Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There is finally some building movement in the old Brick House site. But it's of a slightly alarming nature.

Over the past week they have ripped off the existing roof and erected much a larger steel frame.


This is completely blocking our view of greenery and gardens. And is a bit odd as a commercial structure that is now going to tower over the residential back gardens of properties in Zenoria Street, Oxonian Street and East Dulwich Grove.


I've looked at length this morning on the Southwark planning portal, but the only planning applications I can find on this site are for the change from A1 to A3, and for the extension to opening hours. There doesn't appear to be an application for this building work, which surely must require it.


Does anyone have experience here? Or able to advise on what we should / could do about it.


I'm not against Gail's moving in per se, but this is worrying - and at the absolute mininum we should be able to see what the plans are for I think.

Is that the old roof coming off or the new roof going on. Doesn't look any higher than the neighbouring properties from the photo, so I'm not sure that planning permission would be an issue. But of course, the right process needs to be followed.

The red steels are the new roof going on, and it is significantly higher / larger than the old one.


And even if the height is the same the current house frontage, this is right up to the back property wall. which is not really the same thing.

I think there was a planning application from 2019 (in the old planning register) that was granted

19/AP/0634 Proposal : Extending the roof structure to accomodate additional office and commercial work space with a terrace


https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications-old/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9582154


One of the documents is the list of those consulted.


Another is the decision notice which states they have to start works within 3 years.

Oh he is a complete dick...we can?t be the only two who think that....nice pastries though. If I buy something from there ...I think I will have to give double the money I have spent to Refugee Action https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/?gclid=CjwKCAjwi9-HBhACEiwAPzUhHNNWnzC4AA_ArRgR-FPsYK4mAXvcUSN_OwaJWlsDFNSsJ09nUafZaBoCAz4QAvD_BwE to feel clean again.
He is so repulsive that he is creating decent products (at inflated prices, somewhat, I grant you), paying taxes and national insurance, improving high streets and creating jobs. What an absolute scoundrel! How dare he have private beliefs that are not totally in line with mine/yours/etc. Cancel him immediately!
Well, I?m not cancelling Gail?s....oh the escalation! But he is a dick of the first order. Lovely quiches though. I can make better ones, but sometimes it?s nice to buy a lovely hot cheesy, mushroomy one from there. But yes...definitely give x2 the same amount spent in Gail?s each time to refugeeaction to cleanse myself of his dickness.
My main problem with Gails is the way they treated Brick House and how they left the site empty for so long. Pretty shoddy imo. Brick were a great, local, independent business. Didn?t know the other stuff about their owner, but makes sense. They generally seem like dcks.

But rahrahrah - isn't that a problem with the Landlord who was willing to negotiate and kick out their long standing tenant?


Gails commercial team will have specs for suitable sites, but it would have been 'unusual' that the team were just speculatively contacting the landlords of existing successful businesses and just happened to contact Parkhill (I think but might be wrong on that) just at the point of the lease extension?


I too would much rather have Brick House than Gails btw but my judgement here is 100% with the landlord of the property. Chains can always afford to pay more and weather the storm. Lots of independents still to support though so you know what to do people! I suspect though that Gail's will be very successful on that site - hopefully there is room for all.

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> But rahrahrah - isn't that a problem with the

> Landlord who was willing to negotiate and kick out

> their long standing tenant?

>

> Gails commercial team will have specs for suitable

> sites, but it would have been 'unusual' that the

> team were just speculatively contacting the

> landlords of existing successful businesses and

> just happened to contact Parkhill (I think but

> might be wrong on that) just at the point of the

> lease extension?

>

> I too would much rather have Brick House than

> Gails btw but my judgement here is 100% with the

> landlord of the property. Chains can always

> afford to pay more and weather the storm. Lots of

> independents still to support though so you know

> what to do people! I suspect though that Gail's

> will be very successful on that site - hopefully

> there is room for all.



The landlord is certainly at fault. But my issue was that Gails forced a profitable independent out and then left the space empty for? how long is it now? Maybe I?m being unfair, but it felt shoddy to me. The fact that the owner is also a bit of a knob just makes me feel less than warm towards them. I?m not calling for a boycott or anything. Just not a fan myself so won?t be using them.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> nice pastries though.


Pretty average, I reckon. OK so their stuff is a couple of notches above Starbucks/Nero/etc but almost every neighborhood in London has better to offer these days.


Brick house were glorious... morning buns.. jam bostock... chocolate sourdough...

It was shoddy, I avoid Gail?s.......I do like some of it. Because I can cook, it?s always an issue, I?m constantly disappointed. I eat out through sheer laziness. He is a dick, Gail?s is a salty, sugary, dirty hit and LL needs some protection from the chains.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> My main problem with Gails is the way they treated

> Brick House and how they left the site empty for

> so long. Pretty shoddy imo. Brick were a great,

> local, independent business. Didn?t know the other

> stuff about their owner, but makes sense. They

> generally seem like dcks.


Totally agree.

And I find Gails very overpriced and over hyped.

Also I dislike the way the whole chain smacks of marketing give it a nice wholesome female name to make it appear 'homemade' flog your leftover scraps under any guise possible to maximise profit whilst pretending to be doing it 'to minimise food waste' (only a matter of time before they scrape the burnt bits off of things and market it as tooth whitening charcoal ).

Finally if we must have a bakery type chain thingy in ED I'd rather have Ole and Steen the Danish chain.

Great salads breads pastries and coffees and everything tastes less processed than Gails.

As you can gather-I won't go there.

The owner is a dick and the shops always stink of synthetic 'baked goods' smells in fact the odour is borderline sickly.

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

    • Hi All, Looking for recommendations in the following professions. Ideally based locally. -Psychiatrist -Psychologist  -Therapist (EMDR) -Child Psychiatrist ADHD and ASD exp - ideal Any information would be appriciated. C
    • Girls In Your City - No Selfie - Anonymous Casual Dating https://SecreLocal.com [url=https://SecreLocal.com] Girls In Your City [/url] - Anonymous Casual Dating - No Selfie New Girls [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/molly-15.html]Molly[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/cheryl-blossom-48.html]Cheryl Blossom[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/carola-conymegan-116.html]Carola Conymegan[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/pupa-41.html]Pupa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/mia-candy-43.html]Mia Candy[/url]
    • This is a remarkable interpretation of history. Wikipedia (with more footnotes and citations than you could shake a shitty stick at sez: The austerity programme was initiated in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. In his June 2010 budget speech, Osborne identified two goals. The first was that the structural current budget deficit would be eliminated to "achieve [a] cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period". The second was that national debt as a percentage of GDP would fall. The government intended to achieve both of its goals through substantial reductions in public expenditure.[21] This was to be achieved by a combination of public spending cuts and tax increases amounting to £110 billion.[26] Between 2010 and 2013, the Coalition government said that it had reduced public spending by £14.3 billion compared with 2009–10.[27] Growth remained low, while unemployment rose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme From memory, last time around they were against the LTNs and competing with the Tories to pick up backlash votes - both failed. They had no counterproposals or ideas about how to manage congestion or pollution. This time around they're simply silent on the matter: https://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/your-local-lib-dem-team/goosegreen Also, as we have seen from Mr Barber's comments on the new development on the old Jewsons yard, "leading campaigns to protect the character of East Dulwich and Goose Green" is code for "blocking new housing".
    • @Insuflo NO, please no, please don't encourage him to post more often! 😒
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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