Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There's nothing at all in the submitted documents to indicate any other businesses would remain on the site other than Roy brooks and the supermarket. Which is supposed to be larger than either the sainsbury at the end of crystal palace road / lordship lane or the tesco by Nigel road, while providing no customer parking whatsoever. And they want to cluster access to residents underground parking, the supermarket loading bay and the bus stop all on Barry road just north of the narrows, all within 30m of road. Only politeness makes me not use a derogatory term here and merely say "dangerous to everyone".

The southern end of Peckham rye green has only just started to get a few places making it worth going to, like Gymboree cafe, the rebuilt one on the rye, and the new clock house; blot the chance for adding some social life at Barry parade out by putting nothing there but a supermarket, thanks a lot.

The business side of this proposal really spits in the face of anyone talking "we like to give chances to smaller businesses". Really, give me the takeaways back.

I guess it's a first iteration - trying to see how far they can go. The design is rather boring - looks like the new built blocks on old Kent by the fire station. "Conservation-area worthy" ho-hum. Lots of overlook.

Fingers crossed this proposal will be reworked.

sedm Wrote:

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

> If Neighbourhood Vets goes I will be devastated...

> I have a much loved but very poorly rescue kitten

> and that place has been invaluable to me


Yes me too! I popped into the vets on Wednesday & spoke with the manager. He's aware of the plans & assured me they are staying. He said their lease doesn't run out for a good few years & if anything they will be gaining more space to expand the premises.

apples Wrote:

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

> Interested to know how the planned supermarket

> will be stocked on that busy corner.


And will it be like the shoddy and really badly planned Tescos - both EDRoad and Nigel Road. All the recycling etc. just shoved out the front over the pavement/ pedestrian pathways.


Fear for Barrys Offie and Shaun the Barbers...

Please god something more imaginative emerges.

And five stories? Havin' a laugh....


HP

There are already far too many supermarkets in the area. The planners bleat on about creating jobs but the truth is that jobs are lost when these convenience supermarkets open you only have to look at the effect on the shops by the Plough in Lordship Lane. Sainsburys have stores all over Dulwich now and something must be done to stop them

Done - ugly building, too tall, materials and style incongruous and out of keeping with other surrounding buildings and the area, impinges on local established businesses, extra traffic, deliveries and a carpark near that junction and bus stop ... What's not to love! urgh!


HP

Reflecting the above, I think its important to distinguish between the development of the site per se, which seems to me to be an obviously good thing, and the specific proposed development, which people might object to. The impact on current businesses is a red herring in planning terms.

DaveR Wrote:

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

> Reflecting the above, I think its important to

> distinguish between the development of the site

> per se, which seems to me to be an obviously good

> thing, and the specific proposed development,

> which people might object to. The impact on

> current businesses is a red herring in planning

> terms.


It would be if there was an alternative proposal floating around. Not seen many though...

El Presidente Wrote:

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

> oh yeah. much better to have a row of empty shops

> covered in graffiti. That really fits with the

> area....



No one wants a row of empty shops, but then presumably most don't want a shit development either. If they don't think its shit and like it they can also go onto the application and say so. Wasn't that long ago most of them were occupied along there - until the redevelopment came up - cue hoardings and graffiti.

El Presidente Wrote:

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

> oh yeah. much better to have a row of empty shops

> covered in graffiti. That really fits with the

> area....


Right, no one wants a row of empty shops.. but people here adore graffiti.

They cannot get enough.


I jest not. Any white space.. Cover it with crap.


Foxy

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

    • Hi there I am an experienced cat/dog/house sitter. If you are going away this summer and would be to know your house and animals are being taken care of well don’t stress I can help. I have experience across a range of breeds, rescued more animals than I can count and I am a qualified vet nurse.  Please get in touch with dates and location and hopefully I won’t be booked up. Happy to negotiate a good rate.    Contactable references available, current DBS available.    Many thanks  Trace  
    • What Firkins were they? The only localish ones I remember were the Phoenix and Firkin and the Fox and Firkin. The Plough has changed its name several times, and then back to the Plough, but to the best of my recollection the Uplands Tavern was named that until it became The Actress, and The Bishop was called something else whose name escapes me (though the smell from the gents lingers in my memory) but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a Firkin?
    • These statements were in the Consultation Findings report published (later than promised) just before the licence was granted:  "The site hire fee goes directly to supporting the delivery of the council’s Events service, which supports the delivery of up to 100 free-to-attend community events per year – please refer to section 1 (Licensing and income)" I've drafted an email to request some more details of these "free-to-attend" events, as "up to" is a fairly meaningless description - could be 100, could be none? - and therefore doesn't help anyone to decide whether it is actually a benefit to the community or not. Even if it is 100, I'm not sure I could name even one of them? "The site hire fee goes directly to supporting the provision of a grants fund – the Cultural Celebrations programme - please refer to section 1 (Licensing and income)" A similarly meaningless statement in terms of gauging whether, or how much, this is a benefit to the local community. What is it, what does it do, how much of the fee goes to it? And how can the fee go "directly" to two different things? Surely, "directly" means without deviation, straight to, without being changed or reduced?? Again, I'll be asking all these questions to the events dept. I find it outrageous & insulting that a public body can try to justify such an intrusive & disruptive event with such flimsy and opaque "benefits", with zero figures or details to quantify them. They may as well not bother with a consultation, just say "Look, we can't be arsed to justify our decision, it's happening so just deal with it".  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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