Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The owner of the site has been trying thought various planning applications - which Cllr Rosie Shimell and I have called in repeatedly - to get permission to convert the premises into a restaurant ground floor and add an extra three flats above.

We've called-in the latest scheme to be decided by councillor if council officers are minded to grant permission under delegated powers.


It is crucial that Lordship Lane keep at least 50% retail shop units.


If you agree then object to the latest planning application - https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9577108&activeTab=summary

This percentage is based no ensuring our shopping high street has sufficient proportion of shops to be attractive ot people who want to go shopping.

In planning terms it's considered critical mass.


Hi P68,

Are you suggesting Lordship Lane should be turned into houses and flats?

Word on the street 3 years ago was that Londis would close to enable Costa Coffee, so I suppose that was the planning permission du jour.

Apart from the occasional bottle of wine, we never used it as a corner shop, far too expensive

and limited. We have other similar stores along LL.

Can we take 5 minutes to suggest

it's replacement?

Please, be uninhibited, we are open to fantasy or pragmatism ...

Hi P68,

Are you suggesting Lordship Lane should be turned into houses and flats?


No. I am suggesting that a rigid '50%' shops without considering what the alternative to that might be (closed shops, pop-ups, charity shops) - none of which actually add to LL retail clout - is not sensible. I am also suggesting that, yes, considering the housing situation in London I do think additional residential accommodation locally would be a good thing. I had not realised the Lib Dem position was so entrenched against increasing housing capacity in Southwark, but then , you lives and you learns.

Ah, I'll miss this shop, but that's mostly nostalgia on my part. It'd long since been superseded by many other places on the Lane, especially the excellent Organic Village place, which has turned itself into a really good little vendor.


I understand why some are sad to see it go, but it was expensive and run down, you could tell ages ago they knew it was done for.


I'm pessimistic about what might replace it, but we'll see I guess.

Walked down earlier to take a look after reading a thread on here.


Very sad to see this shop close. One of the last bastions of ?old ED?- friendly staff, very handy for bits and bobs- especially lottery and Saturday papers. It might not be worth much to most on here, but it was a tradition to walk down and get our morning papers on a weekend. A sad day for me, and many others I?m sure.


Louisa.

I?ve got lots of lovely memories of this shop from my childhood, especially the slush puppie that my mum used to buy me.

I still popped in there for Hermes and to pick up a few bits and bobs, but nothing stays the same forever in Dulwich though I hope Sunny?s shop, Red Apple will run forever as that was my local shop when I was a youth for cherry coke, spring onion crisps and penny sweets.

No,it wasn?t. It has been named a few things throughout the years but it?s always been pretty similar.

If it becomes a restaurant or cafe then it?ll bear no resemblance to what it used to be from my youth but I?m sure in ten years time there will be lots more changes as always.




Sue Wrote:

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

> It wasn't Londis for long though was it?

>

> It was a seven eleven in the early nineties (I

> think) and something else after that?

>

> Similar type of shop though.

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

    • The fundamental problem at present is that the government has been given to belief that if they took it into public ownership, they'd have to pay all its billions of debts. This, oddly, is not a problem that's dogged any of its previous owners, and a very simple solution would be to fine it, say, £40bn for being useless and then pick it up for free. So that's possible. However one of the compelling arguments that got it privatised in the first place was that government-run operations aren't often very well run. They might promise 40 new reservoirs to get them through an election, but that's the last you'll hear of it till the water-rates bill arrives, and there's precious little in the way of economic "growth" to be had out of processing sewage. There are advantages, perhaps, to having an accountable hand on the tiller, but governments, and their agencies, tend not to very accountable. Last December, for example, the Office for Environmental Protection released a report detailing how DEFRA, the Environment Agency and Ofwat had all failed in their legal duties, but as the OEP's powers extend only to writing reports, that's as far as it went. An alternative might be to have it run as an autonomous business, with the government holding the only share. But that's what they did with the Post Office where any benefits of privatisation have become only a boondoggle for lawyers. Not that lawyers don't deserve the compulsory generosity of taxpayers, but their needs must surely be secondary to the Post Office's vital core missions of re-selling stamps, not handing out pensions and cooking the digital books. Which leaves us, I think, in need of a Third Way. That might seem a little too Blairite for some, but I think there's a way to add a Corbynish gloss by setting it up as a co-operative, owned not by the state but by its customers, who would have an interest in striking a balance between increasing bills, maintaining supplies and preserving their own environment, and who'd be able to hold the management to account without having to go through a web of five regulators by way of the office of a part-time representative with an eye on a job in the Cabinet. There are risks with that, of course, in that the shoutiest can exert the most influence, and the shoutiest are not often the most wise, but with everyone having an equal stake, the shoutiest usually get shouted down, which is why co-operatives tend to last longer than businesses steered by cliques of shareholders or political advisers. In other words, the optimum and correct path to take is tried and tested and sitting right there and I'll eat my hat if it happens.  
    • At least the situation with rail travel  is being addressed.
    • It would cost so much  now.  But pay off for us in the long run. Thatcher and her privatisation of public services.  It is a total disaster 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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