Frisco

"where the park cafes did indeed have 3 year licences and not full leases." In the context of this thread, and given the similar outcomes for either leaseholders or licences in these circumstances, I'm not sure that exact terminology was required to make the point that the cafes aren't owned outright by the operators, and can be periodically put out for reassignment and/or competitive tender.

then that tends to be reflected* in the rent that's charged

"it's called being fascetious" I know, mirroring behaviour is a habit I'm trying to kick.

"Another thing to consider is where one of these establishments varies from the norm they take a huge financial risk - often of their own money. Not many are prepared to do that." Ok, confession time. I have been the part-owner of a successful catering outlet in Surrey in the past, which had a reputation for good, value for money and healthy food. It was also in an enclosed shopping centre, which is how I know that leaseholders can't get access to retail units between certain hours, which mostly coincide, more or less, with shop opening hours. In another career, I've also been involved in advising on the letting of contracts for catering venues (cafes) in municipal parks, and they can be a little goldmine. If they're not money earners or attractive to contractors, then that tends to be involved in the rent that's charged. Councils often rely on the catering facilities within their parks to encourage a wide cross section of the community to use them. Parks are for everyone, not just kids.

"Another thing to consider is where one of these establishments varies from the norm they take a huge financial risk - often of their own money. Not many are prepared to do that." Ok, confession time. I have been the part-owner of a successful catering outlet in Surrey in the past, which had a reputation for good, value for money and healthy food. It was also in an enclosed shopping centre, which is how I know that leaseholders can't get access to retail units between certain hours, which mostly coincide, more or less, with shop opening hours. In another career, I've also been involved in advising on the letting of contracts for catering venues (cafes) in municipal parks, and they can be a little goldmine. If they're not money earners or attractive options for catering operators or contractors, then that tends to be reflected in any rent or premium that's charged. Often council's will carry out modernisation too. Councils often rely on the catering facilities within their parks to encourage a wide cross section of the community to use them. Parks are for everyone, not just kids.

"I don't think park cafes have "leases" - in the usual legal meaning of the term "lease" - because the licencee (unlike a lessee) only has access to the premises when the park is open and not 24/7." Believe me that do, and the access issues you've detailed as no different to shopping centres that are not accessible to shop leaseholders during hours when they they are closed. "This is food for the majority. It is in the park, it is fine. My children are overloaded with bloomin vegan birthday cake, raisins and rice cakes from everywhere else. Why must everywhere turn into a gastro location?" Isn't it funny how people appear to go into an overdrive of misinterpretation and exaggeration when decent non-unhealthy food is mentioned. There is also plenty of open ground in the market without having to pitch at the same level as the restaurant in Dulwich Picture Gallery. The best cafe I've found in a London park was in Ravensbourne Park several years ago, which was an independent operator who provided good normal food or decent quality, but didn't rely on chips, etc to maintain its custom. It was always very busy too, and they catered for everyone. Also, on the 'scran' issue, I wouldn't even have used the cafe when under its previous operator as somewhere to go for a cup of tea, and my godson's mother declined to let him eat anything in there (but she's bound to be too posh, she lives in Catford).

_what are we missing out on?_ I don't know what you're missing out on now, and I rarely find anywhere near Dulwich Park to be tempted to use it, but the facilities there would have a bearing on my decision. Plus it's not particularly accessible for me, without having to faff round dealing with the council. As far as the previous incarnation of the cafe was concerned, my view was that it was dirty and the very limited menu was unappealing and unappetising. Another correspondent my be running away with the impression that I've suggesting changing it to some kind of foodie venue, but I'm not. I like to occasionally eat in one of the two reasonable worker cafes on LL, and I also don't consider garlic bruschetta to be particularly healthy.

"I can quite happily go to a park without visiting a cafe there. To say that is a reason for not going to the park is a bit overreacting is it not? Anyway it's not that bad in there. What do you expect, as Sean so rightly says, it's a cafe in the park not Fifteen." Like you, I'm entitled to my view and to express it, and to engage in discussion, without openly criticising someone else's. You have no idea of my circumstances, or why I choose to go to parks which have decent cafes and facilities, and not everyone is the same. Plus, I'm perfectly entitled to go to whichever park I like, for whatever reason I have.

"Shall we cut all the trees at the side of the road down as well, just in case they are distraction too?" Not necessary in this case, but sadly TfL do seem to be doing quite a lot of that. Plus you are conflating arguments about preserving existing trees and planting new ones in inappropriate places.

With the previous operator it was both. It may well be that the demographic of park users has changed over the last seven years. Plus people's expectation of food, and their idea what is desirable and healthy, may have changed, particularly for children.

_A centered single tree, in my opinion would appease both arguments._ You can't possibly know that a single centred tree wouldn't cause a problem for drivers and pedestrians, and it seems better to err on the side of caution when proposing to make changes of this kind at such a tight junction and traffic pinch-point. Plus, a single palm tree is not quite the same as a single native tree (or, come to that, a tall thin piece of urban art) because don't necessarily grow upwards to begin with, they tend to remain low and to become quite wide and bushy as they mature.

"Do you remember what we had there before this? OHMYGOD!!!" I do remember what was there before, and I would never have been enticed to eat anything from there; It's one of the reasons I don't go to Dulwich Park. I'm also not surprised that there appears to have been little improvement with their successor at the cafe though. Seven years ago Dulwich Park cafe as probably not as exciting a prospect as it could be now as a catering venue, and I guess that things may not have been helped by the likely lack of culinary tstes, expertise and aspiration on the part of the people at Southwark Council who drew up the specification for the cafe contract, and those in the council's Leisure Department who made the choice of this catering operator for the venue. The thing to do is to find out from the council when the current lease is out for renewal, and to make it clear to them, possibly through local councillors, that things have changed and a new and more appropriate caterer needs to be selected for the next period of any contract. Start a campaign, and you can request the information regarding the end of the current lease by writing under the Freedom of Information Act, by writing to the council [ email:accessinfo@southwark.gov.uk ] and stating that you are making an FOI enquiry. The end date of a lease or contract is not commercially sensitive information, if they try to argue that it is.

I suspect you mean the man who was killed crossing over from outside the tile shop at the bottom of Peckham Rye. I think there's already a campaign in place to have changes made, and it may be being led by the son of the man who was killed, who is the proprietor of the tile shop.

It's not that long ago that TfL were trying to have this roundabout removed as part of the red route scheme through ED. It's strange that the council now appears to be trying to make it more of a visual obstruction. I wonder if TfL have been consulted about this proposal?

"IIRC, the block on Lordship Lane with Budgens at one end and the chemists at the other is built on a bomb damaged site. I think it was a V2 that not only destroyed the original block but killed about 20 people at a tram stop, pretty grim." The block referred to was the site of the Co-op, which was destroyed later in the war in August 1944, when a bomb fell in daytime and many shoppers and passers-by were killed. When I came to live in ED there was still a quite a sizable Co-op on the greater part of that block, but it closed shortly after. Almost every 40s and 50s house or the larger 40s/50s developments in the area are on the sites of bombings. The 1940s development of flats in Melbourne Grove is on the site of a very big explosion, but in most cases you can see where strings of bombs fell across numerous roads, resulting in post-war developments of 3 or 4 post-war houses or flats in roads next to each other. At that time ED was part of the then Borough of Camberwell, which had 90%+ of its total housing damaged in some way in the war.

"Anyone know if he's telling the truth and whether I'd be wasting my time?" He's probably telling the truth. I anticipated there would be problems for Sainsurys obtaining a dispensing licence when I saw that they had a pharmacy included in the plan of the refurbished store. I suspect that they just went for a generic floor plan for other stores without looking into the local issues that might prevent them obtaining a licence. About 10 years ago, Sainsburys had a major refit and, when it reopened, the store included a Boots Chemist in the space where Starbucks used to be in the previous store. They could never obtain a dispensing licence due to opposition local chemists, and one in pharmacist in particular on Lordship Lane. Eventually the Boots closed and was replaced by Starbucks. What's happening now seem to be a repeat of what happened 10 years ago, and I suspect that they may never get the licence they need to dispense prescriptions on-site, but at least they're being more imaginative in their solutions than Boots were, they just told everyone that they couldn't dispense. I always used to find the chemist in North Cross Road very good for providing prescriptions.

"I believe that a palm tree has been chosen to go on the roundabout but I haven't had it it confirmed." Surround it with sand and the roundabout will look like one of these desert islands you get, or used to anyway, in comics and cartoons.

_LuvPeckham is right. And everyman, call me a cynic, but that speed camera is placed where it will trap the most motorists, rather than curtail the speed of vehicles approaching the shops and junction at Colyton Rd._ The speed camera is a hangover from when the school was open, and will probably be useful if when the new academy opens, especially if they use Peckham Rye Park as their sports ground. If you object to the new traffic lights, and the apparent lack of consultation, I suggest you contact your councillor rather than just the Environment Department of Southwark Council. I hope the Environment Department deals with correspondence more efficiently than it does telephone contact, which all seems to get stuck in call centre hell.

"As this has been delounged I think it might me worth reiterating that WBC is open to the public on Saturday 14th September as part of Open House Weekend and that it is usually possible to climb to the top of the tower and witness unparalleled views of London." Ha! I missed this; apologies. I MUST try to get to WBC this year.

"The college was built by the same guy who designed the phone box." This is true, and as has already been pointed out it was Sir Giles Gilbert Scot http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/scotgaz/people/famousfirst1687.html A bit of Dulwich related trivia is that source of influence and inspiration for the design of the unusual domed top of the red telephone box has been a bit of a mystery, but it does bear a remarkable similarity to almost unique design of domes on the Dulwich Picture Gallery, which was designed by the architect Sir John Soane (1753-1837). I have a great fondness for the Salavation Army College, which is very evocative of the architecture of the 1930s. It's usually open to the public as part of the London Open House Weekend, but I'm not sure if that includes access to the tower.

I got a letter from them today. It went straight in the bin.

"I am firmly against disabled parking for reasons i've given on other threads" Yes, and uniformed and pathetically ignorant reasons they were too.

"Where exactly is this esteemed estate agents opening?" The old DSS office, I think.

Also the subject of quite a well known Impressionist painting: http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk/images/gallery/6963dcce.html

LostThePlot wrote: "These ticket machines sadly cost more in infrastructure and ongoing maintanace and cash collection than conductors ever did." As you've made this claim, do you have the evidence to back it up? I don't believe that this is true, and if it was it would have been exposed far more widely than on EDF. LostThePlot wrote: "Then of course there is the whole issue fo having to have change and lone woned being stranded because they did nto have the right change for a ticket. Riduculous idea they were." At the beginning maybe, but people are now mostly used to the machines, and Oyster is now much more widely available and cheaper than paying by cash. LostThePlot wrote:"If they are protecting revenue, then they surely will have to offer a way of paying, as per ticket inspectors on trains, so surely makes them conductors?" You're nit-picking. Revenue protection doesn't always require cash collection, and can involve identifying the people involved for further action. However, even if they did take penalty payments from non-payers etc, this would hardly be handling money on the same scale as a conductor. Plus, you appear to be ignoring the deterrent effect, as well as the previous costs of conductor fraud etc.