first mate

Well, if those last guests darken your door again....

I agree, I really cannot imagine that Louisa's guests would have been open to this sort of thing at all. However, if Louisa could manage to get Jay Rayner over for supper or dinner (oh no, which is it now) we could trial the art of eating a slap up british meal, using only fingers.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not sure about eating steamed pudding, mash and > gravy with fingers... Oh nonsense, you just get small amounts of the pudding and/or mash Between your fingertips and roll it into a ball and use this to scoop up the gravy and other bits and bibs and swiftly pop the combo in your mouth Think of eating southern indian dishes where rice is used to scoop up daals etc.., or african polenta based dishes with rich, gravy stews ( some types of polenta being quite like mash). Of course, the host would have to ensure the mash is reasonably thick and stodgy and the gravy is similarly full bodied -think 1950's Bisto. If you finished off with a real 'old fashioned' milk pudding- school dinners style tapioca or semolina- you could easily eat that with your fingers too.

Yes, but they have been pushed out of the right spot opposite the park by a bloomin' developer supermarket combo, so glad they will have somewhere and not be forced out of the area altogether. Also looks like they will keep integrity of HSBC building for most part. Would hate to see yet another homogenised brick and render bland-build a la M&S and Harris.

Yes, think the PR site was being scoped for the usual, a supermarket with flats above. Ah, that'll add character.

Perhaps monies set aside for feasibility studies on road closures might be better spent on fixing stuff like this?

Fair play to you and others might agree with you. Open, civilised discussion, 'tis what the forum is for. (Edited for typos).

Bottom line, it's a small park so activities on foot will always take precedence, annoying if you want to cycle but cannot see cyclists ever getting right of way, even voluntarily. Dog walkers may prefer to walk dogs on lead in tarmac for a variety of reasons - to avoid other dogs that are off lead on the grassy areas, to reduce distractions of smells on grass, to avoid distraction of football and other games, to avoid picnickers; sometimes tarmac feels more comfortable to the human foot and in some level we may just automatically follow roads and paths.

But a worthwhile cost if it encourages people to walk to tbe station?

Sorry, with NX on this. In my view too many fast cyclists in parks already, anything that deters them is a plus, dedicating tbe 'road' in DP to cyclists would be a disaster and encourage speed cycling. I do however agree about those pesky extension leads.

Oh goodness yes, we need homes for young people so all for that. Happy also for parking not to be increased but not for it to ripped away almost overnight by bonkers suggestions like a wholesale increase in double yellow lines everywhere when in reality two new schools and a sizeable self proclaimed 'destination shop' are opening and underway. THen the further bonkers suggestions to close off streets thereby funnelling yet more traffic onto LL in the hope that more people will cycle or use public transport. Let's face it, current reports about rail and bus services do not inspire confidence. Anyhow rant over.

LM, re flats and occupancy, let's wait and see. Hope you are right. On the M&S point, I think you are being very generous. Yes, they wanted the ground floor extended, knowing the size of the site and knowing that the developer would build above, extending by another floor. M&S, knowing the size of the site, the size of the delivery entrance and service area, now much reduced at their stipulation, have also made it a condition that deliveries are stepped up thereby creating much more traffic and congestion on the street. M&S, knowing the history of damage to residential properties made by Iceland delivery vehicles, have forged ahead and, if anything, made further issues more likely by reducing the service/delivery area and stepping up deliveries. AS I said, yesterday there were two men clearly discussing large delivery vehicle manoeuvres into the site, trying to figure out how this could be done. They did not look happy.

My concern has always been with the scale of this development and M&S is simply shorthand for the site. Nonetheless, I do not think the shop would be oblivious to local objections to what the developer has managed to force through and in that sense they might be viewed as having colluded. On the subject of flats and car ownership- I do so hope you are right. Indeed let us hope that the flats are affordable for young buyers and actually occupied. LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't personally know anyone living in a flat > without kids that owns a car in London. The > people I know with a car have kids (and not all of > them, just some). > > I know that's anecdotal but its why I find some of > the parking pressure arguments a bit crazy. Young > people living in 2 bed flats in zone 2 London > aren't car owners. With uber and zip car, owning > a vehicle makes virtually no financial sense until > you need to haul kids around and even then its > more for convenience factor / car seat issue > rather than because it makes more financial > sense. > > Maybe Southwark and certain residents want a CPZ > but M&S isn't to blame for Southwark's political > aims. There is an M&S in Brixton and I just don't > see why one here is going to generate all this > crazy extra car traffic. > > I am concerned that the developer (not M&S) > appears to have skirted affordable housing > requirements and that delivery access may be a > challenge. The rest though just seems over blown. > Its one chain shop replacing another chain shop.

LM, I don't think it's a conspiracey theory, it is fairly clear that council and local Councillors want CPZ. I think what the estate agent meant was that there is an expectation that parking pressure will increase on streets close to M&S which will result in residents asking for CPZ some time soon. Don't forget that development also includes over ten flats, a proportion of which, if not all, will own cars. Double yellow lines are to be extended and ee may get some cycle hangars. Melbourne us also set to lose some parking spaces. As you know, if a number of roads get CPZ the rest of the area will follow, as parking is displaced.

Jeremy, Just a guess, but perhaps the estate agents share a bit of chat with the developers next door?

Some guys outside the service entrance today to do with getting large vehicles in and out, shaking their heads and looking perturbed. The local estate agent on corner pretty sure CPZ coming soon " because of M&S and increasd traffic".

Surely that cannot mean any disruption at all? There is a difference between outside influences that disrupt the service and bad management? If a service is not fit for purpose is that not grounds to take action? Does Southern advertise? If so how is the service presented? I'm no lawyer so would be interested to hear from one but if the service is beyond accountability, protected by a useless contract, that has to be addressed.

Louisa, quite and, though of little concern to those not directly affected, I am simply dreading the inevitable surge in vehicles, parking and congestion as people swing by for their M&S shop. The developers always said shoppers would walk, cycle or take buses and public transport. With Southern services being decimated and buses struggling, do we really believe the well heeled will simply hop on a bike or trot along from Dulwich Village to get their grub (not to mention booze)? Of course, those same developers promised a lovely green roof. It seems what we will actually get is two tiny beds of bog standard municipal planting. Next phase is when all those offices are turned into flats!

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Hi first mate, > You've watched too many dodgy movies. No > councillor is talking about closing this road. > This idea was floated early on but we've all > listened to resident feedback and it is not on the > agenda. > I and 5 other councillors agreed we needed to > respond to residents requests as we have for all > other such roads in the area - and agreed to > upgrade the poor out of date traffic calming. Not > sure why we should penalise these residents for > being on the last section of such road. > > The next step is to find a way to clam the > northern section of Melbourne Grove. James, I'm slightly concerned that you would even pretend to know anything about my viewing habits...... Also, I don't know of any movies, dodgy or otherwise, that star a local councillor intent on closing a residential street.

Precisely, we all know the real agenda here, fully supported by James Barber.

I am not aware of MG as an accident hotspot at all. It does seem an utter waste of resources. To what extent is the path to be widened? By hook or by crook the aim is to close this road off to traffic and the latest excuse is that peopel with buggies cannot get by. I cannot help but note Councillor Barber's comment that any path widening is to aid people walking with buggies. There is no mention of the elderly or disabled. For me this indicates whose interests are paramount for our local rep. Survival of the fittest and loudest.

Oh well, too late now, it's a done deal but shows what developers are getting away with....I always thought the 'green roof' was another bit of window dressing, the drawings showed something akin to the Horniman green roof. Turns out it's just two tiny planted beds.

Ah so two tiny squares of planting. Is that the extent of the so called green roof that was promised....interesting.

London Mix, I totally agree with you. This is not about strict liability but building control, having made numerous site visits must even in a minir way be held accountable..if only to finally indicate that stuff was deliberately hidden from them etc.. I have heard takes from builders working on large projects in ED that certain building control officers can allegedly be 'persuaded' to pass stuff that is not to standard. Obviously this may be oure baloney.