Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Zak Wrote:

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

> As I came home last night I noticed that the

> Cherry Tree on Grove Vale was closed and that

> there were padlocks on the doors.

>

> Anyone know what's happening?


Now why didn't anyone think about that before while the owners were still inside..


No.. Probably better that they have gone..


Not too sure about Walkabout though.. ????


DulichFox.

I thought Adventure Bar was one of a small chain. Unless they've been bought out.


The Walkabouts I know are all central London, but The Vale is somewhere that could appeal to them, open kitchen, room for big screens for sport, and space for dancing.


I just can't imagine them attracting their usual target market in ED, and not sure people would travel to ED to use it.


But like I say, after a Hamlet match I'd defo go in there to watch the late kick off on a Saturday.




Awww, had some great times with Aussie mates in Walkabouts back when I was free of wife & kids and had a social life.

pipsky2008 Wrote:

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

> I think that building would make a great Library

> instead of the new proposed newlibrary being

> tucked away behind Morrisons.


Except the new library on Railway Rise is costing Southwark virtually nothing, other than a peppercorn rent, furnishings and the usual revenue costs, due to a section 106 agreement. Whereas the Cherry Tree building would have to be purchased or leased in the first place, and at a no doubt prohibitive cost. Moving the current Grove Vale library to the new site will lead to a significant annual saving, of the kind which has enabled Southwark to keep its libraries open - and indeed build/open new ones - when other boroughs have been closing theirs.

Andrew1011 Wrote:

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

> pipsky2008 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I think that building would make a great

> Library

> > instead of the new proposed newlibrary being

> > tucked away behind Morrisons.

>

> Except the new library on Railway Rise is costing

> Southwark virtually nothing, other than a

> peppercorn rent, furnishings and the usual revenue

> costs, due to a section 106 agreement. Whereas

> the Cherry Tree building would have to be

> purchased or leased in the first place, and at a

> no doubt prohibitive cost. Moving the current

> Grove Vale library to the new site will lead to a

> significant annual saving, of the kind which has

> enabled Southwark to keep its libraries open - and

> indeed build/open new ones - when other boroughs

> have been closing theirs.


Well, given the lack of movement on that site and the probability that Morrisons won't open a store there, I'm not convinced that the new library will definitely go ahead. Cllr. Barber has been rather silent about it of late.

BrandNewGuy wrote:


> Well, given the lack of movement on that site and

> the probability that Morrisons won't open a store

> there, I'm not convinced that the new library will

> definitely go ahead. Cllr. Barber has been rather

> silent about it of late.


The new library was agreed by the original developer under section 106 quite some time before before Morrisons got involved and will likely remain live if and when their involvement ends. Someone will want to open a store there.


Silent? As he thinks he was instrumental in the new library development, he's probably got a backup plan to get a carpet retailer owned Academy group to develop it as a primary school for South Bermondsey (only 6 minutes away by train).

Was googling to try to find any info - didn't find what I was looking for, but did find this :))


Don't know if somebody put up the whole page, or if somebody hacked a page put up by the Cherry Tree, either way it made me laugh out loud ....


http://in-greatbritain.net/411992675526845/


ETA: If you can't be bothered to click on the link, part of it says:


"We hate all our customers and everyone who lives in East Dullwich. We know nothing about running bars, or about customer service"

Great building and really convenient for an after work scoop.........


However, it always seemed, bar the lovely barmaid, that they were doing you a favor serving you or answering your questions.


The bitter was always well kept, and they showed football........

I never ate there, as it all looked deep fried.

The owners, simple as that.


When it first became "The Vale" in the early 000's, it was the only late license in the area, and many a good night was had. But quite quickly the owner started looking at himself as some sort of "Guv'na", standing on the door in his long coat, flanked by bouncers, like some sort of latter day Kray (but he couldn't carry it off).


Soon fights were starting regularly and it occasionally got nasty.


Soon numbers dwindled and it was pretty empty.


Since then, over the years they have brought in various new managers, all of whom start so enthusiastically, engaging with people, trying to get interesting chefs and events on. But every single time they leave within a month or so, having been unable to work with the owners.


It's crying out to be successful in some form or other, but over the years they have doggedly refused to allow it.


Good riddance, I hope they have gotten out of the pub game, or some other pub somewhere is in for a rough ride.

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 ranging from £175 to £300" 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 per se, 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...