Penguin68

This thread, inter alia, encapsulates debates about:- The future look and feel (and fears thereof) of Lordship Lane - the main social and shopping drag of ED Social class division and changes thereof in ED Nimby-ism and the greatest good for greatest number debates Conerns about over-crowding, parking and disruption Concerns about change All of which seem to me to be the warp and weft of a community blog.

No, what I am saying is that, if you go somewhere else to buy your biscuits because there is no biscuit shop to your liking, you may well then choose to buy your meat at that location as well, as it's more efficient and, probably more to the point, when shops close (as they do naturally, particularly non-chains when the circumstances of their owners change) then other shops are less likely to want to open in an area which has closed and abandoned (or otherwise 'low rent') shops. The drawback of small, local, shops is that there is frequently no natural continuity of ownership. If the 'family' doesn't want to take it over, you have to sell it - people will not buy retail businesses in areas which look as if they are going down. If there is, however, a 'destination' shop in the locale, it will attract others. William Rose has already closed one local shop. Don't assume any local shop will be here for the duration. They will be here for as long as there's (profitable) footfall (passing trade) of the demographic they are designed to address. Most of the local shops (butchers, delis. cheese shops) are also selling ?2 biscuits (or the equivalent) - most of the new successful (so far) little local shops are catering to the M&S demographic - don't be so sniffy about what M&S could offer. The worries of those to whom Iceland is economically attractive clearly are not being delivered elsewhere locally, otherwise they wouldn't be so upset about its possible closure.

Louisa writes:- if not we may have a prime spot on our high street empty for a very long time. I agree, my added fear is that it may be the first of many.

it provides just the right price range for a vast number of local residents If this was actually true Iceland would have been fighting to stay on the site - the fact that it isn't suggests that the returns it is getting from the LL site do not match its current requirements for profitability. If Iceland doesn't think it can operate the site to meet its profitability targets, and M&S (as far as we know) does - well, I suggest that both retailers may actually have done proper market research to reach these conclusions. It is clear that when/ if Iceland closes a number of local people will feel deprived. But not, as regards a proportion of the target ED population, 'a vast number', I would humbly submit.

It?s worth noting several things:- 1. Traditional retail is under severe pressure from internet shopping, which will eventually lead to numbers of shop types virtually disappearing from the High Street ? we used to have travel agents in LL, now we don?t (and Thos Cook has ? yesterday ? seen the writing on that wall). Electrical retailers are going to the wall, as are camera shops etc. etc. 2. Despite Occado etc. food shopping still seems to need physical presence ? so we may expect food shops, both specialist and generalist, to remain in High Streets (for the time being), so long as alternatives (out of centre shopping, with effective and free parking) do not move people away. At the moment the mix in LL for that isn?t bad (and the out of area alternatives aren?t sufficiently compelling ? depending whether you treat Sainsbury?s at Dog Kennel as in or out of area). 3. Two retailer watchwords (well, phrases) are ?Retail is detail? and ?Location, Location, Location?. I suspect Iceland has been prepared to move (I have argued this elsewhere) because the detail of its local demographic is no longer compelling ? its sales per square metre figures no longer match its requirements. This matches the changing demographic of the area. [Which doesn?t mean that some local people don?t want to use Iceland, just not enough compared with its operations elsewhere.] The location of its shop (still in the midst, if towards one end) of the ?main shopping drag? in LL would make the site (if sufficiently adapted for modern retail grocer needs) of interest to M&S ? in conjunction with the demographic and assuming LL has an upward trajectory. For retailers foot-fall is key ? despite pleadings elsewhere, the old police station has virtually no retailer footfall where it is and it would be a bold decision by either M&S or Waitrose to move there. Both normally choose to be in the centre of a shopping area, not the periphery. 4. Streets where shops are boarded up, or where there are too many charity or pop-up shops do not have an upward trajectory. A site which can?t be used or adapted to meet modern food retailer needs will not be compelling to other retailers (except perhaps estate agents) ? most non-food retailers are not looking to expand at the moment (see (1) above). 5. Once neglect grabs an area it is difficult to stop the decline ? it normally requires both investment and a willingness of the local people to embrace change. There is no money to invest, and the willingness to embrace change has been well identified in its absence, led by the planning blight cheerleaders (see also the Co-op thread). 6. I take no pleasure in being a Cassandra, I have lived in SE22 for 25 years and have seen LL rise from the ashes to become a delightful and vibrant High Street ? but fear that the ?see a foot, shoot it? brigade will put a stop to this.

I am saying that for those (many) who are looking for a quality chain grocers to open up in Lordship Lane, it's game-over (the police station site is far too off the beaten track - too little footfall - for it ever to be an option). Yes, the very good recent local shops may struggle on, but very much relying just on local trade and perhaps not even that. This week's Private Eye has a cartonist who must have heard of the planning application.

The lack of (very recent) rain may have left the sewers less flushed through than normal - and they may, indeed, be a blockage. I have, over the years, often noticed slight sewage smells along roads, particularly if it has been dry and the air is relatively still.

Every occasion has tipping points. The blocking of the plans for the Iceland site seems to have stemmed from objections about deliveries and about the loss of the parking amenity behind the store ? both would be necessary to M&S?s operation ? the storage area behind the store now is far too small ? fine for the Iceland model of storing everything in freezers in-store, but not for the M&S model which requires better (less intensive) in-store display. [i doubt whether flats in place of offices will have caused that much of a planning problem, considering the shortage of living accommodation across London]. So no Iceland, no M&S, one of the largest retail spaces on the road empty (or a charity shop) ? (with another large space already a charity shop) ? suddenly LL starts to look blighted, and destination shops such as M&S (or Waitrose) don?t move into blighted retail areas. A smooth transition between Iceland and M&S wouldn?t have been an issue ? but I doubt M&S will be seeking another site, once its sees the gaping hole in the street that ex-Iceland will be. In a time of slow economic growth companies such as M&S invest in certainties, they don?t speculate ? and LL is now looking like a retail basket case. It?s still good for eating and drinking ? and it may remain a revelling destination ? but as a shopping street this could have been the nail in the coffin. There are lots of areas that are full of middle class 30 somethings who will spend money at high-end grocers ? and many of these are also not full of Nimbys trying to keep nasty commerce away from them. That?s where M&S (and Waitrose) will go, and good luck to them. We have sown, now we can reap.

I am assuming that Iceland is still planning to close in Lordship Lane? - which means that we will lose a significant shop without gaining another - so those who resisted the plans will now be living amidst a blighted high street - perhaps we can have another charity shop there? As the rot sets in, the Co-op will probably re-think its opening policy - why invest resource in a failing area? - and so it will go. At least, when nobody wants to come here, parking will ease - and we will all need cars to drive out to where there are shops. So, well done everybody, job done!

I have just returned from Budapest. There, on the first weekend in March (Friday-Sunday) people put out into the street anything they don?t want (including suitcases), but also old and both broken and sound furniture, electrical goods, toys, carpets etc. The sorts of things we tend to skip. For three days people wander about, taking anything that they want (these people were described as ?gypsies? but I felt that was a generalised calumny from my taxi-driver informant). Each night of the three the municipality clears everything away. It?s rather like a city-wide spring clean. I?m not suggesting this for ED (for a start, the people in Budapest were very clean and tidy about their disposal, the heaps were all neat and were being ?managed? by their ?owners?) ? but maybe a once-a-year suitcase dump in an organised and ?cleared away? manner wouldn?t be a bad thing. I certainly have some that I would be glad to see them back-of.

Renata Thanks for your response, this is good to know. I had not doubted that councils were capable of working together, but concerned that this might be a missed opportunity, but I take your point about the length of the road.

One of the problems here is that different gangs have different skills - at the worst the hole diggers are a different group from the workmen who deal with what is in the hole, and the hole fillers (who restore the road surface) are a third group. Each group has to be scheduled into the work - not infrequently the hole fillers are not immediately available once whatever the hole is for has been completed - hence we see diggings with no work going on waiting to be filled. Workmen will be scheduled for cost efficiency (assuming the job is fixed cost) rather than for resident convenience. Unless timeliness of completion is made a clear part of the contract, contractors will not be over-worried by over-runs, and will schedule workmen to fit their cost and profit profiles. For most utilities speed of restoration of service (including stopping leaks etc.) will be the Key Performance Indicator - with restoration of the roadway a very poor second.

Rats in Sainbury's car-park are more common even than celebs.

There must be numbers of roads where this split is true (Wood Vale, for instance) - wouldn't it be possible for the councils to agree that as far as street-works were concerned, just one council would 'own' these and act on behalf of both - the streets involved could be shared out so that each council 'took-over' (just for street-works) equal amounts. That way when there was a necessity for work there would be no need for complex liaison each time. I am not suggesting moving actual residents etc. from one council to another (no impact on rates, provision of waste service etc.) - just the management and delivery of street works. This sharing of works could be communicated to lcoal residents so they knew when a different council than 'their own' was managing the street outside their house/ shop. A saving in day-to-day liaison costs for both councils would I am sure be there to be taken.

In general the moderators do so with a very light touch - posts are removed which are offensive or may be deemed libellous or sub-judice, threads are removed when they are seen as being off-topic (i.e. not really to do with ED), threads are blocked/ removed (mainly blocked) when a similar thread is already alive, threads are shifted to other boards when they are not appropriate for the board they have been posted on (typically this covers ads and announcements of events etc. on this board). Spam advertising is also removed. Sometimes the moderators do think a thread is off topic when others (particularly the OP) don't - and they have been known to revise their decisions, but in general, as I said, they offer a very light touch. Often, I guess, their actions are triggered by reports by other readers, but they won't remove posts/ threads (if they meet other criteria) simply because they, or someone else, disagrees with them, at least in my experience.

I stand corrected regarding wardens in Southwark ticketing those on white lines. This is not in the Highway Code (I've just checked, there are rules regarding red routes and also on the use and meaning of yellow lines) and would not be tested for learner drivers. London boroughs are allowed to make up their own local rules and impose fines of their own devising - others I think are not.

Permission to install (at a price) dropped kerbs is normally given by councils unless there is a clear hazard issue and, when the fronage is of sufficient size, there is a clear planning gain when two (or more) cars can be parked off-street for the loss of one on-street parking space. Often however it is a 1 for 1 trade-off, for smaller, narrower, houses. I think that traffic wardens trying to fine over parking over a white line painted to distingush a dropped kerb to give access to off-street parking (as opposed to blocking a dropped kerb to assist pedestrians/ wheel chair users to cross at street corners) is not in fact legal - white lines such as these in themselves are advisory. Parking restrictions are distinguished by single or double yellow lines, together with signage (and red lines for red routes). Traffic wardens can fine for parking with wheels on the pavement, unless specifically allowed (again by signage). I noticed that white lines were painted by the contractors when my road was re-surfaced, in some, but not all, instances replacing lines already there. I suspect white-lining dropped kerbs now forms part of the standard contract for re-surfacing. It does give a useful indication to street parkers as to the 'safe' areas to park, if they wish to avoid either blocking someone in, or getting clipped by someone exiting off-street parking. If you are parked outside white lines, then any damage received from exiting cars is clearly the liability of those exiting. Without white lines where it should be 'safe' to park is much less clear. The charges for the council dropping kerbs are high (and probably lead to a small profit), but the cost for doing the work (as expensive one-off bespoke work rather than as part of a bigger piece of road repair) is not inconsiderable.

I can say that the crime didn't happen on our patch because it didn't. Tne fact that a future crime may have is pure speculation. This forum is (and always has been) very alert to present danger - when this was a 'present danger' (if it ever was) no one locally knew about it - it now isn't. If there are any cheerleaders for paedophilia I doubt they will be posting on the forum - so we can assume that anyone who read about this (past) event will be saying, 'Nasty man, glad he's been caught'. If you want to start a 'second pint down, time to start setting the world to rights' discussion, the Lounge may be a better place for it.

The individual was not accused of molesting children at the school, so the first anyone would have known about it locally in Dulwich is a report of his arrest and charging, deriving from the police operation to trace subscribers to offensive pornography sites - when the sort of comments it would seem that the OP would have wanted to see would all have been sub-judice. His conviction was reported in the press (which is how I, and many of you, and the OP got to hear about it) - but again, as the offences were not against anyone in Dulwich, nor is there any suggestion that Dulwich people were immediately at risk, it is very much not (except in the sense that he was employed locally) a local story. It is clearly true that (some) people who initially indulge in voyeuristic activity (which is what the viewing of pornography is) then graduate to more participative offences - though by no means all do (and the market for child pornography clearly can be seen as contributory to the acts against children that this records - and hence makes child pornography viewers complicit in the acts of raping children) - but to make an assumption that all viewers of child pornography are themselves active (rather than complicit) child molesters is simply wrong. Unless and until it is made clear that this criminal was actually active in this area (and the fact that he wasn't imprisoned makes it pretty clear that his acts as far as anyone knows are still only as a voyeur and not an active molester) then his role in the school is immaterial. On the forum we complain about poo and bottles of strange stuff and parking because these are trivial issues which no one else cares about, and we alert each other to stories of (suspected) child abduction (and burglary/ muggings) because these are serious issues 'in progress' - but getting too excited about a crime which didn't happen on 'our' patch, which has been discovered and the culprit tried and convicted would seem to add neither value nor enjoyment to the forum.

It is the dropped kerb which is the clincher - it's perfectly possible to paint your own white lines (I have a neighbour who did that over his own, entirely legitimate drive way) - but on their own they don't cut the mustard. Interestingly, when our road was re-surfaced, the white lines painted in by my neighbour (who also white-lined across my legitimate dropped kerb) were replaced by the council contractors - and indeed slightly extended. Parking across a dropped kerb (without permission) is an offence - the police can tow such cars away.

I attach, drawn from the figures supplied by James, the stats for the 4 wards I think 'contribute' to East Dulwich as a non-political ward concept. I have drawn 2 graphs - one which shows the comparative figures together, one which disagregates by showing the monthly 'contribution' to the total for the 4 wards. ED Ward is at the bottom because it is the first set of figures calculated. The graphs do show some (slight) seasonality. As they are not weighted by ward numbers they should not be directly compared. These are in Excel and as a .pdf Edited to include graphs which exclude the 'monthly average' figure

Once again we come up against the problem of East Dulwich as a philosphical (and indeed estate agent) concept and as a description of a local political entitity. I would guess most of those living in The Gardens, and in Underhill south of Langton Rise (in College), think of themselves as being in east Dulwich (both of these are areas where burglaries are currently being reported) - but both are outside the ED ward. Of course James will talk of ED as his ward, but for most participants in this forum those strict boundaries do not describe what they (and I) mean as 'East Dulwich'. So the ward crime figures and their changes do not equate to our own perceptions of ED crimes and their fluctuation in incidence. Bits, certainly, of College crimes, and of Peckham Rye (as well as ED and Village) fall into a more general view of the 'ED' crime statistics.

In another post you say, I think, that this took place between Langton and Melford - this part of Underhill is right on the border between two wards (ED and College, it will be just in College) - with two neighbourhood 'police' groups butting up to each other (and possibly relying on the other to patrol this area). It would be good if both neighbourhood policing groups were aware of this issue, but I fear possibly neither will be, or will see it as being on the other's patch. Worse, it is also on the border point between Lewisham and Southwark (actually that border runs through Wood Vale) - again this puts it on the border of, and thus possibly ignored by, two police Divisions. I would like to think that these issues were being liaised about across all the groups involved, but I am sanguine about this. However, it is good to see reported police activity actually before the event, as it were - so maybe my fears are groundless.

Yes, there was a petrol station/ garage (repairs) there in the late eighties.

Damaged cables are normally caused by rogue JCB action by another utility - but there have been past problems with cable thefts - copper scrap values are high at the moment. My BT BB and phone is currently clear (but I'm on a fibre to the cabinet product, so may have escaped this issue anyway). If the problem is with damage to a copper cable, then all the individual twisted pairs have to be jointed back to the correct terminations to restore service, it's not just like replacing a length of hollow pipe delivering water or gas (or electricity fo that matter). Your 'line' will in the end be an individual pair of wires running unbroken (except for joints) from your junction box in your home all the way back to a line card on a rack in the exchange. If cable is damaged each pair has to be traced, matched and jointed to restore service. Priority (for consumer lines) will be given where possible to 'vulnerable' customers who may be dependent on telephone services e.g. for medical reasons. Your twisted pairs will form part of a group of pairs in a cable carrying perhaps hundreds of lines, all of which have to be individually traced, jointed and restored. Hence the forecast time to repair your service.