LurkyMcLurker

Ah ok, going back and reading it I see where I made an error. Even going back and looking at it having been 886 respondents, the 72% DOES take into consideration people who do not live on the roads impacted. I think it's still fair to consider the local population, since a CPZ does have impacts beyond the immediate street. So perhaps I should have looked more locally. Goose Green Ward has a population of 13,600. 886/13,600 is 6.5%. I'm not sitting here and saying what they should have done. What I am doing is trying to get an understanding of how the council came to the conclusion that they have. Whether it's sound, unsound, or "rubbish" doesn't matter. It happened. Considering the 72% negative response rate, there must have been something else for them to continue on as they have. So is it a consideration of the wider population and the response rate?

Genuine question: 469 people weighed in, in which 72% said they didn't want the CPZ. Southwark council reports East Dulwich as having approx. 32,400 residents. Call it 50% adults. 469/16,200 equates to 2.8% of residents weighing in on the matter. Let's also be generous and assume that each respondent speaks for 5 different people. Even then it comes out to 14% of the residents in the area weighing in. Even after cooking the numbers pretty liberally it's not a very large proportion of the community. So my question is: is the silence by the rest of the community considered to be tacit approval?

I think your response is probably the reason why work hasn't been done yet. If the cost to repair the bridge was a fraction of the amount spent on the LTN then it likely would have been resolved already. I imagine the most likely reason the bridge hasn't been fixed yet is because the price of fixing the bridge was probably much more than anticipated. The question we have to ask is how much is reasonable to repair the bridge? It's not a 1 to 1, but here's a relatively local wooden bridge that needs replacing in Kelsey park. The FAQ addresses price, estimating it to be over 500k: https://www.bromley.gov.uk/parks-open-spaces/kelsey-park-replacement-footbridge/2 The bridge in dulwich park isn't as intricate, but it's also much longer. Perhaps the original survey identified additional issues. So let's been generous and say the price is cut in half. Is 200k a reasonable price to repair the bridge?

Have you tried asking anyone who might be able to provide an answer to your questions that have first hand knowledge of the issue with the bridge in the park?

What's probably happened here is an assignment of Poundland's lease. This means that Tesco would purchase the remaining terms of Poundland's lease from Poundland. It could be contingent on the council approving the plans for the signage change and ATM. The landlord would be happy because then a stronger tenant moves into their space. Poundland gets a bit of cash in the form of a premium. Tesco gets a fully baked lease to take over. Companies don't submit these plans unless it was going to happen. It takes time and money to draw up these plans, and if you review them you'll see the drawings of the frontage are clearly 29-35 Lordship Lane. Meaning someone had surveyed the space and drawn up plans based on the specific property.

"war" - Let's not be so dramatic. Also, can you link the discussion that you're referring to?

Yes it's a misunderstanding. The other properties aren't referring to other locations that Tesco will be opening up, but other properties in the immediate vicinity of the poundland. You'll notice they're flats. It's likely the spaces above and adjacent. Likely on the same parcel of land. They could have made a mistake, but they probably didn't.

The person behind the till won't know about whether or not an assignment of their lease has been purchased by a company like Tesco. Poundland was sold for a nominal fee so it's unsurprising that the location may close soon. As well, for what it's worth, someone working in the shop is likely to have their job impacted by the shop closing, so having loads of people going and asking them about the potential closing of their shop isn't really nice. "Hey, hear you'll be out of a job soon. Know much about that?" The best resource you all should be using for queries about planning details of new shops is the council's website. As was stated on the first page of this post, there's an application lodged for multiple changes at 29-35 Lordship Lane with the client as Tesco. They wouldn't lodge these plans unless it was happening, or at least extremely likely to happen. The application is on the council's website here: https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=SVW246KBKF500&activeTab=summary

Yep this is the one. Looks like it's from the 30th of May to the 16th. Issued a week before going into practice. So deep. So corrupt. We need to see how deep the rot goes. When we inevitibly found out what scoundrel is behind this unlawful travesty we should campaign for them to be beheaded. How dare they.

Every additional hour worked and every additional worker employed costs more money. Especially if you start going past the workers' regularly scheduled hours. The question then comes down to what is most important? The duration of the works vs the amount of money spent on the works. It could probably get done faster, but the costs would probably rise outside of the budget allocated.

I feel like there's a perception of all this roadwork causing chaos all over the area, but I don't think it's the reality. There were works at Red Post Hill for a few weeks, but that ended back in April. The temporary lights at ED station are gone now. I think last week? The work at south circular seems to be set to complete soon (at least the documents from the original post state today, the 6th) Now there's the work at Peckham Rye, but that started after Red Post Hill finished and nearer the end of the work by south circular road. ED Station progressed pretty quickly. You could see the crews working right down the road. This seems pretty standard for a metropolitan city. I got my kid to school and myself to work each day while using public transport without the congestion becoming anything more than a mild inconvenience. I don't know what peak efficiency looks like for roadworks across a wide area, but I feel like this wasn't wildly inefficiently or not thought through.

I don't think Southwark is trying to kill off car drivers. If they were, it'd be a whole lot easier to just shoot them in the head. Widening pavement seems way less effective.

I noticed that there's a pole right next to the loading/unloading area. It doesn't serve any purpose right now. It's too tall for a typical bollard (and there's only one) and too short to be used as a street light. I imagine it's going to be a sign at some point. Not sure why it wouldn't just be finished since the works have moved on from directly outside the M&S, but what do I know.

Is it really that messy, though? I don't think it is. It's inconvenient. It's unpleasant. It's not a disaster, though. I go through Red Post Hill and Grove Vale 5 days a week and I've never seen the traffic backed up to such an extent where these works interfere with one another. If they did? Of course it'd be a disaster. Of course that'd be worth demanding someone to answer for what's gone on, but that hasn't happened. It seems to me this is more likely an incovenience across a broad area where you can possibly interact with multiple areas undergoing work. That's annoying. However, it's not like these works were unplanned or left in a state where traffic lights didn't exist or didn't work. It's not like work has started then sat completely unresolved for ages and ages without any work occurring.

How about we go straight to the source then if you think it's questionable: Here's Unite Group's annual report: https://www.unitegroup.com/annual-report-and-accounts-2024 Download the PDF and you'll find the 97.5% occupancy rate. You know a lot of these news sources exist because digging through annual reports is laborious and not immediately accessible to the masses. They're reporting on what Unite Group, a public company, is reporting. It's making something more digestible. They're not just making up numbers. They'd end up without much business if they were. PBSA is a big industry. Here's another take (though a year older) from Cushman and Wakefield: https://www.cushmanwakefield.com/en/united-kingdom/insights/uk-student-accommodation-report Like CBRE, they're also reporting supply shortages. Again, to be occupied by students.