Penguin68

Penguin68, do you know for sure that it will close and it isn't being sold as a going concern? I have no knowledge of the owner's plans for this cafe, however it would be odd to be intending to sell something as a going concern and to be separately selling the lease (remainder of) which is all I know is up on offer. Most of the 'charm' of this cafe sits with the eclectic collection of antiques (the residue of a former enterprise) - especially the chandeliers. I suspect that these set dressings would not be sold cheaply, if they were to be sold at all. This thread would additionally suggest that 'goodwill' might be a difficult asset to judge effectively. Were an offer to be made for the business as a going concern I would be surprised if it were not to be considered seriously, but its valuation may be a moot point. It is not clear to me that the business model necessarily holds water (and the way it is implemented at times causes problems) so whether it is actually 'a going concern' which would attract bids is moot. But I don't (as I have said) believe its closure is imminent, unless and until an offer for the outstanding lease is made and accepted.

The lease is up for sale (as it has been for some considerable time) - if it is sold the cafe will close - the new owners of the lease will choose what to put in its place - if the lease isn't sold (hasn't been so far) I imagine it will continue trading, until (I would speculate, no knowledge) the existing lease runs out. Assuming nothing else happens with the owners. I don't believe such a closure is necessarily imminent, the thread was only started when someone noticed the lease was on offer.

haven't been adjusted for maternity leave Two questions - are the doctors FTE and have you included (indeed are there any figures for) locums? Very useful, anyway.

But you can only "build, build and build" if you have the infrastructure (particularly public transport) to cope with the increased population. Maybe Southwark could be encouraged to implement a planning rule which would stop any extension of residential property 'footprint' unless and until effective public transport is delivered in locales where it is absent - which might include longer trains/ more frequency in the ED area if the tube isn't to arrive. I am sure with 10 minute trains into town from the ED stations throughout the day/ evening and 5 minutes intervals at rush hours the additional pressures that more housing locally would put on parking etc. would be alleviated. Of course, how you'd pay for these (or manage them into and out of the stations) is entirely another matter.

A number of the 'big builds' locally in my part of ED have been speculative, by developers doing up the property (often massively enlarging it) then selling on. 'Getting to know the neighbours' or indeed giving a stuff for them hasn't been an issue, when the new/ current owner never has any intent to live there once the work is done. Hope this isn't so in your case. But it rather drives a coach and horses through 'the usual courtesies' if it is.

When we had young children we had two (second hand) buggies - one packed flat down to nothing (we used that on public transport, and when visiting places) and one was slightly more commodious and comfortable - nowadays buggies are massive and obtrusive (and I am sure much more comfortable for their occupants). I can quite understand why some small outlets would wish to restrict these 4X4 Chelsea Tractor buggies entrance. On the other hand, if you are running an expensive cafe in ED and expect to survive whilst making the yummy mummy brigade unwelcome then your business plan is badly flawed. Setting aside a secure buggy park would seem the sensible option. Not to take it (and to make those with pre-school children feel unwelcome) is asking for failure. And if you are travelling at lunch time into town from ED by bus it is often logistically sensible to take a snack on route so that you can use your (often 45 minutes to an hour, with all the cr*p at the Elephant) journey time effectively - but I would absolutely agree that hot and smelly snacks are unsocial.

I think you mistake criticism of your methods with criticism of your ends. I don't think anyone (happy to stand corrected on this) has suggested that they would wish to see the nursery closed (other things being equal) - merely that the way you have chosen to go about it (outwith anything you have done before posting notification of this petition) doesn't make a lot of sense. It was as if you had declared a wish to drive from London to Glasgow, but insisted that a route via Brighton, Cardiff, Nantes and Skye would be your optimal choice. Others have suggested otherwise, but that doesn't mean they don't think you shouldn't end up in Glasgow, they just feel the chosen route won't necessarily get you there. To assume because we disagree with your methods that we are uncaring, childless trolls (pretty much your response on this) is perhaps an assumption too far. By inferring (I would guess wholly wrongly, certainly on my part) that we don't want money spent on early years education, for instance, is in no way relevant or consequent on our arguments that you have petitioned the wrong people, too late and/or have asked a Council to act outwith its legal powers. Nor on an argument that by spending more on one nursery, given agreed budget heads, the Council would thus have to deprive another nursery. Once councils have agreed budgets these are no longer discretionary spends.

The plant in the foreground of the picture on that petition page actually looks a lot like knotweed. Yes, I'm pretty sure it is knotweed - one must hope the photographer didn't then accidently spread it further. Unfortunately the clearance is going on whilst the shrub is dormant - so it's not clear that it will all be removed. As a gardener I really don't want a reservoir of that pest sitting a few hundred yards away from my garden.

Lewisham Council is the correct body to direct our petition as they provide the funding for the schools! Then your petition should be about Lewisham Council changing its overall funding policy on nursery provision. It cannot allocate additional funds which don't meet its funding criteria or formula just to support your favoured nursery. It would, inter alia, then have to remove funds from another nursery to meet its budgets. You could use 'your' nursery as an exemplar of why you want them to change their funding formula and budget allocation - but that's what they would have to do. In your position I would have inquired of a local councilor what the options were for additional funds to be found - if there are any. But tax payers' money is not available for disbursement just at the discretion of any local authority - they have to allocate funds based on open and agreed criteria. Funds under their criteria are not sufficient to keep your nursery open, based on its falling roll. What you are petitioning the council to do, I would suggest, is likely actually illegal - since such a funds allocation would not then meet its declared criteria for funding. And the decision to close was not the Council's - nor could they then make a decision to re-open.

So you are saying that the Forest Hill Leisure Centre and the M&Co shop were both the result of petitions addressed to an authority without the power to make relevant decisions and after the final decision had been made? I must say that surprises me.

I doubt if the cafe will close voluntarily until and if the remaining lease is sold (as I have said above). Which is not to say that, if an acceptable offer were made, it wouldn't close like a shot. As time passes, the residual lease is worth increasingly less, so if the 'owner' is serious about selling, some review of the price being asked needs to be made. However, I am sure it is right that there are no immediate plans for closure. Even if there were, the management style frequently evidenced would suggest that the staff working there might well be the last to know.

I think that what he said was that you were addressing your concerns to the wrong authority and at the wrong time. Political campaigns (real campaigns, not virtue signalling) are about achievability - if I now start a campaign, addressed to the Pope, about stopping the building of the Channel Tunnel, and somebody points out that it's nothing to do with the Pope, and the Tunnel is built, they are not suppressing debate - they are simply identifying a reality. The Council were not party to the decision about the nursery, which has already been made following consultation. Nobody doubts your sincerity in regretting the decision, indeed I doubt whether anybody would doubt that, were the finances to be there, continuing the nursery would not be a good thing; but your efforts, well-meaning as they are, are wrongly directed and untimely. Pointing this out is not about stifling debate but about evidencing its futility. And I have to stay that political campaigns which are the equivalent of tilting at windmills help nobody.

Just for the record, trolls are not just people who disagree with you. These are simply posters, just as you are, but not of your opinion. If you put forward views on a forum you must expect them to be open to challenge. You might note that Admin is very good at identifying the work of trolls, and removing it and/ or blocking them. But I agree the 'conversation' at the moment might as well be lounged.

Right? So, what exactly are you looking for? Being professionals, as you are. People you don't have to pay?

Rumour has it that it was 35%. Satisfied? Classic.

London water pressure should be 1 bar (a bar is the pressure required to lift water by 10 metres). Your shower is probably set to take up to 2 bars, rather than requiring that pressure. 2 bars is an expected pressure from a normal domestic power shower pump.

With all due respect Penguin68, this is for the local authorities to decide not for you! If the local authority is to divert cash from 'my' needs to 'yours', then I think I do have a say in it. Once the local authority determines to break any funding formula to favour a 'special case' then other electors have as much right to argue they should not do as to argue they should. That is why local authorities agree a funding formula to be universally applied. In the case of this nursery that formula does not derive sufficient cash for them to operate solvently. With more takers the formula would work in their favour, but they don't have those. It's economics 101. And the decision to close was theirs, not the authority's, as they (absolutely properly) determined the best use of their resources for their primary education delivery.

The deficit is pitifully small. We just can't see why the local authority can't save it. And that says it all, really. Local authorities have to treat each class of call on our money fairly - they cannot (should not) differentially support a nursery (or anything else) because it's 'wonderful'. If the deficit is that small (though what is its trajectory?) why not raise money yourselves to meet it? Why should other tax payers lose money for their favoured cause (or even their favoured nursery) to meet your needs? If each signatory to your petition had instead given ?10 maybe you would have already raised enough for this year's cost over-run (sorry, don't know the actual figures). But then an e-signature costs nothing. If the cause isn't worth digging into your pockets to support (but instead trying to dig into other people's) maybe it isn't that important to people other than you?

Well the governing body of Fairlawn should all be sacked really if they knew this was coming! And after offering places for this summer! Presumably, had the offer been sufficiently successful then closure could have been avoided. Had they not tried to fill places they would have been equally open to criticism. They were between a rock and a hard place on this. In the end, like many businesses, they were not able to make an offer which sufficiently met their customers' needs. People are looking (I would guess, long time since I was looking for nursery provision) for a 5 full-ish day cover - which would mean that a close to full-time job could then be maintained. Although nursery education is good in and of itself for children in their socialisation and development, it also is often there to meet parental needs for day-time care. As others have said, it always sad when any institution closes which you have used or relied on, but sometimes it cannot be avoided. I must also add that I am not sure what a petition is meant to achieve. The governors of Fairlawn cannot afford to maintain a facility which is losing it money, and indeed would be acting improperly if they did. The council could not justify making additional support over and above that offered to other nurseries for this one. The only actions which could save this 'business' is for more customers to want to buy from it. They don't. Signing a petition is nice but it gives no revenue to the nursery. You might be better to work to raise money to allow it to continue (too late, actually, probably for that). Signing stuff (other than a ballot paper) achieves, normally, very little. It is virtue signalling, but otherwise ineffective.

Definitely use overground. Stops by the museum itself (although access from the station side still isn't possible, but planned).

I believe that at least one registered director is a family member of the lady in question.

The only complaint I've got is the way the owner talked to her staff. If you check company registrations you will find that the lady you assume is the owner (and who acts very much like an owner) is not in fact one of the registered company directors of the company owing the business.

In general it works sensibly, so if you can find any neighbour in your block who does know which is 'their' fencing side then it us likely yours is the same. One clue is that fence posts will be on the side that is responsible for fencing that side. Nothing to stop you fencing a side that isn't yours, you're doing your neighbour a favour, but it is a courtesy to discuss it with them.

I think a lot of the items in the cafe dated back to when it was a cafe/ antique shop - and this was unsold stock (such as the collection of lights which gives it its name). If the owner does sell the lease it is not clear that any of these items would transfer into new ownership - except by separate treaty, and probably at a premium. If the ownership does change I wouldn't assume the business will continue on 'as is' as regards the look of the place.

Glad to report that they are now open (indeed, in the spirit of the Blitz, rather more open than usual). As only cigarettes and money (as far as I can see) were taken, and the fresh vegetable rack covered in shards of glass, everything else is in stock.