Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I asked Southwark about this, to no avail, the freehold is owned by the Bank of China and it was still up and running until a few years ago, as the dead plants in the front show. I remember when they were still green. Anyway, I asked Southwark's Business Desk why this and some premises on Lordship Lane were empty and was told that the Business Desk only deals with property owned by the Authority! I raised this with my local councillor, pointing out that a Business Desk that does not actually encourage businesses to invest in the area is fairly pointless. He agreed with me but I have never heard anything more about it.


The building site at the Library end is owned by a Trust, whom I wrote to, there was a sudden flurry of acvitity inluding partial demolition but this too has ground to a halt and the empty premises next door, which they also own, have not been touched at all.


The empty shop next to the Florists at Goose Green is owned by an NHS trust, they ignored my letter. Yes I have been a busybody but if you don't ask you don't get. The shop next to William Rose is owned by an individual who was apparently living there too, but is plainly not doing so and that also applies to the abandoned premises further up the Lane on the corner of one of the junctions.


It seems to me that the Councillor whose ward includes Lordship Lane should be pursuing this, there should not be any empty premises, unless Southwark is happy for Parkhill to buy everything in site. There are also premises which have been advertised as To Let for ages with no takers, again no-one seems to know why or to be doing anything about it.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/408-golden-fryer/#findComment-8578
Share on other sites

Amelie Wrote:

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

> I asked Southwark about this, to no avail, the

> freehold is owned by the Bank of China and it was

> still up and running until a few years ago.



just have to say this fish and chip shop did close many many years ago when I was in primary school I have lived in East Dulwich all my life and know this for a fact. I have always wondered how those plants stay alive but it's diffinately not because cod and chips were being served on the premises anytime lately!

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/408-golden-fryer/#findComment-8594
Share on other sites

Please can someone buy this property and do something constructive with it. We live a few doors down and its painful having to walk past it every day! BarryRoad, if your friend needs local support to help his bid, contact me and I'll get a local petition going. I'm that keen to see that horrible eyesore cleaned up!

Would have thought that it would great for someone starting a local business. You'd get the chance of attracting Lordship Lane crowds at probably a fraction of the costs.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/408-golden-fryer/#findComment-8620
Share on other sites

Interesting to hear about the scary shop next to William Rose. I've always wondered about it. On the day WR opened its doors I queued with the rest, chanting "we want meat", under our breath. I was alarmed and intrigued to see a bony hand extending from the low lying letterbox of the dusty, black mystery shop. I'm sure it used to have a sign - Marie something or other ....


Assuming I wasn't suffering blood-lust induced hallucinations that bony hand must have belonged to the current resident. I've never seen it again or seen anyone leave or enter the building ....

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/408-golden-fryer/#findComment-8675
Share on other sites

bawdy-nan Wrote:

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

> Interesting to hear about the scary shop next to

> William Rose. I've always wondered about it. On

> the day WR opened its doors I queued with the

> rest, chanting "we want meat", under our breath. I

> was alarmed and intrigued to see a bony hand

> extending from the low lying letterbox of the

> dusty, black mystery shop. I'm sure it used to

> have a sign - Marie something or other ....

>

> Assuming I wasn't suffering blood-lust induced

> hallucinations that bony hand must have belonged

> to the current resident. I've never seen it again

> or seen anyone leave or enter the building ....


I've seen a lady 'of advanced years' exiting through the doorway of the mysterious black shop. So, either she is the gatekeeper and guardian to a mystical far-away land, access via a portal on Lordship Lane.. or she lives in the flat upstairs.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/408-golden-fryer/#findComment-8677
Share on other sites

I HAVE SEEN THIS LADY! She truly exists and is not a collective Gothic Baby Jane fantasy of certain E Dulwich types. She is straight out of central casting. I've already written about how I imagine her shuffling out of her lair down to the idiosyncratic French restaurant near the Plough for a vin rouge and a Gitane of a night. She and her place have fascinated me for a long time. Nero
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/408-golden-fryer/#findComment-8730
Share on other sites

BarryRoad Wrote:

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

> Defunkt chippie on the corner of Landcroft Road

> and Whateley Road. Who owns it? I know a potential

> buyer/manager type who's interested in the

> property. Any ideas?



There are a number of empty shops on Forest Hill Road just past the Forest Hill Tavern if your friend might be interested. There is a great little community going on here in the outer reaches of SE22.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/408-golden-fryer/#findComment-8850
Share on other sites

If the Bank of China own it, maybe they repossessed it when a mortgage on it was defaulted. Perhaps they tried to sell it but no one was interested 18 years ago?


Your friend should contact the Bank of China and see if they would consider selling or leasing the property. Alternatively, is there a letterbox through which your friend could put a letter - if the family is still living upstairs then you could try to contact them.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/408-golden-fryer/#findComment-8867
Share on other sites

Amelie Wrote:

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

> I asked Southwark about this, to no avail, the

> freehold is owned by the Bank of China and it was

> still up and running until a few years ago, as the

> dead plants in the front show. I remember when

> they were still green. Anyway, I asked

> Southwark's Business Desk why this and some

> premises on Lordship Lane were empty and was told

> that the Business Desk only deals with property

> owned by the Authority! I raised this with my

> local councillor, pointing out that a Business

> Desk that does not actually encourage businesses

> to invest in the area is fairly pointless.


Very Alice in Wonderland.


Does not Southwark have 'town centre managers' or similar, who in some places encourage business, look after shoppers' interests, and so on? If not, perhaps we should propose. Otherwise there is nobody taking a cohesive approach to business in the place, which can only be bad news.


Louisiana

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/408-golden-fryer/#findComment-8868
Share on other sites

I don't know if Southwark has managers like this, I suspect not. For the record, whilst I have only lived in ED since 1994 the Golden Fryer WAS open then because I used to walk up Whateley Road on my way home and was always relieved to see the GF's lights on after dark as Whateley can be decidedly creepy. I remember how surprised I was to discover it was shut as there had been no closing down/going out of business notices up. The dying plants are also certainly not 13 years dead.


Writing to the Bank of China would only be a good idea if the property has definitely been repossessed, trying the residents is a better first approach.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/408-golden-fryer/#findComment-8926
Share on other sites

Amelie Wrote:

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

> I don't know if Southwark has managers like this,

> I suspect not. For the record, whilst I have only

> lived in ED since 1994 the Golden Fryer WAS open

> then because I used to walk up Whateley Road on my

> way home and was always relieved to see the GF's

> lights on after dark as Whateley can be decidedly

> creepy. I remember how surprised I was to

> discover it was shut as there had been no closing

> down/going out of business notices up. The dying

> plants are also certainly not 13 years dead.

>

> Writing to the Bank of China would only be a good

> idea if the property has definitely been

> repossessed, trying the residents is a better

> first approach.


The shop ceased trading around the same time that the chippie in Underhill Road opened for business.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/408-golden-fryer/#findComment-8934
Share on other sites

I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS LADY!! I can see this place from my window... we've been trying to work out if someone lives there - we sometimes see a light on somewhere in there, so we figured that perhaps it's squatted. Maybe the occupants have access thru the back. Now i'm really intrigued!
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/408-golden-fryer/#findComment-8985
Share on other sites

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...