Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sue Wrote:

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

> Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> -----

> > This is a iwind up. Surely....?

>

> Only just seen this thread, and my thoughts

> exactly


xxxxxxx


The guy who has moved out of the Junction shop told me that there is no way this shop will become an Indian restaurant.


ETA: Sadly, as it was a Saturday night and I'd had a few bevvies, I can't remember exactly what he said, but it was something to do with council regulations for Lordship Lane, in fact he may have also said it couldn't be a restaurant at all, but whatever it was, it deffo won't be an Indian restaurant.


So I think the OP is confirmed as a wind-up.

the-e-dealer Wrote:

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

> There are NO regulations to restrict the type of

> food.


No but there ARE regulations about the mixture of food/non food outlets that are allowed and as the current shop is not a food outlet it is probable/possible that the council would be unwilling to alter the balance.

Cassius Wrote:

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

> the-e-dealer Wrote:

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

> -----

> > There are NO regulations to restrict the type

> of

> > food.

>

> No but there ARE regulations about the mixture of

> food/non food outlets that are allowed and as the

> current shop is not a food outlet it is

> probable/possible that the council would be

> unwilling to alter the balance.


xxxxxxx


Yes, I think that's the reason that I was given as to why it wouldn't be a restaurant.

I agree with something another well known poster said recently. Which is that the days of a good independent start up restaurant on a central Lordship Lane location are now pretty much over. Rents are prohibitive, even in the current climate.


As a result, the only buyers of new leases are more likely to be chains who can work on lower margins due to their economies of scale. And so South London's best independent high street risks becoming further homogenised.


I'd also agree that Camberwell and Peckham are now the domain of more interesting start ups (Silk Road, Angels and Gypsies, Frank's 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 link below has further information suggesting that the shop demolition and square redevelopment is funded separately from the station upgrades, so will go ahead:   https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/peckham-rye-stations-step-free-upgrade-has-been-put-on-hold-82360/ 
    • Last time the toilets were out of operation in the station M&S we were all told to go out and up to Sainsbo! Certainly didn't close (I'm not suggesting that's the thing the library should do!)
    • Was it the two proxy votes that had swung it for Cllr McAsh in the first round? Interesting that he lost by two votes in the second. One wonders what the next move for Cllr McAsh is and whether the infighting will continue between the various factions within Southwark Labour?
    • 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
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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