XIX

Burroandsalvia, I would like to apologise on behalf of ED that your simple introductory post has been hijacked and diverted by the usual suspects saying the same boring things over again and again and AGAIN. I suspect the majority of people in ED are friendly and open minded, and I like look forward to your opening. Welcome. Louisa/Dulwichfox/anyone else involved PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go and open a new debate in the lounge dedicated to gentrification so that you can leave other threads alone to stay on subject. Thanks.

Love your post Louisa! Can't believe you are accusing others of making assumptions about age/wealth/affluence, given the bile you normally spout about middle classes/yummies/aspirationals etc etc - hilarious! And as for 'think before you type' - tell me, have you ever applied that to yourself?

Wow Louisa, it sounds like you are a real expert on the 'aspirational' middle-classes of ED. Have you done in-depth study/research into their psyche (a series of interviews with a spread of specimens in the area perhaps), or are you an anthropologist/sociologist by profession? I'm amazed at how much youn know about these people - their hopes, their dreams, everything. Impressive.

mikeb, whilst most people would agree the current rate of house price increases is unsustainable and hugely problematic for huge numbers of people, I don't think aiming to create a market at the other end of the spectrum where prices are stable and don't rise is a good thing either. That would ensure more people are stuck with what they started with. (ie wealthier people will be able to buy within the pool of expensive houses, and poorer people will buy from the pool of cheaper houses. And not only that, but generally richer peoples' larger salaries will mean they will be able to improve the pool which they choose from faster than those who don't earn enough to save, thus increasing the distance between the two groups). Thats hardly the equitable society you want is it? Property is one of the drivers of 'mobility' (or whatever you want to call it), and appreciation (particularly where it varies regionally) provides an opportunity for people to improve their home in a way they might not otherwise have been able to. Most people's salaries alone are not big enough to really fund a proper upsize/scale (particularly if, as you and others are suggesting, taxes on properties are increased). Clearly the market is out of kilter at the moment, so far too many people are finding it far too hard to purchase their first property and something needs to be done about it. But I don't think taxing home-owners and/or creating a stable market where value does not increase are the solutions. You mention this tax tempering house prices if they start to rise. I still don't understand how this would work. With increased taxation, less people will sell/move, meaning less supply of property on the market. A general point: In trying to re-dress the balance between the 'haves' and 'have nots', we should aim for a more postive focus on what can be done to assist the 'have nots' turn themselves into 'haves', rather than a fairly simplistic 'lets tax the haves' (and therefore just push them a little further back down the scale) type attitude that SOME people seem to subscribe to.

I genuinely don't understand why one of the solutions being suggested here is to raise taxes and penalise property-owners, by extending CGT to cover primary residences. How is that going to tackle high property prices? Has anyone thought of the effect that it would have? It would make people reluctant to move (the combined costs of selling and buying - CGT and stamp duty, let alone solicitors fees etc - would be excessive), and hence supply of houses on the market would drop. Which is exactly counter to what those suggesting this measure want - ie increased supply of houses on the market. Property is one of the ways in which normal people have been able to generate wealth and better their lot in life (and before I'm pounced on by the left-side of the debate, I don't think there is anything wrong with that), and I don't think we should try to prevent people from doing so (within reason of course - I agree that secondary properties, unoccupied homes etc should be taxed accordingly). Whilst penalising the wealthier may make some people on the left-side of the political divide feel warm and fuzzy for a while, it stops a long way short of actually solving anything. And please lets not fool ourselves into thinking that increased money in the Government's tax-coffers would translate directly into whatever you think it is they will do with the money to solve the problem. We all know it doesn't work like that. The allocation of money will change according to the subject of public interest of the moment, or with changing Governments. I think increasing a tax like this would be little more than a reactionary knee-jerk measure which re-assures some people that the less fortunate in life are being looked after. But of course it doesn't do anything for them directly at all. and as for "recovering misallocated wealth" ?????????????????? This sounds utterly orwellian. its not 'misallocated'. its generally people's hard-earned money, which they have put in to property, which has appreciated over time. contrary to the seeming popular belief for a lot of people on here, I don't think most people were born in to or inherited great wealth. Most people are normal, and work hard for years to buy a home to live in. The focus should be on the Government ensuring there is enough supply of cheaper housing at the bottom end of the market for people to buy, not just hoiking up taxes for property-owners. Counter-productive nonsense.

I'm not quite sure why so many people are fawning over this shop (perhaps I am alone in this!). I think it is a bizarre ramshackle collection of stuff that not many people want (evidently as its closing). Alan Medic, you asked about the service. In my limited experience (two visits, never again) I've found the shop-keeper to be unwelcoming/unfriendly/unhelpful to be honest. Its not the only shop like that - I can think of one not so very far away where the customer service is similarly odd. I don't understand why local shops, which depend on local custom, can get it so wrong. Personal service is their chance to set themselves apart from the impersonal supermarket giants or the internet, and generate an interested and loyal local following. As for the debate about whether the cinema is contributing.... I think most people would agree that it is likely to have an effect on businesses at that end of the Lane, and will therefore no doubt prompt yet another debate about the evils of gentrification upon ED. Louisa I expect you are limbering up your typing fingers as we speak ;) I would say this: if it weren't for the gentrification that has happened already and given ED a reputation as somewhere 'on the up', I suspect that we wouldn't have a cinema coming at all. Just look at where the other picturehouses are in London (Greenwich, Notting Hill, Clapham, Stratford, Hackney etc) to spot the trend.

Kittysailing save your breath. Louisas bizarrely moronic post above (that's certainly no definition of class I've ever heard before) reveals the reality that despite her earlier attempts to make it appear that she was making a fair and reasonable point about prams obstructing pavements, this debate isn't really about prams, it's just her thinly veiled (and now all out) swipe at posh people.

My simple point Louisa, which you have clearly failed to grasp, is that your statement that they do these things to satisfy their ego is nothing more than an ASSUMPTION. you do not know what they are thinking. If people sometimes obstruct a pavement with a pram, bike, shopping trolley or whatever, a far more likely and reasonable conlcusion to come to would be that it is probably absent-minded and unintentional, rather than an arrogant bankers-wife getting an ego-kick. To make this a class issue is absurd.

James, Louisa - your posts reveal more about you than they do about the people you purport to know the minds of. Louisa quite how you are qualified to assert that these middle-class mums force people in to the road to satisfy their ego, I do not know. A quite extraordinary claim. Ridiculous.

Dulwichfox and Ladydeliah, PLEASE do us all a favour and PM each other from now on (or start another thread somewhere else) if you would like to continue your mindless debate about each others posts or human rights etc etc. It is not related to the subject of this discussion thread.

Given that no details have been changed other than the weekend delivery times, it appears that the planning consultancy are confident this was the sticking point with the previous application. However the reasons given by Southwark for refusing the first application are different and relate to parking, not just noise: "Discussions were held with the applicant and further information received during the course of the application, but it was not possible to overcome the concerns raised and permission was refused. The proposed development, owing to the loss of the customer car park and increase in vehicle trips associated with the extended retail unit would increase parking stress on the surrounding streets in the area which already experiences a high level of on-street parking. This would result in an unacceptable loss of amenity to neighbouring residents, contrary to saved policies 3.2 'Protection of amenity' and 5.6 'Car parking' of the Southwark Plan (2007), the Sustainable Transport SPD (2010), strategic policy 2 'Sustainable transport' of the Core Strategy (2011), policy 6.13 'Parking' of the London Plan (2011) and section 4 of the NPPF" Given this has not been addressed at all in the new application, it is hard to see how Southwark could come to the conclusion that the previous issues have been addressed and grant permission. I hope the planning committee will be addressing this and asking some very searching questions of the applicant.

James, I agree with KK and first mate that the standard of lighting and pavements on Chesterfield certainly needs to be addressed. But I hope that there will be at least some form of engagement on the issue of trees - they add great character to the road, so if there are plans to remove them I would hope that residents would be consulted more broadly. Thanks

James, As a resident of Chesterfield Grove, I share first mate and KK's concerns about this. The application IS showing in searches and as has been pointed out, the consultation period started a week ago. Yet no-one locally has received a letter, nor are there any details available on the website about the application. This is clearly not right. I, and no doubt others, would be very grateful if you could look into what is going on with this and update us. Many thanks