Lordship lane Co-op wants to open 23/7

[the-e-dealer]

Hmm he does doesn't he.

[*Bob*]

God forbid elected officals (elected by us, offically) should have opinions on things.

Makes your blood boil.

[Mick Mac]

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> God forbid elected officals (elected by us,

> offically) should have opinions on things.

>

>

Indeed - and yes I do note your irony Bob. But why not wait to see what their eloctorate feel about the issue before lodging an objection?

[david_carnell]

Because we elect people to let them make decisions on our behalf, not expect them to consult us on EVERY issue.

It's called representative democracy.

James, in his capacity as a councillor, is absolutely entitled to register his discontent at this idea without having to conduct some sort of survey of the electorate. And he's still entitled to vote whatever way he wants regardless.

You are entitled to out an x in a box once every four years. Get used to it.

[sedm]

I think it's great that James Barber highlights what's going on in the area so people can make their views known.

Personally I'm pro a Co-Op opening 24/7 - I work shifts so would be very handy being able to grab some food on the way home!

[Jeremy]

I think Southwark council should organise a refurendum on the opening hours of Co-op's Lordship Lane branch.

[KalamityKel]

It would be more appropriate to actually email/contact the licensing department act the council not to email/contact James.

The idea that James is the main contact for such issues is incorrect, ridiculous and incredibly misleading on James' part.

If you want your comments taken seriously follow the proper channels.

[Mick Mac]

sedm Wrote:

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

> I think it's great that James Barber highlights

> what's going on in the area so people can make

> their views known.

>

> Personally I'm pro a Co-Op opening 24/7 - I work

> shifts so would be very handy being able to grab

> some food on the way home!

Ok, so you will be.pleased that James Barber already objected to it then

[James Barber]

Despite the many who use this forum many don't. So it's a useful sounding board but in the end I have to act in what I consider the best interests of the area.

But I've highlighted how to comment for or against These applications.

For this decision a licensing sub committee of three councillors will decide on these two interconnected applications. I won't be one of them nor will my ward colleagues.

[Mick Mac]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> I think Southwark council should organise a

> refurendum on the opening hours of Co-op's

> Lordship Lane branch.

Ha ha. I have never known James Barber's view to be swayed by anything expressed on this forum.

Yes he does deal with ad hoc questions well but on planning matters he makes up his own mind. Maybe that's what he is elected to do but I'd have thought he'd be interested in people's views and be flexible enough to adapt his views but personally I think he is rather stubborn. This is another example.

[the-e-dealer]

He is an Elected Representative.

[Mick Mac]

Ok. The world has changed a bit since the time when elected representatives had no means of testing the water on local opinion. And most do not hold up the pretence of taking into account the views of people on this forum. It is this double standard that I personally disagree with.

[Sue]

KalamityKel Wrote:

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

> It would be more appropriate to actually

> email/contact the licensing department act the

> council not to email/contact James.

>

xxxxxxx

But that is exactly what James has asked people to do in his original post in this thread!

He gave the email address of the licensing department for people to do that. He just asked to be copied in - obviously you don't have to copy him in if you don't want to.

ETA: So I really don't understand why you think he has been in any way misleading.

[Michael Palaeologus]

It does seem that when the Forum agrees with James, well that demonstrates the voice of East Dulwich. When the Forum does not agree with James, it is simply a useful sounding board that many do not use.

Is there any supermarket development (other than Waitrose) that James Barber would support? It would seem not.

A 24 hours Coop seems like a useful addition.

[northlondoner]

Count me in.

[James Barber]

This feedback has been surprising.

If supports could make tell me if they live within a few hundred metres of the Ccop that would be useful.

If most people do then perhaps I've got it wrong.

[TopTree]

Great idea ? Put the Police Station in there as well:

[shaunag]

Personally wouldn't want to live next to 24 hour local supermarket, and wouldn't want my local corner shop to go 24/7 either. I'm constantly picking up rubbish from my doorstep from people dropping it, and its always worse on the weekend when people dump eg takeaway containers after a night out. Street cleaning probably better on lordship lane but the surrounding streets will see more rubbish from drunken munchies packets being discarded in gardens. Maybe wouldnt irritate most, but every day I'm picking up some lazy sods rubbish and it drives me crazy!

[edhistory]

Mr Barber,

I live and work on Lordship Lane about 100 metres away from the Co-Op building.

I am in favour of the proposal.

I speak with a large number of East Dulwich residents each week. I will take some soundings.

John K

[KalamityKel]

Sue Wrote:

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

> KalamityKel Wrote:

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

> -----

> > It would be more appropriate to actually

> > email/contact the licensing department act the

> > council not to email/contact James.

> >

>

> xxxxxxx

>

> But that is exactly what James has asked people to

> do in his original post in this thread!

>

> He gave the email address of the licensing

> department for people to do that. He just asked to

> be copied in - obviously you don't have to copy

> him in if you don't want to.

>

> ETA: So I really don't understand why you think he

> has been in any way misleading.

Sue if you're going to quote me please do so correctly.

By James asking to be copied in would imply his involvement in the application or indeed there is some influence to be had with the decision making, which, James has indicated he has no part of so aside from sheer noseyness why should James be included?

No doubt there are will be some that disagree agree with me *shrugs* and waffle on about all the good he's doing... blah blah blah. Yes making us aware is good but not to give a false impression.

[LondonMix]

Perhaps because he's interested to see the formal opinions of his constituents?

[the-e-dealer]

He is a represenatative - he has to listen. - Or Should.

[Mick Mac]

I'd be in favour of 24 hour co op. I don't live in close proximity to it. But I'm not sure either that the availability of a local amenity should be dictated by very close residents. Not sure why that is the case when it could benefit a very wide residential area. As would M and S.

[James Barber]

I asked to be copied because it inform me should my original stance feel wrong. So far people copying me it about 3 to 2 for the Co op being open and selling alcohol.

Equally the number of emails we receive helps us decide priorities. We only have so many hours.

[StraferJack]

I wouldn't be against the proposed opening hours - but I am a bit doubtful they will be that beneficial to Coop themselves, and wonder if those opening hours will last.

I'm sure it will be beneficial to some people, but enough of them to warrant the costs of staying open that long?