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

    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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