Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Evolverx8 Wrote:

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

> Dulwich Estate said no to a McD's but I agree

> better than a pub which was rubbish in modern day

> standards and the buildings a crap one so it

> should come down.


And yet they'd rather have a derelict pub than a fast food outlet.


McDonalds on Westhorne Avenue I believe uses a former pub.


I was told both McD's and Tesco have expressed serious interest in the site in the past but were turned down flat by the Dulwich Estate - by a neighbour but one who is very up on local happenings (we live close to the Grove) - and the current plan is residential with some small retail.
Leaving the building effectively derelict (even if 'boarded-up' with sheet steel) will make the case for complete demolition simpler. Its position (with garden and parking) and near a school with a boarding house and thus parents visiting who weren't local could well have made it a viable 'pub with rooms' - for longer-term visitors to Dulwich (the route the Dog is taking) - although the worry was that the estate (where its drop-in punters in the old days came from) would have given the wrong tone to a more up-market establishment. But I do feel its very sad to see the 'big' local pubs ruined or closed - most in the Dulwich Estate portfolio.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> If it's a McD's, I'm going to be sent out every

> Saturday morning for a McSausage Muffin + hash

> brown run. Let's hope it doesn't happen.



Why would you be sent there when you live a 5 minute walk from a Maccas?

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> It won't be a McDonalds. If it does I will

> personally burn it to the ground.



Haha, you're the main reason I'd love it to become a McDonald's. The thought of your sheer horror and disgust makes me chuckle.

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi EdButler,

TfL say they have final draft plans ready to proceed with WHEN the land/money is provided by any new development there.

The plans involve taking some of the existing land, widening the road a little to enable a new traffic island in the middle so the crossing on that western arm would be a two-stage pedestrian crossing. Or at least that's what they're proposing.


My hunch would be 2-4 years time.


We could seek to pseed this up by agreeing with the Dulwich Estate and getting some devlovled TfL funding from LIP but I doubt the administration or officers would be keen to take this approach - it would be swapping speed <12months for circa ?50,000 of TfL Southwark would never see in the future.

But I can ask.

It seems really wrong to me that TFL can not do something for people's safety if they have responsibility for it. Why should the developer chip in, they don't own the road?


And why is it down to TFL as opposed to Southwark highways? I've never quite gotten my head around who is responsible for what.

If it's to be a MacD's, with all the associated litter, carmageddon hell, obesity, the destruction of a nice old building, the loss of a pub, garish neon lighting and apple pies that burn the roof of your mouth, as far as I'm concerned they can pay for attendants to give us piggy backs over the road

Hi Otta,

I agree. But the south circular is a TfL road and so they are the highway authority for this junction.


Relinquishing some of the land for a wider road allowing a pedestrian island other than via a Compulsory Purchase Order will need the cooperation of the Dulwich Estate as freeholder and the leaseholder.

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

    • This week's edition of The Briefing Room I found really useful and impressively informative on the training aspect.  David Aaronovitch has come a long way since his University Challenge day. 😉  It's available to hear online or download as mp3. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002n7wv In a few days time resident doctors -who used to be known as junior doctors - were meant to be going on strike. This would be the 14th strike by the doctors’ union since March 2023. The ostensible reason was pay but now the dispute may be over without more increases to salary levels. The Government has instead made an offer to do something about the other big issue for early career doctors - working conditions and specialist training places. David Aaronovitch and guests discuss what's going on and ask what the problem is with the way we in Britain train our doctors? Guests: Hugh Pym, BBC Health Editor Sir Andrew Goddard, Consultant Gastroenterologist Professor Martin McKee, Professor of European Public Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Mark Dayan, Policy Analyst, Nuffield Trust. Presenter: David Aaronovitch Producers: Caroline Bayley, Kirsteen Knight, Cordelia Hemming Production Co-ordinator: Maria Ogundele Sound Engineers: Michael Regaard, Gareth Jones Editor: Richard Vadon  
    • That was one that the BBC seem to have lost track of.  But they do still have quite a few. These are some in their 60s archive. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0028zp6
    • Hi Trinidad. Have just messaged you about a facebook post...
    • I don't know if he does newborns but I highly reccomend Will Westwood at Goose Green Clinic I've tried many Osteopaths locally and in Central London over the years and he Is now my 1st choice.... Highly qualified, and very gentle with good advice and aftercare.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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