Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think if you read the thread, the idea is that the current service will be replaced with a franchise post-office arrangement still located on Lordship Lane. This means Lordship Lane would get another post office inside of some sort of shop providing the same services as the existing stand alone post office. I'd like to hear what problems people think this will pose (as many people on this thread have discussed how well they've seen these partnerships work). Does anyone have any information that contradicts what James B posted regarding keeping the same level of service?

So people want a petition to keep a crown post office as is that isnt open when many want to use the service and is making a loss and isnt likely to be replaced until Spring 2015.

Vs. a franchise post office with probably longer opening hours, providing the same services but connected to a related business so they get some customer crossover and make a profit.

I must be missing something. This doesnt feel like a threat to the well being of East Dulwich businesses or its residents.


Of the things going on in East Dulwich I'm spending my time serving residents casework, fighting to get new schools,trying to ensure we have Dulwich Police officers spending time in Dulwich, trying to resolve the nursery space crisis and helping local businesses.

Hi Freddy1929,

So I would suggest we have a massive campaign IF the promises made are broken or an unsuitable replacement is proposed.


But protesting essentially against change because we don't like change is likely to make any future campaign much harder and more dissmissible as just a bunch of people from East Dulwich who don't like change complaining again.


I'd counsel to keep our powder dry for when we really need to campaign on this issue.

How does it work when there's a post office counter within a shop - who owns/runs the PO counter? My rather hazy recall is that the PO counters tend to close earlier than the shops themselves, probably 5.30.


I don't know enough to know whether this could be a good or bad thing for the area/the current staff.


James, do you know if there is anyone interested in this particular PO? Would it require a change of use application if it went from say a PO to a stationers or convenience store? Any info would be useful.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Freddy1929,

> So I would suggest we have a massive campaign IF

> the promises made are broken or an unsuitable

> replacement is proposed.

>

> But protesting essentially against change because

> we don't like change is likely to make any future

> campaign much harder and more dissmissible as just

> a bunch of people from East Dulwich who don't like

> change complaining again.

>

> I'd counsel to keep our powder dry for when we

> really need to campaign on this issue.


So now we know why JB didn't raise it here-he doesn't care and thinks it's a good thing. Plus he's too busy 'helping businesses', what like the co-op with it's extended hours?! Very disingenuous to say you'll protest if promises aren't kept (Clegg), when you know if it gets to that stage it won't be reversed. Very selective JB. Shame you didn't fight for the police stn,and hospital like yot are for more schools & nurseries (to be built on hospital site-coincidence)?

Hi Twirly, Callie,

I think you're refering to local sub post offices. Usually very small operations.

The franchised mode we're talking about for East dulwich would be a full post office and not close for lunch times. I'd expect it to have longer opening times than the current crown post office.


Hi Uncleben,

I didnt say that. I'm talking to local businesses about issues that affect them. A cluster have a major anti social problem we need to resolve. But yes, I do prioritise and the crown post office we have nearly two years time.

How can you fight for a school and hospital on the same site? Your machinations will lead to a substantially reduced medical facility for what will be the ghost of Dulwich hosp. But you'll have a great big school to help your reelection campaign and votes from parents who won't have anywhere local to take the sick kid! And the police stn-1 stn closed down, 1 stn sold off, and your 'fighting' for a hobby bobby to have his tea and biscuits at the ghost of Dulwich hosp! ! Right oh JB.

ultrauk Wrote:

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

> If the main PO branch on LL is closed we are

> doomed. The poor woman who runs the small PO

> counter next to the Plough Pub is already run off

> her feet & customers are queueing down the shop

> aisle as it is.


And a lovely woman she is too. Very helpful and patient when I'm applying for things.


What's important in this debate is the difference between a sub and franchised PO.


The subs are independent businesses which receive fixed and variable payments based on their performance from the Post Office. These PO's include the PO's by Dulwich Library, Dulwich Village and Forest Hill Road. They don't offer all the services of a main branch.


Franchises are sub-contracted by PO Limited to provide the same level of service as a Crown PO or improved services of which WHSmith is the main provider, although other businesses can apply, such as the independent discount shop retailer in Penge.


Crown PO staff who decide to move across will be paid by the franchisee, however as seen at Forest Hill, most if not all staff decided to take redundancy, which led to WHSmith hiring post office staff from launch.

minder Wrote:

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

> Went into WH Smiths at Rye Lane today and found

> out this branch is closing completely on 18th May.



This is bad news indeed. They were one of the good 'staple' shops, excuse the pun :O)

Thanks Bic Basher. So a franchise will provide the same or better service. What we have locally so far is the sub-model?


Bic Basher Wrote:

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

> ultrauk Wrote:

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

> -----

> > If the main PO branch on LL is closed we are

> > doomed. The poor woman who runs the small PO

> > counter next to the Plough Pub is already run

> off

> > her feet & customers are queueing down the shop

> > aisle as it is.

>

> And a lovely woman she is too. Very helpful and

> patient when I'm applying for things.

>

> What's important in this debate is the difference

> between a sub and franchised PO.

>

> The subs are independent businesses which receive

> fixed and variable payments based on their

> performance from the Post Office. These PO's

> include the PO's by Dulwich Library, Dulwich

> Village and Forest Hill Road. They don't offer all

> the services of a main branch.

>

> Franchises are sub-contracted by PO Limited to

> provide the same level of service as a Crown PO or

> improved services of which WHSmith is the main

> provider, although other businesses can apply,

> such as the independent discount shop retailer in

> Penge.

>

> Crown PO staff who decide to move across will be

> paid by the franchisee, however as seen at Forest

> Hill, most if not all staff decided to take

> redundancy, which led to WHSmith hiring post

> office staff from launch.

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Thanks Bic Basher. So a franchise will provide

> the same or better service. What we have locally

> so far is the sub-model?


Yes, except for the main Crown PO at 72 LL.


The nearest franchised PO is Forest Hill on the top floor of WHSmith.


With the closure of WHSmith in Peckham, I think it's safe to say that it won't be replacing the Rye Lane PO.

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

    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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