business as a cash cow (BT had a negative PSBR - public sector borrowing requirement - which meant far from the public purse funding investment in infrastructure BT had to lend the government money every year from it's operating surplus) meant that services were terrible and the improvement following privatisation was simply the effect of BT now being able to invest in infrastructure - which is why (partly) its service quality soared in the years following privatisation. I was working for BT through this period and saw what was happening there.
    • But didn't that separation begin with New Labour and Peter Mandelson?
    • I am not disputing that the Post Office remains publicly owned. But the Lib Dems’ decision to separate and privatise Royal Mail has fatally undermined the PO.  It is within the power of the Labour government to save what is left of the PO and the service it provides to the community, if they care enough; I suspect they do not.  However, the appalling postal service is a constant reminder of the Lib Dems’ duplicity on this matter. It is actions taken under the Lib Dem / Conservative coalition that have brought us to this point.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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