Jump to content

Recommended Posts

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So the rubbish in the Co-op is /was my

> respnsibility and should anyone slip on it,

> it is MY fault for not picking it up.

>

> Right Got it now.. Think I will drink a bottle of

> gin to catch up..

>




It was you who raised the subject in the first place, Fox, and told us how dangerous the rubbish was.


And you still haven't told us what this law is.


Enjoy your gin :))

I may be misreading or misunderstanding estate agent info but they seem to be marketing a flat on the first floor at over ?670. This will have access to a communal rooftop garden, inducating other flats to be sold on this level.


So have all those offices on the first and second floors, the ones that allowed the last application to go through, now been converted to 'affordable' flats? Or is the information incorrect and what they are refrring to is the Penthouse flats on 4 th floor?

The littered isles are a breach of H&S enforceable by Southwark Council who are now acting on the photos helpfully provided by DF to me.


I'm amazed people are so obtuse about this. If someone trips or falls they would have obvious pain and suffering. Our local NHS would have to try fixing them for entirely avoidable falls and trips. DF has done a public service by highlighting this and initially trying to get the store management to act more professionally.

James,


You may know more about current state of play of flats at M&S site. Have all those offices now become flats...each at arounf ?670?


You may also be interested to know that lorries delivering fridges etc.. for M&S have been having great difficulty getting in and out of the site, frequently having to park up adjacent to houses and blocking the footpath. The drivers said the M&S regular delivery vehicles will be even larger? Any comment?

First mate, is this the apprtment you saw advertised?


http://www.rightmove.co.uk/new-homes-for-sale/property-55148335.html


It does look very smart but doesn't bear much resemblance to the lay out of the offices in the more recent planning application drawings.


The council and the developer seem to be proceeding on the basis of the 2014 planning permission though for the change of use form offices to aprtments on the first and saecond floors. The council recently approved the ecohomes assesment for those apartments so they clearly aren't interested in whether or not this develpoment met the affordable homes rules.


http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=16/AP/1806&system=DC

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Abe,

>

> That's the one. So 8 flats at ?670 with the

> penthouses on top at, presumably, much more. The

> developers have pretty much got everything they

> want and more, will wait to see combined impact of

> the whole.


You mean a commercial property company has run rings around Southwark planning authorities? I don't believe it!?!?

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> edhistory Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It will be interesting to see how the newly

> > published photographs of the interior are

> > reflected in the Valuation Officers assessment.

>

> Hmmmm, i'm not sure it will.


Here is part of the Business Rate assessment for the Iceland Occupation.


Valuation scheme reference: 9173


Retail Zone A Area m2/unit 95.90 ? m2/unit ?279


No business rates are payable for the for the period of refurbishment. They become payable again no later than 31 August 2016.


By comparison small food retailers on Lordship Lane are assessed at Retail Zone A Area ? m2/unit ?430

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> James,

>

> You may know more about current state of play of

> flats at M&S site. Have all those offices now

> become flats...each at arounf ?670?

>

> You may also be interested to know that lorries

> delivering fridges etc.. for M&S have been having

> great difficulty getting in and out of the site,

> frequently having to park up adjacent to houses

> and blocking the footpath. The drivers said the

> M&S regular delivery vehicles will be even larger?

> Any comment?


The lorries are meant to be smaller and more frequent.

Taking up the road and pedestrian walkway for the arrival of the fridges and other equipment was planned. Those directly effected were notified by the project lead from Wates.

Yes Southwark has had its pants pulled down! The outcome is likely to be that house prices in the area are nudged up again by the sale of 10 luxury flats with more wealthy people moving in while stocks of affordable housing remain critically low.


It's good for those with a vested interest (as with the ?40,000 being spent on Melbourne Grove to improve the experience for those with buggies), not so good for, say, poorly paid nurses hoping to live somewhere near King's college hospital.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes Southwark has had its pants pulled down! The

> outcome is likely to be that house prices in the

> area are nudged up again by the sale of 10 luxury

> flats with more wealthy people moving in while

> stocks of affordable housing remain critically

> low.

>

> It's good for those with a vested interest (as

> with the ?40,000 being spent on Melbourne Grove to

> improve the experience for those with buggies),

> not so good for, say, poorly paid nurses hoping to

> live somewhere near King's college hospital.


Erm... You really cannot and should even think about comparing the two!

Hi gaby1st,

Walsh Glazing is still in the area - but it found it didn't need a high street presence.

We haven't lost any hardware shops.


I think the issue edhistory has highlighted about rate valuations is however very serious if we wish to keep small indie shops on our high street.

Kel I think there are similarities between the two.


A lot of people petitioned against changes in Melbourne Grove and the council ignored them. A lot of people demanded affordable housing (the policy is national, mandated by a general election) and the council seem to be ignoring it.


Both schemes will also have the side effect of helping the rich get richer.

I don't about the 'Iceland eyesore', but the current vacant unit, now for well over a year, doesn't exactly rest easy on the eye in my book either! If these bloody people could get a move on that would be helpful. Even I have noticed the collapse in noticeable footfall since the closure of Iceland.


Louisa.

The Glazier, hardware store, DIY shops, locksmith, joiner, etc are all still in ED. Sometimes I wonder if people who complain about a lack of useful shops actually live here. The only thing to go is the garden centre and there are two elsewhere in Dulwich within walking distance.



gabys1st Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Can't help wondering if you are fairly new to the

> area, and maybe a high earner. Some of us will

> remember when Lordship Lane had useful shops for

> example glaziers and hardware, and people on lower

> incomes need shops like Iceland.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • But it was under our electoral system in 2019! This must be part of the right-wing media conspiracy that did for Corbyn....;-) Corbyn was very closely allied to Unite and Len....
    • Goose Green Ward Panel Meeting   Date: 24th of July 2025, 7pm Location: East Dulwich Picturehouse | 116A Lordship Lane | London SE22 8HD    Safer Neighbourhoods Team (SNT) will be holding a ward panel meeting at East Dulwich Picturehouse on Thursday 24th July 2025 from 7pm. Please come along to talk about the priorities for the community and how local police can help.  
    • Eh? That wasn't "my quote"! If you look at your post above,it is clearly a quote by Rockets! None of us have any  idea what a Corbyn led government during Covid would have been like. But do you seriously think it would have been worse than Johnson's self-serving performance? What you say about the swing of seats away from Labour in 2019 is true. But you have missed my point completely. The fact that Labour under Corbyn got more than ten million votes does not mean that Corbyn was "unelectable", does it? The present electoral system is bonkers, which is why a change is apparently on the cards. Anyway, it is pointless discussing this, because we are going round in circles. As for McCluskey, whatever the truth of that report, I can't see what it has to do with Corbyn?
    • Exactly what I said, that Corbyn's group of univeristy politics far-left back benchers would have been a disaster during Covid if they had won the election. Here you go:  BBC News - Ex-union boss McCluskey took private jet flights arranged by building firm, report finds https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3kgg55410o The 2019 result was considered one of the worst in living memory for Labour, not only for big swing of seats away from them but because they lost a large number of the Red-wall seats- generational Labour seats. Why? Because as Alan Johnson put it so succinctly: "Corbyn couldn't lead the working class out of a paper bag"! https://youtu.be/JikhuJjM1VM?si=oHhP6rTq4hqvYyBC
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...