Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It sounds like a crime disaster area waiting to happen.

Our minimal local Police effort will be sucked into this one proposed new establishment if built.


The current pub is already disturbing local residents - compounding it with 47 people living in dormitories isn't going to make that any better and quite likely significantly worse.

I'm quite suprised that you hold such intolerant views of people who use hostels James.


Its the sort of prejudiced nimbyism that one might expect from the blue rinse brigade snobs, not from a so-called 'Liberal'.

Hi James,


Is this an issue, particularly around crime, that you can highlight to the local planning council?


Thanks




James Barber Wrote:

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

> It sounds like a crime disaster area waiting to

> happen.

> Our minimal local Police effort will be sucked

> into this one proposed new establishment if

> built.

>

> The current pub is already disturbing local

> residents - compounding it with 47 people living

> in dormitories isn't going to make that any better

> and quite likely significantly worse.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> It sounds like a crime disaster area waiting to

> happen.

> Our minimal local Police effort will be sucked

> into this one proposed new establishment if

> built.


Got any evidence for this? Because right now I'm with Abe - you sound pretty Nimbyish.




>

> The current pub is already disturbing local

> residents


The pub was there first. People who move near a pub and are then surprised at noise need to take a look at themselves first.


- compounding it with 47 people living

> in dormitories isn't going to make that any better

> and quite likely significantly worse.


This bit is a fair point, and I hope Cherry Tree have a plan in place. I agree that while the pub was there first, the hostel wasn't.

Just a quick personal note - Socrates I replied to your sweet personal message through the forum message service a couple of weeks back but it's still marked as "not seen" - have a look in your inbox, wouldn't like you to think I'd ignored you! Happy Christmas!
  • 2 weeks later...

There's some rather hysterical comments about hostels here.


I stayed in youth hotels in shared bunk rooms plenty of times in my twenties, it was a cheap option on hiking trips when funds didn't run to a hotel room. We certainly weren't running around creating a crime wave in the towns we visited. We were usually tucked up in bed by midnight ready for the next day's hiking and rarely that drunk as it spoiled the hiking and I don't remember having lots of problems with other guests at the hostels either.


My former lodger who is 40 is currently off travelling round Europe staying in hostels and she definitely isn't wreaking a crime wave across the continent or finding herself caught up in one and I have a friend in East Dulwich who is regularly visiting different European countries to see as much before Brexit as possible and I don't think her and her son who she travels with are like that either.


I have reservations about whether a hostel somewhere as far out of the centre as East Dulwich would really have much of a market - we are quite a distance out of the centre for tourists visiting central London and it's not like you can say it's a lovely picturesque journey here by bus or walking. I suspect a budget B&B which could be used by friends and family visiting people in the area who don't have spare rooms or for people coming to weddings in the area would be more successful.

If I were touring and looking for cheapish non-central hostel accommodation I'd be inclined to choose the YHA Thameside hostel at Rotherhithe https://www.yha.org.uk/places-to-stay/london rather than this one. . More spacious for a start. Even quite primitive YHA hostels, afair, had a common lounge area, distinct from the kitchens for self-cookers. I don't remember three-tier bunks in the YHA either.
  • 1 month later...

So an update on this...


The planning officer is going to recommend that the Hostel application be approved...!


The next step is for council officers to sign this off, so we will see what happens next.


Apparently once signed off there is nothing local residents can do.


Sigh...

James Barber Wrote:

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

> It sounds like a crime disaster area waiting to

> happen.

> Our minimal local Police effort will be sucked

> into this one proposed new establishment if

> built.

>

> The current pub is already disturbing local

> residents - compounding it with 47 people living

> in dormitories isn't going to make that any better

> and quite likely significantly worse.


Stop being hysterical James. Winding people up so that you can ride in as a knight in shining armour does seem to be your modus operandi. It is tiresome street-politics, not constructive and does nothing for the reputation of politicians.


This pub may be disturbing local residents but, not much and it was there long before they were. Why don't you actually support a local business trying to be successful and employ a few more people?

Apparently once signed off there is nothing local residents can do.


As regards the required building work and change of use, that is true. However if people's worst fears are realised (I suspect they may not be) it is always possible to challenge the pub's licence. However, making an issue about it being a pub itself is, as others have mentioned, something else. There has always been a pub there (within the memory of anyone living who could have moved in close to it) - so that is something you would have accepted in moving close. People who move close to a business and then complain about it (assuming it continues to act as such a business would normally act) are the worst sorts of entrists IMHO.


And were I a local politician (which thank goodness I'm not) I would be wary about attacking what could well be a legitimate and valuable-to-the-area business just to curry favour with nimby-ists. By all means campaign against it if it does prove a trouble spot, but don't preempt that.


But then, I don't support the 'no cars, no local businesses' party.

Hi Michael Palaeologus


James Barber has earned his good local reputation. Its good that we have people that are actually trying to nurture the community.

Respectfully disagree of-course but calling people hysterical has never moved a discussion on in a constructive way.

Its a bit 'troll'ie TBH.


Wrote:

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

> James Barber Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It sounds like a crime disaster area waiting to

> > happen.

> > Our minimal local Police effort will be sucked

> > into this one proposed new establishment if

> > built.

> >

> > The current pub is already disturbing local

> > residents - compounding it with 47 people

> living

> > in dormitories isn't going to make that any

> better

> > and quite likely significantly worse.

>

> Stop being hysterical James. Winding people up so

> that you can ride in as a knight in shining armour

> does seem to be your modus operandi. It is

> tiresome street-politics, not constructive and

> does nothing for the reputation of politicians.

>

> This pub may be disturbing local residents but,

> not much and it was there long before they were.

> Why don't you actually support a local business

> trying to be successful and employ a few more

> people?

Exactly. Mr Barber has form in the regard. I am apolitical and am happy to support local politicians that are doing good work and doing it fairly.


The "crime disaster area waiting to happen" is hysterical and rabble-rousing. It winds people up and creates a perceived problem which Mr Barber can then ride in to help "solve" to the adulation of the naive.

Hi BNG,

I meant in terms of the visitors to the bunkhouse becoming victims. Hostels have a poor reputation of visitors being secure and not becoming victims of crime.

I would want the Police to sign of that they are 100% happy with the security arrangements. We don't want the minimal Police effort put into East Dulwich sucked into this.

  • 3 weeks later...

Could you perhaps please point out to him or her that the "Email - E-MAIL COVERING TRANSPORT STATEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE HOSTEL" of 8 Feb 2018 that's linked on the Related Documents page http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=17/AP/4421&system=DC is a proprietary .msg format file, as used by Mictosoft Outlook and Exchange, that many of their readers may not be easily able to read. The council really shouldn't be using the format for a file intended for public access. Their best course would probably have been to print it to PDF from their mail agent.


In the meantime, a quick fix for anyone who wants to read it is to save the file to a drive, rename it wirh a .html extension, and view it in their browser. There'll still be some unreadable stuff, but the email text lower down the page will be clear.


(Or failing that, rely on my cut-and-paste job attached ;)).

Socrates31 Wrote:

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

> Is anyone who made an objection to this proposal

> planning on attending the committee meeting?

>

> The more people objecting this proposal who attend

> the meeting the more likely we are to get the

> right outcome.




"The right outcome" - ??

Unfortunately I can?t attend. I didn?t receive the info re date and time and have a work event I have to be at. Id be grateful to anyone who could go along and put across measured objections based on the points raised in objections (ie not that the pub already is noisy, but that this is likely to increase anti social behaviour, based on the responses is not supported by many local residents or indeed local businesses. Makes it unclear who?s interests this is in? There?s no commitment in any planning policy to provide tourist hostels - it?s not a home for anyone!

Goldilocks,


I have asked the planning committee to defer the decision as insufficient notice has been given for objectors to write in.


I encourage you to write a letter as I am doing which will be considered during the application.

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

    • Labour was damned, no matter what it did, when it came to the budget. It loves go on about the black hole, but if Labour had had its way, we'd have been in lockdown for longer and the black hole would be even bigger.  Am I only the one who thinks it's time the NHS became revenue-generating? Not private, but charging small fees for GP appts, x-rays etc? People who don't turn up for GP and out-patient appointments should definitely be charged a cancellation fee. When I lived in Norway I got incredible medical treatment, including follow up appointments, drugs, x-rays, all for £200. I was more than happy to pay it and could afford to. For fairness, make it somehow means-tested.  I am sure there's a model in there somewhere that would be fair to everyone. It's time we stopped fetishising something that no longer works for patient or doctor.  As for major growth, it's a thing of the past, no matter where in the world you live, unless it's China. Or unless you want a Truss-style, totally de-regulated economy and love capitalism with a large C. Look how that's turning out - the squeezed middle or ALICE (Asset Limited Income Constrained Employed) voted Trump. We can't have it both ways. 
    • If you read my post I expect a compromise with the raising of the cap on agricultural property so that far less 'ordinary' farmers do not get caught  Clarkson is simply a high profile land owner who is not in the business as a conventional farmer.  Here's a nice article that seems to explain things well  https://www.sustainweb.org/blogs/nov24-farming-budget-inheritance-tax-apr/ It's too early to speculate on 2029.  I expect that most of us who were pleased that Labour got in were not expecting anything radical. Whilst floating the idea of hitting those looking to minimise inheritance tax, including gifting, like fuel duty they also chickened put. I'm surprised that anyone could start touting for the Tories after 14 years of financial mismanagement and general incompetence. Surly not.  A very low bar for Labour but they must be well aware that there doesn't need to be much of a swing form Reform to overturn Labour's artificially large majority.  But even with a generally rabid right wing press, now was the opportunity to be much braver.
    • And I worry this Labour government with all of it's own goals and the tax increases is playing into Farage's hands. With Trump winning in the US, his BFF Farage is likely to benefit from strained relations between the US administration and the UK one. As Alastair Campbell said on a recent episode of The Rest is Politics who would not have wanted to be a fly on the wall of the first call between Angela Rayner and JD Vance....those two really are oil and water. Scary, scary times right now and there seems to be a lack of leadership and political nous within the government at a time when we really need it - there aren't many in the cabinet who you think will play well on the global stage.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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