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%. 

 

8 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

Making an assumption that those who didn't say 'no' to a CPZ would have said 'yes' is statistically unsound.

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?

 

16 minutes ago, ab29 said:

The bridge is"rotten"? How?

2 million pounds has been wasted on so-called ltn, a fraction of this money could fix the wooden bridge in Dulwich Park - so families, children, visitors etc.can benefit.

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?

4 hours ago, Insuflo said:

I see. But as I read it, Tesco would still need the agreement of the owners/ leaseholder to submit proposals, so would need Poundland’s cooperation?

 

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. 

41 minutes ago, first mate said:

@Malumbu

Not only 'unnecessary journeys' as you frame them, but any and all journeys.
 

It's good we can finally call it what it is -  a local war on motorists, spearheaded by our own councillor and cabinet member, Cllr McAsh.

"war" - Let's not be so dramatic. 

Also, can you link the discussion that you're referring to? 

8 hours ago, Sue said:

However,  unless I have misunderstood, within the documents it says that  there are eleven properties associated with the application.

Could someone at Tesco have made a mistake with the address,  and in fact it has nothing to do with Poundland?

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 

1 hour ago, snowy said:

Is there there additional parking restrictions because of the country show? They apply every year: https://southlondon.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/london-borough-of-lambeth-temporary-traffic-and-parking-restrictions-brockwell-park.pdf

Yep this is the one.

Looks like it's from the 30th of May to the 16th. Issued a week before going into practice.

18 hours ago, JMK said:

This is clearly a deeply corrupt scam being undertaken by Southwark Council and its agents

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.

16 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

 Teams are not even being scheduled 9-5 five days a week, let alone late working or weekends. So the actual period of disruption to road users is much longer than it need be. Nobody suggests that work doesn't need to be done (although scheduled works could be better planned) - it's the complete disregard for the actual lapsed time of disruption which is so annoying.

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.
 

On 18/05/2025 at 00:10, Cancerian said:

All very unnecessary but that’s Southwark Labour’s plan to kill off car drivers.

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.

16 hours ago, first mate said:

Outside M&S, is is footpath, cycle scooter storage or a drop off/loading zone...perhaps all three, on a kinda first come first served basis.

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.
 

1 hour ago, first mate said:

The PBSA take on the strength of the market seems much more upbeat than does the govt. research paper. Perhaps they are right or perhaps it is in their interests to talk up the market.

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.

I think a lot of people here are just speculating about empty student accommodation properties.

Student accommodation developments are very popular because they provide really great rates of return for the owner. A large student accommodation owner, Unite Students, saw 97.5% occupancy across their assets in the 2024/2025 academic year. They have many properties in London; https://pbsanews.co.uk/2024/10/09/unite-students-reports-record-occupancy-rates-in-q3-2024-update/

Here's a bit from CBRE on PBSA properties in London from May 2024: https://www.cbre.co.uk/press-releases/london-plan-policy-fails-to-deliver-affordable-student-accommodation - "According to new research by CBRE and QX Global, the gap between demand for PBSA and available supply in London currently stands at 100,000 – 105,000 full-time students, underscoring how demand for student housing has outpaced supply." - The development pipeline in London isn't keeping up with the demand.

Ultimately this development wouldn't be built if student accommodation wasn't in demand. It's proximity to the station means that a student could get to any number of universities easily in a short span of time.

Is it ideal? No. Would more affordable housing be better? Yes. Is speculating about channel migrants occupying the space uninformed idiocy? Absolutely.

10 hours ago, Sue said:

Surely they must be aware that they are not supposed to park there if they have to mount a curb to do so?

They can explain it away with all sorts of nonsense. "There's no sign" or "I parked herejust two weeks ago" or "I only need to get milk".

The reality is they just don't care. Their convenience takes priority.

3 hours ago, Nigello said:

Perhaps if you witnessed the three cars parked in/on (because one must mount a kerb to park there) it today with no space for pedestrians or wheelchairs other than what was there before, you’d think differently. 

I did witness it and I don't think differently. Not sure why you think I would. Am I supposed to be distressed or something?

People parking where they shouldn't doesn't take away from the overall good that widening the pavement will do. It's just become evident that some measures will need to be taken to dissuade people from parking there.

42 minutes ago, Nigello said:

Three parked cars on the newly built out area - they mounted the kerb. What is the actual purpose of this if it’s to be immediately abused? 

Yes this seems like a consistent issue.

There isn't a sign indicating you can't park there so people just do it.

1 hour ago, first mate said:

What does location C show? A chunk of road on Melbourne Grove South is to be raised and built over to make it 'easier' for pedestrians. It is effectively widening the pavement. Is this to be known as Melbourne Square in future?

Using parklets to narrow roads, and in one case remove a dropping off point, is a nice bit of environmental virtue signalling that looks good on paper, but let's see how it works out in practice.

This thread isn't about Melbourne Grove south. Keep it on topic please. We're talking about the works at East Dulwich station. There's a thread with 9 pages on that topic in this forum, surely we're not adding any new insight by talking about it here.

I went and looked at the proposal online for what's happening at the station.

To me, the biggest points of the works at the station are the following two points from here:https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking-streets-and-transport/improving-streets-and-spaces/making-our-streets-greener/east-dulwich

• extending the footway over side roads with access maintained for cyclists and emergency vehicles at junctions with Melbourne Grove, Derwent Grove and Elsie Road
• a modal filter allowing cyclists and emergency vehicles only

I often see people talking about the challenges to ambulances as a key objection to these sorts of changes. As people have now gotten used to the roads not being accessible for everyday drivers, surely this is a net positive?

Quote

Looking at this it seems like maximum interference for minimal return. How long will the works take, I wonder, and with what level of disruption? 

The area has a high level of pedestrian traffic from people commuting to work and students to the local secondary school. What do you mean "minimal return"? For you personally?

Quote

Just wait until the works start on builders merchants redevelopment - which I'm guessing will take 3+ years - carnage on railway rise with the constant to-ing and fro-ing of lorries. Woe betide M&S if they block it with their deliveries...

Yes we'll all be shaking in our boots at the sight of the constant CARNAGE.

Quote

Surely will mean M&S delivery lorries now have to park and block half the road/ traffic and anyone disabled can no longer park right outside the store, albeit there is another store on Lordship Lane.

It seems way more likely they'd park the lorry right next to the shop on Railway Rise. How did you come to the conclusion they'll simply block half the road?

Ultimately I think this is a good change. More space for people walking around the station. I commute to/from work via ED and a lot of people exit the station and turn right towards lordship lane. Even beyond the daily commuters there's all the students from the nearby secondary school and any time there's a DHFC match it gets busy.



 

They're gathering?

Are they plotting something? Is the public's safet in question?

Better not go and speak to their parents. It sounds far too dangerous. Go straight to the police.

I'd recommend just using the Hub's website to get caught up on this.

I'm not sure why it wasn't posted at the very beginning because it is always best to go to the source especially since the original poster just copy/pasted directly from their news: https://carnegielibraryhub.org.uk/the-carnegie-library-hub-is-at-a-difficult-juncture/

The older EDF posts look irrelevant to the issues the Hub is having with the council since the main issue stems from a decision from the council in 2023.

It doesn't look like the council is shutting down the library, but revising the library's operators terms, which then has prompted the operator to determine it'd be better to shut down than continue on?

Their 3 main points of contention don't mention the council kicking them out, but rather reducing their scope within the building.

"Consequently, the trustees and team have decided that, with Lambeth as a principal stakeholder and with the new restricted terms of tenancy which Lambeth appears unwilling to materially negotiate on, we are not able to fulfil our charitable objectives and have no choice than to set a timetable for an orderly close.

We have informed all of our partners that we no longer have secure tenancy and will be closing by the end of December 2024 unless we can urgently agree terms that foster success for community use aligning with our charitable objectives."
 

"new restricted terms of tenancy" doesn't equate to "we no longer have secure tenancy". To me this reads as they're fed up and would rather close down due to their frustrations. That seems fair enough to me, but I think they should just say that, since it's how the entire thing reads to me.

I've been to the library loads of times with my child for parties and school events. It's a lovely place and it would be better if the Hub could continue as it is, but this also gives me the vibe that if they can't have it their way then they'll shut down entirely.