Jump to content

Grove tavern to reopen. Fact or fiction.


Recommended Posts

I think I noted that rate reliefs were available - you stated that they would 'avoid paying business rates' by claiming 'change from commercial to domestic use'. You have not established this. Indeed you have quoted 'reductions in business rates' - which is I think what I also said was happening. As business rates are there as a tax on commercial activity locally, then the virtual absence of such activity - and hence the reductions in 'costs' to the local authority in supporting such activity through necessary expenditure would suggest that the loss of business rates might also be mitigated by a loss of costs associated with having local businesses trading. And again, in many instances it is public buildngs, not just private commercial buildings which are being guarded. A reduction in business rates here presumably aids, rather than otherwise, the public purse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calm down Penguin old chap, I'm just spending an idle moment chatting on a local forum, not presenting evidence to the high court! There's no need to lecture - "You have not established this, indeed you have quoted..." I'm simply quoting an article which I read on the subject, if that's wrong then so be it, but I really don't see the need to come over all Rumpole about it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

It seems an update of some description here;


http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/65-sites-earmarked-development-new-southwark-plan/



"Dulwich

New Charter School and health centre on the former Dulwich Community Hospital

The vacant Grove Tavern to become a new care home, if a new pub, restaurant, or business doesn?t move in

Up to 118 homes built on the Guys and St Thomas Trust Rehabilitation Centre site, with the requirement that a health facility of ?at least? the current size is retained"


My heart sank when I read the bit about the Grove Tavern.


Louisa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a huge shortage of good care home accommodation in South London though. Whilst I hate to see pubs close I can't help think that run this case it's a better use of the land and space than a huge pub by a very busy road that nobody really wanted to go to anymore after the trade moved to more footfall friendly locations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather have a pub than a care home, but I'd rather have a care home than a redevelopment of 1/2 bed luxury flats which is what the Dulwich Estate appeared to be holding out for. Agree that pedestrian access would need to be improved a lot!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I get old(er) I want to live in a care home that is also a pub. Is that possible?


Pedestrian access for the slower of foot/wheelchair users there would have to involve longer hold times at the lights or more crossings, both of which don't seem really practical given the congestion already present. Also, as older folk are particularly susceptible to the effects of pollution, is such a choked up junction the best place for a care home?


Just thoughts, I have no particular feeling about what the site should be - always very sad to lose a pub but the current derelict boarded up site is very depressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> wow - recipe for disaster with a care home next to

> a huge and busy road junction that has absolutely

> no provision for pedestrians. That will have to

> change.


They'll go for the Trump solution. A huge wall along the south circular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > When I get old(er) I want to live in a care

> home

> > that is also a pub. Is that possible?

> >

>

> Yes, just needs you and the fridge. And a mirror -

> for conversation.


That's my life now, pretty much. I want the same but with people bringing me dinner and making the bed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JohnL Wrote:

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

> KidKruger Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > wow - recipe for disaster with a care home next

> to

> > a huge and busy road junction that has

> absolutely

> > no provision for pedestrians. That will have to

> > change.

>

> They'll go for the Trump solution. A huge wall

> along the south circular.


...and Sydenham will pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something definitely needs to be done about making the junction safer for pedestrians - trying to cross at the junction is perilous and seems to require both timing and luck; there seemingly isn't even a slight delay to allow pedestrians a window of opportunity.


The boarded up pub is an utter eyesore. I was hopeful when I saw the court order for evicting squatters, but still nothing has been done. Why can't we just get the owners and operators of a decent pub chain, like The Three Cheers Pub Co. who operate The Rosendale etc., involved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a very sad indictment of the state that we are in that pedestrians and cyclists are unable to cross the road from one side of Lordship Lane to the other at The Grove Tavern because of the inadequacy of the crossing facilities. Crossing going Northwards towards East Dulwich, is particularly frightening as the view of traffic coming down The South Circular and turning left at Dulwich Common is effectively blind. How long do we have to wait for TFL and Southwark to sort this out? They made the situation even worse this Summer by removing the Advanced Cycle Lane Box that used to be there when the road was resurfaced.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK aside from the cycling issues, the Grove is staying shut for the foreseeable future then , with no chance of rising from the ashes in some form or new guise ?


On the same vein the Half Moon in Herne Hill is progressing very well not far from completion perhaps a few months off if that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Southwark put for consultation their key development opportunity sites in Dulwich as:


? NSP35: The Grove Tavern, 520 Lordship Lane

(Indicative development capacity: 68 homes)


? NSP36: Guys and St Thomas Trust Rehabilitation Centre, Crystal Palace

(Indicative development capacity: 118 homes)


With the Site vision for redevelopment for The Grove Tavern:


The site must:

? Retain a pub. If there is no demand for a pub, an equivalent amount of employment

floorspace should be provided including shops, restaurants or bars with active ground floor

frontages.


Redevelopment of the site may:

? Provide new homes;

? Provide new extra care housing.


More details/consultation hub

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-regeneration/new-southwark-plan/

Closes 28 Apr 2017

Link to comment
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

    • The original council proposals for the area around the Dulwich cross roads were made well before Covid - and were rejected then by locals. The council used the Covid legislation to push through the LTNs when opposition was not allowed. LTNs, as experiments were some good (reduced traffic in areas which did not push traffic elsewhere and which did meet the needs of residents - typically in places very well served by public transport and where the topology (absence e.g. of hills) allowed wide use of cycling and walking - not as it happens a good description of the Dulwich (inc ED, WD and ND) areas.)  Dulwich never met Southwark's own description of ideal LTN areas, but did happen to match Southwark Councillor ambitions dating way back. One Dulwich has been clear, I believe that it is anti this LTN but not, necessarily all LTNs per se. But as it is One Dulwich is has not stated views about LTNs in general. In the main those prepared to make a view known, in Dulwich, have not supported the Council's LTN ambitions locally - whilst some, living in the LTN area, have gained personal benefit. But it would appear not even a majority of those living in the LTN area have supported the LTN. And certainly not those living immediately outside the area where traffic has worsened. As a resident of Underhill, a remaining access route to the South Circular, I can confirm that I am suffering increased traffic and blockages in rush hours whilst living some way away from the LTN. All this - 'I want to name the guilty parties' -' is One Dulwich a secret fascists cabal whose only interest is being anti-Labour?' conspiracy theorising is frankly irrelevant - whoever they are they seem to represent feelings of a majority of actual residents either in the LTNs, or in parts of Dulwich impacted by the LTNs. And I'm beginning to find these 'Answer me this...' tirades frankly irritating.
    • Hi Everyone … I've been a cleaner for 17 years, I work punctually and responsibly, leaving  your home is clean and organized. The experience includes: *Private Houses *High cleaning standards. *Ironing  *Deep Cleaner  *5 star Airbnb    Send me a message and booking a  trial. And get a DISCOUNT 😀 📲07889693871 (WhatsApp Just)   Thanks  Gra
    • Ok here goes.....   Since day 1 of the LTNs the emergency services have been very clear - blocked roads increase response times. Southwark councillors were more than aware of this from the beginning of the LTN debacle during Covid because, when the council were going LTN mad and were trying to carpet bomb them everywhere they had suggested one for Peckham Rye and had initiated a consultation. As usual they took glowing endorsements of their proposal to close parts of Peckham Rye from the cycle lobby but got negative feedback from TFL and the emergency services due to the disruption their physical closure barriers were going to have - the emergency services made their preference clear that they do not like physical barriers. Needless to say Southwark ignored that emergency service input and pushed ahead with their plans only to cancel them when the realised LTNs were turning residents against them.   Now the video below (from March 2021) is interesting from a couple of perspectives: 1) Clearly LAS were making their feelings on permanent closures very clear to Southwark - please scroll to 1 hour 4 minutes to hear from them - 51 of the 170 delays caused by LTNs in London were in Southwark - yet it took over a year for emergency vehicles to be given access and, if I remember correctly FOIs showed that LAS had been writing to Dale Foden and the council alerting them to the delays. So why the delay and why is there a constant narrative from local lobby groups that the junction has to be closed to ALL traffic (including emergency vehicles) and why the new designs return to a partial full closure of the junction - most rational and pragmatic people can surely see that the compromise installed in 2022 to allow emergency vehicle access was the most sensible approach.   The council put the desires of local lobby groups ahead of the emergency services...which is madness...and then that leads us to point 2)....   2) Notice the presence of Jeremy Leach on the call - not a councillor but the Co-Optee of the council's environmental scrutiny committee and he is constantly pushing the councillors to do more to deal with traffic issues and reduce traffic. I suspect he is deemed one of the "expert" voices the council was turning to for guidance at this period. But, much like the activist researchers the council turned to Jeremy is very much an "activist expert" and was chair of the London Living Streets, co-founder of Action Vision Zero and part of Southwark Cyclists - so you can see why if the council was taking guidance and direction from him how they may have not been making decisions in the public interest. Clearly someone has convinced the council that the junction needs to be closed to all vehicles as there cannot be any other explanation for why they held out for so long (that created increased response times) - remember they are wasting another £1.5m to close one arm of the roads permanently again - honestly if someone wants to enlighten me to a part of this story I am missing then feel free but to me it looks like something very odd has been going on at the DV junction and the council is ignoring the majority and listening to the few...   https://lrscconference.org.uk/index.php/agenda-speakers/jeremy-leach-co-founder-action-vision-zero/     No it was 64% of the total who lived in the consultation area - 57% when the council looked at all the respondents to the consultation.   3,162 (64%) wanted it returned to its original state 823 (17%) wanted it retained as was 422 (8%) wanted a different measure installed 564 (11%) wanted the measure, but modify/ enhance it with other features   So back then the 11% got their wish!   In every consultation in relation to the DV junction there has been overwhelming rejection of the council's plans by local residents - yet they carry-on wasting our money on it regardless - just who are they trying to placate?
    • Calton was particularly hideous. An ambulance wouldn’t have got anywhere fast.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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