Jump to content

Recommended Posts

>>>People don't want property prices to rise even further. The only people who would benefit are people who leave the area.


What people? With respect, you're not speaking for me. I have no plans to leave the area but if in the meantime my flat goes up in value because of improvements to the area, why would I mind? It's my greatest asset after all (and my pension, being self employed) and I worked really hard to get it!


Anyway, sorry let's stick to the development itself....I just wanted to respond to a particular post. H

I have to say, this argument that says "Where will the poor people get their food if there's no Iceland" is flawed in several ways.


Firstly, the price of food as a % of household income has dramatically declined since the 50s, thanks largely to aggressive pricing at the supermarkets. If people are struggling to make ends meet, there are many other areas to consider first (the Sky subscription? Expensive car? Mobile phone? Designer clothes?)


I don't wish to generalise by any means but it does amaze me how often people who claim not to be able to afford paying a few pence more for better food can still afford an iPhone 5 etc (I can't!) I think it's more about priorities than necessity to be honest.

I think I'm speaking for everyone except property investors or people who are planning to leave.


If you're not going to leave the area, you're either planning to keep your flat, or trade up. In the first scenario your profit is not realised, in the second scenario you would be worse off.


Not to mention the people who grew up here and would like to stay. Or people who are renting and would like to buy.


So the gentrification process is all well and good, but the associated rise in property prices only benefit the minority.

Iceland is a false economy. Individual items may carry a low ticket price, but that isn't the same as saying they are good value. When you actually analyse what you are getting for you money in terms of the nutritional value of many (not all) of their offerings, it's could actually be considered very expensive. Adding in the cost to health of eating heavilly processed foods off balances the equation further. M&S isn't a whole lot better to be fair, but if you want value, then one can buy relatively low cost cuts of meat and plenty of cheap vegatables from many of the nearby independents and street markets.

Iceland / M&S are both chains specialising primarilly in heavilly processed, pre-prepared foods. The latter has a mildly better quality offering, so I would prefer it personally, but it's all much of a muchness.

To hold Iceland up as some kind of working class hero is silly though.

To be frank, I just can't understand why anybody would not welcome the introduction of M&S into Lordship Lane. The demographic of the area is changing no end and I think the reality is that most people would welcome the quality that M&S offers. Fingers crossed that the application is accepted!

To be frank, I just can't understand why anybody would not welcome the introduction of M&S into Lordship Lane. The demographic of the area is changing no end and I think the reality is that most people would welcome the quality that M&S offers. Fingers crossed that the application is accepted!



I find this quite snobbish. Are you saying that all in East Dulwich are well heeled and upmarket. Reality check - Not everyone can afford M&S.

Indeed. We've gone through the class war part of the discussion several pages ago...


*Bob* Wrote:

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

> I hope everyone has familiarised themselves with

> the first 38 pages before posting.

>

> We wouldn't want to go over old ground on this

> one, would we?

>charles26, do you live in the street right next to the car wash? Just wondering? Most people in the street affected are aware of cars being badly damaged as well as residential property (garden walls have been knocked down) by delivery vehicles. Again, no objection to M&S it is the overall development which seeks to squeeze much, much more into the same space.<



ed has a population of thousands, we cant make decisions based on the preferences of just a few on one street. possible solution would be to reroute the vehicles via main roads only. this seems a plausible request if the noise and damage is that bad on chesterfield grove and/or neighboring residential streets

James Wrote:

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

> I have to say, this argument that says "Where will

> the poor people get their food if there's no

> Iceland" is flawed in several ways.

>

> Firstly, the price of food as a % of household

> income has dramatically declined since the 50s,

> thanks largely to aggressive pricing at the

> supermarkets. If people are struggling to make

> ends meet, there are many other areas to consider

> first (the Sky subscription? Expensive car? Mobile

> phone? Designer clothes?)

>

> I don't wish to generalise by any means but it

> does amaze me how often people who claim not to be

> able to afford paying a few pence more for better

> food can still afford an iPhone 5 etc (I can't!) I

> think it's more about priorities than necessity to

> be honest.


I think there are actually people around here we could call 'poor' who don't have much money for food OR designer clothes, an expensive car, a Sky subscription or a posh mobile phone. We're not talking Daily Mail middle class poverty but actual low incomes. I'm not saying that Iceland is the only answer to buying food on a budget but can we remember that there are people living in East Dulwich still who genuinely don't have much money. It's not about prioritising M&S food over designer clothing, but only having a state pension or income support to shop on.

charles26 Wrote:

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

> whilst they are at it they should get rid of the

> co-op and replace that with a waitrose? that will

> really push the penny savers over the edge. i love

> waitrose but my god what a rip off.



The same Waitrose who price-match Tesco?

charles26,


It is just that you spoke about a personal preference for an M&S, ergo it suits you. The point is that the potential impact of the TOTAL development on those living closest to it weighs in at rather more than a yen for some quality,M&S grub.


The development is more than just a shop....

Sorry first mate, but you're also expressing a personal opinion i.e. the impact of the development is more important than a desire for some posh cheese sticks. For most of ED, the personal impact of the development will be very limited and will not weigh heavily on their decision to support or object.

I'd say its of greater importance because its the only thing the planning dept will consider for better or worse....


I believe this application will be successful but we should scrutinize it so the final project is as good as it can be.

London Mix, actually you are spot on, planning have no interest in the brand of shop and this will have no bearing on their decision on the application. The only objections they will consider and weigh in the balance, are to do with the detail of the application. For these reasons I would urge people to read the application and to comment, having considered its implications.

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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