Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Message to East Dulwich Business Owners / Managers.


The use of forecourts is about to rear its ugly head again as Southwark attempts to raise revenue from the anticipated greater footfall north of the borough during the summer Olympics. This will of course impact on businesses south of the borough.


Some of you will remember around Christmas the ugly scenes when council reps visited stores and bars demanding licence applications, these reps were unaware of the council policy and what they said varied from one business to another. Many traders were left distraught and confused by the bullish behaviour and the council reps' ignorance of their own policy. We are hoping they will be politer and better informed this time.


In essence, if you do have furniture on the public highway INCLUDING 'A' BOARDS it is very likely that you will have to pay a (increased) licence fee (to see the report follow this url http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=20531&Opt=0).


If you have furniture on your own privately owned land / forecourt (the vast case in and around East Dulwich) you are exempt from the license IF you have a boundary fence OR display a sign stating;


'THIS IS A PRIVATE FORECOURT FOR THE USE OF CUSTOMERS / PATRONS ONLY.'


Southwark Council would not be happy with the fence options as it will mean a reduction in the width of the pavements, however this is an option which you can consider and might give you some leverage. Also the fees appear to be levied on the size and number of items which means a small cafe busy at just lunchtimes could be paying the same as a huge SE1 bar. Typically the policy has not been thought through.


It is disturbing to us members of the business community when all the media's attention is focused on preserving and promoting small businesses to help preserve our high streets, Southwark Council is ignoring the 'Portas Protocol' and penalising the very people who make this borough such a vibrant and desirable one.


If the visiting Southwark reps are ignorant of the policy, or in any way bullish, remain calm, do nothing, take their name and contact us; we will talk to your Local Councillor, The Cabinet Member For Transport, Environment and Recycling and the Head of Public Realm's office. If the Southwark reps behave as badly as they did last time then we shall be taking the matter to the press and advising our MP, but we need incident reports so write everything down and try to get any conversations witnessed IE when they arrive make sure you have another member of staff or an obliging member of the public on hand.


If you have furniture on the highway and you want to fight this decision please email us back and we will form a group to do so. We have already had the offer of support in doing this. Contact the South Southwark Business Association by email at [email protected]

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

    • From the BBC: "The conclusion of that deliberation is that we accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action. The BBC would like to apologise for that error of judgement." What is wrong is editing someone to make him say something they didn't.  With respect Sephiroth, this is something I know a bit about and I have encountered, over the last decade, people in programming editing contributors to make them say things they didn't, the end point being to hang them out to dry. It's happening more and more and it's my job to make sure that people on TV are not mis-represented, but shown in their true light so that viewers can make up their own minds. You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes and how hard some us fight to keep things impartial.  It's also worth mentioning that I have personally lost work because of Trump suing US networks, and that's one of the lesser reasons why I'd like to see him gone.  But broadcasters have a moral obligation to tell the truth and that's the hill that most decent professionals in the industry are willing to die on. Otherwise, how can the viewing public trust anything that's beamed into their living rooms? 
    • Amazing work from Leon, doing out electrical survey and replacing our consumer board. Great communications, tidy work, reliable friendly and reasonably priced. A pleasure to have around and highly recommended. 
    • Counterpoint: there was zero misrepresentation of truth    never mind the bbc or the uk (for now)-  his own country and government impeached him for trying to overturn an election.  What happened was unforgivable. Trump adding a few “non violent”’ legally wise words absolves him of nothing  but back to bbc and uk.  They were correct and now we have Trump threatening to sue for a billion have English people lost all self-respect (that question was answers 9 years ago and is repeated almost daily) 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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