LondonMix

I wasn't referring to you as alarmist by the way. However, indicators of deprivation are not a direct link to economic circumstances.and single indicator anyhow is usually not seen as a sign of deprivation in and of itself. Having a long term illness would account for a household having one marker. Sharing a household also counts. A better measure is the data that has been linked to. I'm not going on gut feeling but using more accurate data on local economics from the same published source as you.

Jessie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You don't need to be on benefits to be struggling > financially, believe me. I agree Jessie. However, there is a difference between strapped for cash and as some have asserted ?below the poverty line?. Saying huge swathes of ED are living at or below the poverty line is simply not true.

I know ED Ward is smaller than ED in most people's minds but stats only exist for the Ward so its the best proxy for offical data.

The reason why this thread concerns me is because it shows a total lack of perspective. Will those who like to pop into Iceland be inconvenienced, particularly if they don't shop there enough to warrant ordering a 35 quid bi-weekly shop. Yes. Will those who have come to know the staff miss the sense of community and routine. Of course they will and hopefully, M&S will take some of the staff on. However, people framing this as the freeholder and M&S pushing huge swathes of ED's population (including vulnerable pensioners) to the brink of hunger are distorting things in a way that's totally not acceptable in my book. First, DaveR's statistics do not measure economic deprivation and are not a proxy for how many people in ED are living below the poverty line. Here are some real economic measures for the ward: There are over 12,000 people living in ED Ward. Of those there are only 295 people on income support in the Ward as of 2012. There are only 350 pensioners receiving pension credit (as of 2012) and there are only 1,175 people (in 2005) on housing benefit or council tax benefit (please note that the last group will include people in the first two categories). Also, since 2005, the income support and pension credit figures have fallen be circa 30%. If housing benefit has followed the same trend, the 2012 figure number would be around 800 people. I do think that keeping affordable options for the less than 10% of ED's population that are on benefits is important and I support efforts to develop more affordable housing / social housing locally to keep the area economically mixed. However, having members of my own family that are on benefits I can attest to the fact that just because you are on benefits of some sort doesn't mean you want to or do shop at Iceland and vis-a-versa. A shop is closing. Part of this is due to demographic changes. While inconvenient, there are affordable fresh food alternatives in walking distance and for those who like their unique frozen food offerings, you can get them delivered for free. http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=6263560&c=East+Dulwich&d=14&e=14&g=345137&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1410855241995&enc=1&dsFamilyId=1354 http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=6263560&c=East+Dulwich&d=14&e=14&g=345137&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1410855241995&enc=1&dsFamilyId=1037 http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=6263560&c=East+Dulwich&d=14&e=14&g=345137&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1410855241995&enc=1&dsFamilyId=1362

No, I don't shop there now and I don't shop at M&S either but I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to comment or have an opinion. Can you please explain all the rules to me Mustard?? Louisa, I agree that the ready meals are crap at M&S as well. I also agree the Co-op is overpriced. Lidl in Peckham is much better value when you are on budget. I tend to most of my shopping at Sainsburys and the local shops both on LL and in Peckham depending on what I need.

Canned food does not need to bought every few days as it also has a long shelf life and I freeze my bread anyway to preserve it. I very much understand that pensioners need to get out to socialise but that can't possibly reason to make the signing of a new lease a political issue. This whole thread basically claiming the actions of the freeholders are going to have vast swathes of ED on the breadline is very weak and more than a little ridiculous in my opinion. As others have said, Iceland has not been very busy of late and there numerous chains that offer better value for basic produce. For those that like the unique frozen food selection, you can get it delivered if you can't access Peckham. Mustard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Why would anyone need to shop every few days > for > > frozen food? Even a normal sized freezer > should > > be able to hold 35 quid of frozen food. > > Iceland sells more than frozen food, fruit, > vegetables, tinned goods, cheese, meat, yogurt, > milk, bread etc. Just because it is called > Iceland doesn't mean people go in there just for > frozen food. Lots of pensioners go out daily to > shop for socialising and to get out of the house.

I have been there -- when my husband was a student he shopped at the Iceland in Peckham regularly until I broke him of the habit. It wasn't any more expensive to eat fresh food from Peckham. He simply didn't like cooking but I do, so I made our meals. The name of the store is Iceland, so while they do sell other things, as the name suggests anyone who claims to do most of their shopping at Iceland would be buying a lot of frozen food. If someone is only buying eggs and milk there, the closure might be disappointing but its unlikely to make a real difference to the cost of their weekly expenditure.

Interesting. Thanks intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Emergency access is thought ,by Southwark planners > ,to be less of an issue if only one or two > properties are involved . > Providing new fire hydrants is one of the ways in > which the need for fire engine access has been > overcome in some planning applications which have > access less than the 3.1m requirement .

Why would anyone need to shop every few days for frozen food? Even a normal sized freezer should be able to hold 35 quid of frozen food.

Why is that a problem? Most of their food is frozen. If that's more than a weeks shop for someone reliant on Iceland for their main affordable shopping as many on here have claimed then they keep the extra in the freezer until needed.

Nope-- here is the website. You shop online and delivery is free http://groceries.iceland.co.uk/

DaveR, that is an intereseting point except the indicators of deprivation they are measuring are not economic deprevation. For instance, a household in which quote "any person in the household has general health 'bad or very bad' or has a long term health problem.)" would have one indicator of deprivation. Similarly, if the Household is in a shared dwelling, that automatically counts as a maker of deprivation as well! While, I am under no illusion that ED is not full of only yuppies those stats are not an indication that 43% of people in ED are economically deprived.

We looked at a house in that part of ED. That end of Hindman?s has gardens almost 100ft long?we saw a place where the owners were raising chickens etc out back. Emergency vehicle access is a planning requirement so totally non-negotiable. For instance, you might not care that there isn?t access for a fire engine but your neighbours whose homes are at risk certainly will. I think the access requirement is jut of 1 meter.

DaveR, when you look at the businesses that are struggling for customers, its pretty clear what the demographics are like. Rich newcomers are not from a minority position closing down all of the working class outlets. Again, the CPT turning into the Great Exhibition is a perfect example of why that argument makes no sense.

Yes, I can agree with that. I don't actually know anything about what is planned. Does anyone have any links to the developers project?

In general I would normally agree with DaveR?s argument except that it doesn?t match reality here on the ground. The Crystal Palace Tavern is a good example. When it was still a traditional working man?s pub, it was virtually empty. It still existed to serve its demographic but the reality is that even with very few pubs of its type left, it still struggled for custom in the area. When the pub was transformed in the Great Exhibition, despite the numerous gastropubs already in the area, its now busy. DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Ignoring the hyperbole, I suspect that the local > demographic has actually tipped from Iceland to > M&S - hence the changeover.......What this does > mean is that choice for some in ED will be > restricted - and that Iceland's absence, for some, > will be a real loss. But those numbers will be > less (and increasingly so) than those who think > they will benefit from a small ED M&S." > > The first bit must be true in purely financial > terms (M&S can only outbid Iceland on the lease if > they can bank on making more money) but I'm much > less sure about the second part. > > I've noted before that gentrification has an > effect on the profile of local businesses that is > massively disproportionate to the numbers of > people involved - to put it bluntly, a family > spending a million plus on a house are likely to > have a load more disposable income than any number > of long time local families on low incomes. > Businesses that cater to the tastes of the > (comparatively) wealthy will prosper and attract > other, similar offerings, and potentially drive > out even established businesses that may have > lower turnover and lower margins. Successful > independents attract upmarket chains, etc. etc. > The demographic 'tipping point' comes way before > high-spending incomers are actually in the > majority. > > I wouldn't be at all surprised if a lot of people > in ED would prefer Iceland over M&S (and The > Castle over The Palmerston, AJ Farmer over Oliver > Bonas, and anything over Foxtons), even if I'm not > one of them (at least as far as M&S and the > Palmerston are concerned). But it's not so easy > to do anything about it, and it would almost > certainly be unlawful to use planning law, for > example.

How what comes across? Me saying that its sad and that I hope it doesn't come as too much of a hardship while suggesting alternatives to the poster? I really don't get what you are accusing me of...

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I believe in supply and demand generally, but > think that the London housing problem is far more > complex than simply increasing supply as it's not > just a domestic market. There are also very > different types of supply. More investment > properties for overseas speculators isn't going to > help as much as new council owned properties for > example. > > If you're talking private developments -there > would have to be a huge number of new properties > in London before it made any dent in prices and I > think it's highly unlikely that such an increase > is going to happen (for one thing there is little > incentive). Also when they are being used purely > for speculation and promoted into new overseas > markets they could conceivably add to the > problem. > > I do support a huge investment in social housing > specifically. > > Additionally we need to encourage growth in > regional cities rather than concentrating > everything in London and the Southeast. That?s not quite right. Even if the flats are being sold to overseas investors, as long as those investors intend to rent them out (which most do), it increases the supply of rental properties. This increased supply reduces pressure on rents. As anticipated rental growth tempers, buy-to-let pricing levels off / reduces which impacts the overall buying market. This isn?t theoretical. In prime central London prices have started to fall in a response to over supply of luxury flats.

Otta, that article is really shocking. The deal from Southwark?s perspective was clearly non-sense. The borough has gained nothing out of the deal except they no longer house the same number of poor people. I know Southwark has the highest proportion of social housing in London and maybe they were looking to balance that out but this really does just seem like social cleansing. Personally, I don?t think large estates are good for London and prefer models where social housing tenants are mixed in the private owners without any clear differences. If the Heygate had been redeveloped along those lines I would have supported it but this seems just terrible. Surely they could have allocated at least 20% of the units to social housing. The worst bit is where the developers suggest that the mere existence of poor people in the scheme will reduce the value to the private buyers. Do people think poverty is contagious? My neighbour?s home is owned by a housing association and they have lived there for 30 years. He works for the police and she is a semi-retired teacher now. Social housing tenants, especially in London, are just people.

I don't doubt it and that is sad. I hope that it doesn't present them with a real economic hardship and it might be worth finding out if Iceland will take phone orders for delivery. I find Rye lane is quite reasonable for fruit and veg as well as other basics. If they are mobile, hopefully, heading to Rye lane won't be too much of burden.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Building more 1 and 2 bedroom 'luxury flats' in > the private sector for investors to speculate on, > will not have a noticeable effect on prices. We > need a significant increase in social housing. Any housing developed as long as its occupied (even if its rented out) helps reduce pricing pressures.

I?m not really sure there is anything age inappropriate about the books, particularly not the first one. Kids intuitively act out fantasies surrounding romantic love (boyfriends and girlfriends) and play house from a very young age (well before 10). I?m pretty sure that by age 10 everyone I know had some understanding of sex and by the age of 13 a lot of my peers were engaging in some form of sexual activity (not full on intercourse necessarily mind you). Kids are not nearly as innocent or as fragile as they seem and like others have said, the things they aren?t ready for simply won?t compute.

Well if you mean OAP like 65, that is probably the case. If you mean OAP like 90, its unlikely they are out and about doing their own shopping. Of course, there are bound to be a few exceptions but realistically, how many poor, computer illiterate OAP, that are physically fit and doing their own shopping can there be that will genuinely be massively disadvantaged by this change? You can?t force a freeholder to lease a shop to one store instead of another.

Is anyone really losing out? Iceland delivers, and certainly that's even more convenient for OAPs who rely on their goods. I really struggle to believe that argument that the loss of Iceland is going to through swathes of people onto the breadline as is being suggested by this post. Since when is a freeholder changing tenants a political issue. Shops change hands and decide or not if it still makes sense to operate in a specific location all the time.

^^