Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Am surprised to see that James Barber refers to parking on Crystal Palace Rd near the leisure centre as a 'nightmare'. At the time when it was proposed to resite the entrance from East deulwich road he was in full support and positively sneered at my neighbour and myself - who live opposite-when we raised parking and congestion issues at the planning committee!

He accused us of being anti community and selfish.

Note ever likely to get my vote. wonder what brought about his change of heart.

It does happen that anchor shops draw people to spend their money when they previously would have gone elsewhere. The local newsagent by my office closed down within 6 months (maybe even 3) of a tesco express opening nearby, having been open for years... Also in Cambridge a few years ago the out of town shopping became so popular that the shops in town started shutting down; people browsed there, but bought out of town; of course there is a massive new centre in town there now and no longer there regularly so don't know the impact. Just saying James might not deserve the bashing; competition from supermarkets may not detract all custom from smaller grocers, but it will certainly take some; whether any loss in sales would be enough to shut a few places down who knows-but the rents are going up and a few places have gone already do there may be something in it. (Also I'm not remotely politically motivated, but I find all the james bashing would actually sway me to supporting him rather than what I imagine the desired effect is)!

The opening of large shop doesn't necessarily mean the demise of smaller local shops. Tesco Express has not seen the death of the local shops on ED Road next to Locale. The smaller supey has upgraded and become a Londis.


A new mainstream supermarket-express would give a local alternative to Tesco Express, Coop and Iceland.

If you read the case officer's delegated report it is clear the applicant satisfied the correct planning tests. It demonstrated that there were no available premises within any defined centre (not only East Dulwich but Camberwell, Herne HIll and Peckham too). On this basis, and going back to my original post, investment into an empty premises should surely be welcomed. It will create jobs and bring an empty unit back into use. Given its scale it didnt need to demonstrate what impact it would have of these centres.


As far as retail tests go, this application seems to fulfil these and really I dont understand James how you can be "amazed" that planning permission has been granted. Your Government is encouraging the planning system to be pro-growth after all.

I've not been on the forum for a while and I've just read through this thread.

Yet again, councillor Barber shows his true colours: a man on a campaign to change the world into his personal view of what it should look like, with little or no regard for those who voted for him.


He now claims to be a friend of the Lordship Lane trader - hmmmm



Here is a deputation that Clr Barber heard from the traders last year about controlled parking:

http://southsouthwarkbusinessassociation.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/deputation-to-dulwich-community-council.html


After listenting to that, he was one of only 3 (out of 9?) councillors to vote in favour of controlled parking.

The choices for this site are between a large nursery, and we have a terrible shortage of nursery places, or a retail shop but our existing shops on Lordship Lane tell me they re are really struggling.


Sadly Southwakr Council refused the nursery due to loss of office space that allows employment but granted permission for a shop which would employ less than a nurery. At appeal we managed to get the nursery granted permission.


Hi gsirett,

A number of shops on Grove Vale would have liked controlled parking running for 1 hour each day as it would enable their customer to come and go as well as deliveries to more easilly come and go. Equally a number of shops feared it.

It didnt proceed and your view prevailed. Well done. If you recall my instance the decision was referred to the Dulwich Community Council helped give you that opportuntiy to win. You may hat emy views on this issue but I helped ensure your views could win.

>

> Sadly Southwakr Council refused the nursery due to

> loss of office space that allows employment but

> granted permission for a shop which would employ

> less than a nurery. At appeal we managed to get

> the nursery granted permission.


James, I don't quite follow this. Are you saying that the permission has changed again, so quickly (from retail to nursery). Or that it has now has 2 permissions - retail and childcare? (

tomk Wrote:

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

> >

> > Sadly Southwakr Council refused the nursery due

> to

> > loss of office space that allows employment but

> > granted permission for a shop which would

> employ

> > less than a nurery. At appeal we managed to get

> > the nursery granted permission.

>

> James, I don't quite follow this. Are you saying

> that the permission has changed again, so quickly

> (from retail to nursery). Or that it has now has 2

> permissions - retail and childcare? (



Agreed - I'm confused now too. Which is it going to be, retail or nursery?

It seems like a group including James B and (who?) tried to get a separate planning permission in place in an attempt to stop the retail unit. Who else is in that we James?


Also, there are shops opening up in Lordship Lane all the time so I really am not sure that they are struggling as much as they might not want additional competition which of course is good for consumers but less great for businesses (small or otherwise). What I find galling is that you support a supermarket in the new residential development of the garden centre (on other threads) so your opposition here seems hypocritical...

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

    • Sorry. Link wasn't working on my phone, but it is now, and I couldn't delete the post.
    • Sent you a pm
    • I think there's a fair number of "participating" sub offices that do passports or, at least, play the "check and send" game (£16 for glancing at your form), so some degree of cherry-picking seems to be permitted. Though it does look as if Post Offices "Indentity Services" are where it things the future lies, and "Right to Rent" (though it's more an eligibility check) looks a bit of an earner, along with DBS checks and the Age Verification services that, if the government gets its way, we'll all need to subscribe to before we're allowed on mumsnet. Those services, incidentally, seem mostly outsourced to an outfit called "Yoti", a privately-owned, loss-making "identity platform" with debts of £150m, a tardy approach to filings, and a finger in a bunch of questionable pies ("Passive Facial Liveness Recognition" sounds gloriously sinister) so what the Post Office gets out of the arrangement isn't clear, but I'm sure they think it worthwhile. That said, they once thought the same of funeral plans which, for some peculiar reason, failed to set fire to the shuffling queues, even metaphorically. For most, it seems, Post Office work is mostly a dead loss, and even the parcel-juggling is more nuisance than blessing. As a nonchalant retailer of other people's services the organisation can only survive now on the back of subsidies, and we're not even sure what they are. The taxpayer-funded subsidies from government (a £136m hand-out to keep Horizon going, £1bn for its compensation scheme, around £50m for the network, and perhaps a loan or two) are clearish, but the cross-subsidies provided by other retail activities in branches are murkier. As are the "phantom shortfalls" created by the Horizon system, which secretly lined Post Office's coffers as postmasters balanced the books with contributions from their own pockets. Those never showed up in the accounts though - because Horizon *was* the accounting system - so we can't tell how much of a subsidy that was. We might get an idea of the scale, however, from Post Office's belated Horizon Shortfall Scheme, which is handing £75k to every branch that's complained, though it's anyone's guess if that's fair or not. Still, that's all supposed to be behind us now, and Post Office's CEO-of-the-week recently promised an "extra" £250m a year for the branches (roughly enough to cover a minimum wage worker in each), which might make it worth the candle for some. Though he didn't expect that would happen before 2030 (we can only wonder when his pension will mature) and then it'd be "subject to government funding", so it might have to be a very short candle as it doesn't look like a promise that he can make. Still, I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from applying for a franchise, and it's possible that, this time, Post Office will be telling the truth. And, you never know, we might all be back in the Post Office soon, and eagerly buying stamps, if only for existence permits, rather than for our letters.
    • The situation outside Oru is far worse with their large tables immediately adjacent to badly parked bikes using the bike racks there. And the lamppost also blocking the pavement.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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