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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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