Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The Libdems also have a track record of deliberating misleading voters in their local election campaigns too, which doesn't help.


The planning application is simply an application for change of use from office to retail, so no, what kind of retail unit isn't a consideration. If the change of use is granted, then the retailer needs to apply for a licence to trade. It is in THAT process that the nature of business can be scrutinised and objected to (within the remit of four specific catagories). Change of use is not the same as building extensions, which have to satisfy various building regulations.

Yes, misleading is an issue -- but I agree with some other posters that James Barber is probably more accessible than other councillors, and puts himself open for discussion (and it seems abuse).


Re: the process, thanks for the clarification. So the real debate that we should be having is:

- do we want retail space there or office space? Correct? In that regard, I would agree with james that we have quite a bit of retail space already, most of which needs supporting. So on this basis, it should be kept as office.


And to put my cards on the table -- I don't vote libdem.

Hi DuncanW,

I've been copied on a number of emails objecting to the planning application. That will count for more in the planning process than posting here.

Thank you to those that have expressed a view for or against this planning application. If it does go t ocommittee at least more of the facts will come out and a better cosndiered decision will occur.


Hi DJKQ,

What local election promises do you think I or my Lib Dem colleagues have broken?

(NB Labour was the first party to stand on a manifesto for no student tuition fees and break it so a little bit rich being lectured on it from Labour supporters however much I disagree with the trading the Lib Dems nationally did in coalition).

DID...most councillors are accessible through a variety of means. A forum is just one of many means that councillors can use. Do not make the assumption that because James uses this forum that he is somehow more accessible and hard working than other councillors who don't.


Townley, not anywhere near the level of Local lib dem campaigns - including the most recent Walworth election, where they try to blame the lack of council owned homes within the planned Elephant and Castle development on Labour (and even though there are 2000 HA homes - more than the council rented homes they are replacing). Hilarious given that Nick Stanton an his former Lib/Con coalition cronies dream't that plan up and set it in motion (it is THEY who decided the affordable home make-up of the development). It's that kind of blatent misinformation that the local lib dems are shockingly guilty of.


All that's off topic though, yes the issue at hand is one of whether EDR should have another retail unit over an office unit.

James...maybe I should scan and post the said document that was handed to me last night to look/ laugh at. It says and I quote....'Southwarks Labour Council is agreeing to new development at the Elepahnt without enough affordable homes.' You know as well as I do that Nick Stanton is the person that should be, and indeed was at the time, challenged on that one, as it is your former council that signed the plans off.


And I'm still waiting for the Labour council to sell of management of all of Southwarks Council homes to private companies....something that Lib Dems claimed would happen, in a deliberate attempt to scare social housing voters, at the last local elections.


On the whole, I find most of the Lib campaign material targetting social tenants, simple, childish and intellectually insulting.

Hi DJKQ,

The draft agreement with the E&C developer was not signed before the May 2010 local elections by former leader Nick Stanton. That draft agreement was significantly revised by Labour upon taking office and signed that July.

They decided to apply a lower ratio of social housing than the previous draft agreement and not obtian a signicant capital sum for the council and overidge. I'm not legally allowed to tell you that sum although it can be found on the internet.

The latest E&C specific planning application have tiny proportions of social housing or none. So little that during the by-election current council leader Peter John suggested he wanted to use section 106 paid by developers to buy flats in the developments paying S106.


As for selling mgmt of council homes. That's what Lambeth did when they took power in 2006 and at the time of the 2010 elections Labour Southwark was telling us how fab Lambeth Laobur policies were.

Since then Southwark Labour have insisted upon paying ?100,000 for an options report into Southwakr Council housing and then rubbishing all the options. While at the same time paying for a newly created Director of Housing and paying for a part-time cllr to lead on housing.


With respect to poliical literature. It has to attempt to grab people's attention. However locally in East Dulwich my colleagues and I have on several occassions produced very detailed multipage letters to residnts which appear ot have been useful giving more background. And I'm keen despite professional advice to the contrary to keep doing this in East Dulwich.


NB. The chair of the council planning committee has agreed in principle to this decision being taken by committee but awaits the hed of planning to agree or not.

What is wrong with James highlighting a change of use on a building on the forum? particularly where he sees potential issues!!!This is the gossip section and recently there has been far too little gossip....


More gossip, less personal grandstanding please.

I actually agree that a retail unit there would cause a problem. The stretch if road is very busy with the roundabout at one end and the awful junction at the other. There is already the tesco, the garage, the little parade of shops, the park and the corner with the swimming pool. It is also a route to and from the school. Crossing the road with children can be quite perilous as it is
I'm not remotely interested in the political argument but my eyebrows are raised at the description of that spot as 'out of town'. It's scaremongering if you ask me, and an annoyingly Lordship Lane-centric view. Lots of ED residents don't live that close to Lordship Lane. That spot is also accessibly to the cash spending of Peckham and Nunhead. Plenty of shops on Lordship Lane sell expensive inessentials. Why should they be protected if a shop selling things people need is opening up a few hundred metres away? Personally I end up doing most of my shopping on the Internet or in Bromley or Bluewater, which are a darned sight more 'out of town'. I do use Lordship Lane shops for specific things but surely no one thinks that all needs are catered for on there?

I don't have an opinion either way re change of use, except maybe to say that when I was looking for a small office in the area it was almost impossible to find one, but I do object to the way James has used hyperbole in his presentation of the issues.


This presents an overtly biased stance by James and has unhelpfully caused a level of polarisation which now makes sensible discussion of the issues more difficult.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi DJKQ,

> The draft agreement with the E&C developer was not

> signed before the May 2010 local elections by

> former leader Nick Stanton. That draft agreement

....................

> has agreed in principle to this decision being

> taken by committee but awaits the hed of planning

> to agree or not.


Hi James, that may be so, by why is that? Because the Conservative/ Lib Dem government made major changes to PPI and almo funding that put the whole Elephant and castle development in jeopardy. There had to be revisions, and when you factor in cuts to local authorities and capital funding grants how on earth can any local authority find the money needed to reverse a development (or even honour one in it?s previous form) from HA housing to Council owned. Whichever way it is looked at?.the Lib Dems in partnership with Conservatives, both on local and national level, have been the puppet masters.


And the previous Lib Con attitude to council housing was so poor that any finger pointing at the current Labour council is extremely hypocritical. I still have Nick Stanton?s comment in mind (from the Politics Show) where he said (in reference to Elephant and Castle) that an area so close to central London should not be a poor one. This was in reply to Peter Tatchall?s accusation that the plans were cleansing the area of it?s existing social demographic for a preference of a more affluent community. I think Mr Tatchall had a more than a valid point.


To be fair though, housing is a difficult issue to address and one that ALL the parties have been struggling to solve.


On the Lambeth Housing management thing. I know exactly where the Lib Dems took this nonsense from. It was from a directive looking at whether some services on the border with Lambeth could be shared, to solve some cross border inefficiencies with things like repairs and refuse collection. It was never an attempt to consider giving blanket management of anything in Southwark to the companies managing things in Lambeth.


You also know very well that Lambeth had specific problems in managing things like Housing (being at the time one of the worst run boroughs in the country) which is why it turned to private management, in a much needed effort to genuinely improve things. To take that and then tell Southwark social tenants that Labour will hand over management of it?s housing stock and that rents will rise by 14% was a giant and underhand leap of a lie.


On campaign literature, grabbing attention is fine. But grabbing attention with misleading sound bites aimed to shock is just wrong. And it does the Lib Dems no favours. You are right to make sure your own literature is more informative and intelligent and HONEST. People aren?t stupid. They can see through the nonsense, and it?s a nonsense that many of your counterparts (certainly true of my ward) seem to think is acceptable. It didn?t work for the last local elections, and it didn?t work in Walworth either.

There's nothing wrong with James informing of an application for change of use on the forum. It's just when his tries to garner support for his own objection by suggesting it's going to be a Sainsburrys or Tesco store, when know one knows yet.


So why make that kind of presumption? Because he knows there's a dislike of large chain stores by independent retailers, and a bias by some residents (and forum users) towards this kind of chain store or that....(Iceland vs Waitrose for example). It James playing politics.....but he is a politician.


Yes the 'out of town' bit is partisan and disrepectful to neighbouring communities and businesses but James, to be fair, did acknowledge in reply to one of my posts that he was having a off day when he started the thread.


Looking at the consensus of replies on this thread the objections seem to be outnumbered by those for though.

Hi DJKQ,

Much as I love EDF it does always reflect what everyone in East Dulwich thinks. We're self selecting those that post with many times that reading and watching but not wanting to risk posting.

My email bags on this has seen no supporters of such an application but several objectors.


I'm happy to discuss others issues but it would takeover this thread even more. But I disagree with most of what you've written. Happy to have an email chat abut it.

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't really see what all the fuss is about over the change of use application...?


Anything that goes in that spot (or any other piece of land in anywhere in London) is going to contribute to an increase in traffic to some extent, right? And as someone else said from what's in the document it doesn't look like they're removing the parking lot.


Lordship Lane can't be expected to absorb all retail for East Dulwich, it has limited space. What difference does it make if a new retail unit is placed on LL vs in some other part of ED? If anything, having more retail options is probably a good thing. As long as it's not another estate agent...

I very strongly support all our local shops but I think the real question is what type of retail use will be allowed (A1- A5). The expansion of some of the establishments in the area doesn?t suggest that the local business community believe the area has reached saturation point. The team behind the Palmerston and the Herne Tavern has opened a (very good) Vietnamese street food restaurant on Bellenden Road. The guys behind the Bishop and the Actress are the ones who are now running the Rye.


If it is another supermarket, I dare say that is more a threat to Sainsbury and Tesco than to the local independent retailers. You either shop at the butchers and the green grocers or you don?t. The opening of yet another supermarket is unlikely to influence that decision much.


I would be concerned if the intended use was for a business line in the area I thought was already struggling but what business person in their right mind would want to do that anyway. Hopefully, it will be something filling a gap in the market (while we have a lot, it?s not difficult to imagine a shop offering something new).


It is premature to assume the change of use is a bad idea. The more the area has to offer, the higher footfall it receives which is a boon for all the businesses.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> You don't have to agree with everything James B

> says or does (I know I don't), but some of the

> abuse dished out to him on here is completely out

> of order.


Jeremy. I have not seen any abuse.


However the responses are evidence of peoples annoyance that James has once again tried to lead people down his preferred path.


He should present the application and allow a debate to develop.


Instead we see the first page of what should have been a healthy debate, being instead focussed on him. Perhaps he likes the attention.


We miss the opoortunity to see what the people of ED think of the planning application (before their views are influenced).

James, of course you disagree with most of what I have written, because you think your party is beyond reproach. The only paragraph with subjective room for debate is the first one. All of the other paragraphs are fact, supported by example. I doubt the Lib Dems will regain countrol of the council anytime soon and on a national level, Nick Clegg is finished.


But yes, it is off topic and not the place to debate it.


Back on topic though...of course, the only people who are going to email you are those who object. But if you like I'll email you to support the application and urge others in support to do so too. Then maybe you'll have a more balanced outlook as to the general feeling about the application.


Totally agree with Mic Mac's post above.

James, you have to stop this. It is politico, rabble rousing at its most base.


You identify a planning application that could be used to whip up the NIMBY instincts of folk, you post on the EDF in a negative, partisan tone which is bound to get a noisy minority agitated, this then allows you to act as people's champion against the wicked developers.


As DJKQ notes, people who are unconcerned about the development are not going to email you, we have better things to do.


Your objection to the M&S development was primarily that it was not Waitrose, your preferred option. Waitrose would allow you to claim that you were responsible for bringing them into ED.


You presumably have your own idea as to what should be developed on ED road, what is your preferred option?

just had a quick look at the planning application form.?

a couple of comparative facts for info:

- the application is for a retail unit would be 20% smaller than the current Iceland on Lordship Lane

- the shop would be less than half of the size of the extended unit which M&S wanted for a Simply Food

  • 4 months later...

The planning application for this has just been granted planning permission - please see attached. I'm amazed.


It probably means the planning permission for a new 120 place nursery wont now be used and one of the two major improvements to new nursery provision wont proceed. I hope my pessimism is proved wrong.


Hopefully if this shop unit does proceed it wont detract from Lordship Lane retail vitality.

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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