LondonMix

I also watch it. I was unwell for s stint and made it through the box set. This is the first season I've watched on TV. Last night was almost too intense for me honestly.

Or better yet, donate the 40% to a for profit business, because that's what Just Williams is. Why should a for profit enterprise be subsidized by anyone, much less a charity.

Otta almost nothing being said is accurate. Its all such a load of crap. That Helen Hayes is now involved boggles the mind...

However, all of that is truly irrelevant. Just Williams is a for profit business. Why do they think they should pay below market rents to anyone? Their attitude is particularly galling as this would reduce the bursaries and other charity support provided by Dulwich Estate. The simple truth as already admitted by the toy store is that they were offered a rent of 35k based on a lease signed at number 22. Dulwich Estate then lowered this offer in consideration of the fact that they were a long standing tenant. The rent rise is 29% over 5 years as the lease was fixed from 2010 to 2015 which amounts to just under a 5% annual compound increase. All of this Vicky B has conceded to online. http://www.hernehill.org.uk/comment/8489#comment-8489 If the business model doesn't work in Herne Hill because of the demographics or its too close in proximity to the ED branch or whatever that's unfortunate but its life. If the 5,000 people who have signed this ridiculous petition spent even 50 quid a year in the shop instead of just moaning and protesting about wanting independents, the store would have over 250k in revenue. You get what you support and blaming Dulwich Estate for the shop closing is preposterous.

And just to clarify: Dulwich Estate in its last financial accounts generated 6.8m for its beneficiaries not 8m-- see page 6 of the annual report http://www.dulwichestate.co.uk/docs/general/de_accounts15.pdf Dulwich College (just one of the 3 fee paying schools): The value of means tested bursaries Dulwich College provides is just under 2m quid per annum. http://www.dulwich.org.uk/docs/default-source/annual-report-and-accounts/dulwich-college-financial-statements-for-the-year-ended-31-july-2013.pdf?sfvrsn=2 This information took me 10 minutes to find. I don't have time to find the information for the other two schools but they all use their disbursements for means tested bursaries in a similar fashion to Dulwich College. That's where their share of the income goes. They also prioritize the neediest- i.e. they will give one full fee bursary rather than 2 50% bursaries. Alleyn's explicitly states the majority of its bursaries are for IN EXCESS of 50% of fees on its website. The means testing is on a sliding scale. Less that 13k family income gets you a full scholarship and if your family income is greater the 54k you don't qualify for any support at JAGS so I think its bang out of order for anyone to suggest the charity is somehow misusing the funds and income they generate, particularly as a means to undermine Dulwich Estate for the benefit of a for profit shop!

James, as a local Councillor don't you think you have a responsibility to look into things before making allegations about a local institution. Just casually posting your unresearched suspicions isn't really helpful and can only add confusion to an already confused discussion.

There is nothing wrong with wanting independent shops on your high street. The way to do that is to patronise them and give them your financial support. I am pretty sure the rents in Clapham (and ED possibly) are higher than in Herne Hill given the footfall and this small chain of toy stores manages to survive as a profitable enterprise there. The local businesses people have are the ones they support. Acting like Dulwich Estate in this instance is doing anything wrong simply by charging market rent for the premises is ridiculous. The toy store in their petitions and public statements act like they are doing 'Gods work'. Its a for profit shop and will most likely be replaced by another small chain store which will have virtually no impact on the look of the area.

Saying that Dulwich Estate should be maximising their revenue better with the pubs is no kind of argument for why the toy shop deserves below market rents. Its a total non-sequitur. The only argument that one could reasonably make is that the rent being charged is above market rate and is therefore unfair. So far I haven't heard anyone make that assertion in large part because rent reviews are carried out by 3rd parties and aren't actually determined exclusively by landlords in the UK. I actually find the manipulative arguments being spewed by Just Williams (a for profit chain with branches in various locations in London) for why they should be granted below market rents really disgraceful. Why do they think they deserve this special treatment and why do the think the bursaries and charities that the income should sacrifice this money to increase their private profit margins?

I think that's just for 5 years and then the whole thing will be demolished. The council have made it pretty clear this is just an interim proposition unfortunately. Hopefully, it will be successful enough that the council change their plans as I'd love to keep Peckhamplex.

The revenue funds scholarships to those schools for children who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford to attend. Either way, Dulwich Estates is not a charity designed to support private for profit businesses like the toy store by offering lower than market rents. The shop has no reasonable right to expect any landlord will charge them below market rates.

Perhaps alerting the two local vets and have them contact all their patients? I'll put a call in to the neighbourhood vets where I'm registered to see if they'll agree to that.

What a load of rubbish that petition is! Businesses regardless of who their landlords might be have to pay market rate rents. Why should anyone subsidise a for profit business with multiple chains in the area? As others have said, Dulwich estate is a charity that supports 2 non fee schools, the alms house and provides significant bursaries for the 3 fee paying schools it is charged to support. It has a feduciary responsibility to maximise income to support these institutions.

The question hasn't even really be asked. Ask the company directly by email or on Twitter. Posting it within a 6 page thread about the Sea Cow closing isn't really sensible.

Its so scary that someone so deranged has been walking around the area. I live very close to the streets in question and while I'm afraid for my cats, I'm also afraid for myself. This person is potentially going to escalate to human beings at some point so I hope the police are throwing a lot of resources at tracking him or her down.

NickT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Haven't really > thought much about ED since moving. Except when you revisit the forum :) Beckenham is lovely. I have friends there. Good schools and nice green spaces and its quite friendly. It is just a longer commute and the area has a distinctly more suburban feel which is fine if that what you are ready for.

Why was their landlord trying to get them out rather than just pay more rent? Does s/he want to develop the building in some way? Something similar happened to Scoop on Melbourne grove under that guise though I've never seen anything done to the place since they were kicked out.

The bit that annoys me about this is the idea that a pre-existing shop has a permanent right to trade in an area. What about a new entrepreneur who wants to have a go and is confident (rightly or wrongly) that they can afford to pay a higher rent get that opportunity. I am actually sympathetic to small business owners struggling to keep their business going but so much of the press on this has been manipulative that its turned me off to this shops cause.

Most commercial leases are fixed for 5 years at which point there is a rent review, so I tend to agree with you. Edited as I've finished reading the thread confirming this is nothing to do with an increase in rent. Charles Notice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why would there be a rent increase when they only > just opened? > > Surely they would have a fixed rent for a set > period?

The chocolate place is moving to larger premises near Ganapati I thought? I don't think they are going out of business. Also, I'm not aware if its to save rent per se. The new shop appears quite a bit larger so even if Maxtead Road charges less per square metre the total rent might very well be the same. Has anyone actually heard from the Chocolate people that they are moving because they can't afford their rent? Mumofone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Really gutted about this. Lifesaver for > entertaining small children. No idea if for > financial reasons but Chocolate shop next door is > moving due to rent increases. > Seems very sudden - the manager wouldn't really > tell me why they were closing, just suggested > emailing the owner.

Guys, it might not be closing for financial reasons. Sometimes these things happen for personal reasons like when Lucas closed and countless other places locally. Has anyone actually spoken to the proprietors?

From last summer those involved said it would be opening in summer 2016. The pace of progress is as they have always stated. DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > nxjen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I may have got a bit confused after 73 pages but > I > > was under the impression M&S are not the > > developers. Also isn't planning permission > still > > outstanding on some aspects? > > If you were doing a new build or refurb for your > business, would you not show a great deal of > concern as to the > progress of your development. > > DulwichFox

KateA69 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And yes of course there are > bigger issues, and children are starving, which > are also really important, if not more so, Definitely more so... The hike was less than that according to the Dulwich Estate and represents a change in market rents since 2010. The equivalent annual increase was just under 5%. I get that might be higher than the shop can afford but unless there is evidence that isn't the current market rate, the charity has a fiduciary responsibility to charge the market rate.

"Its magic"-- has anyone actually ever heard a child use a term like this to describe a store?

M&S Food Hall is what they are planning

Haha- I have no idea. Central London has underperformed the rest of London for a while now so this isn't a brand new phenomenon. Outer London has still been growing very strongly but at some point one wonders where those on medium incomes will be able to buy. poppet27 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > brother in law in Forest Hill says his place has > almost doubled in 6 years. Walthamstow is > unaffordable, Tooting's long gone, Peckham is full > of BoBos, Kilburn is too pricey..all the fallback > places for people needing a bit more space are out > of reach for those earning less than what? ?150k? > > > Clearly I am not an economist though. Much has > been made in the press the last few days of the > prime central London market drastically cooling. > Can someone much more intelligent than me (London > mix?) pls explain how this could affect the rest > of london's property prices? If at all?