Forum Sponsors

Williams Wedberg
xxxx
Glazer Delmar

All Round Renovation

Advertise here

The East Dulwich Forum
Would you recommend your East Dulwich doctor, dentist or butcher?
Goto Page: Previous123456Next
Current Page: 4 of 6
messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by edhistory 06 June, 2015 20:29

Pugwash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> this was a [...] millinery shop

> hats [...] displayed in the windows.

Correct.

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by NewWave 06 June, 2015 21:58

As above Hear Hear!
I wish I'd voiced my opinion as sucinctly as ianc just has

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by LondonMix 06 June, 2015 23:22

Ianc's post is a bit ridiculous. The OPs first post was rude. However, there is nothing wrong with caring that there are derelict / fire damaged buildings in your neighbourhood.

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by ianc 07 June, 2015 02:00

Yes, I guess caring about them is good :-)

But the OP's first post seemed more interested in it because it is considered prime retail space (nobody's business but the owner's), and an eyesore (an opinion), specifically not because it is a danger or a hazard to anyone.

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by NewWave 07 June, 2015 22:43

Either way it is somebody's home,
And surely the main concern should not be about 'prime retail space' or 'eyesores' but the safety and wellbeing of the person who lives above a fire damaged and rundown property

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by ianc 08 June, 2015 06:49

NewWave Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Either way it is somebody's home,
> And surely the main concern should not be about
> 'prime retail space' or 'eyesores' but the safety
> and wellbeing of the person who lives above a fire
> damaged and rundown property

Spot-on! :-)

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by madger 09 November, 2015 16:02

I think you'll find that the many long term dwellers here who know a bit about the situation will probably tell you that the woman in question has no interest in turning her property into 'prime retail space', doesn't want 'help' and is quite happy doing what she likes with her own property... hats off to her. A bit of stubborn eccentricity, if that's what you want to call it, or simply just a willingness to live and let live, as others on this thread have suggested!

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by Hagrid 09 November, 2015 18:33

Sorry to jump in this late....but it was always my understanding that the owner had run the shop with their partner and when they died they left it as is. I think its not traded since the early 90s.

Many people have offered to rent it but no offer has been accepted as the owner wants to keep as same. I think it's actually rather a romantic story. If true, a bit like the notebook.

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by Grok 09 November, 2015 20:15

Agree. No ones business but the owners. Keep noses out.
madger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think you'll find that the many long term
> dwellers here who know a bit about the situation
> will probably tell you that the woman in question
> has no interest in turning her property into
> 'prime retail space', doesn't want 'help' and is
> quite happy doing what she likes with her own
> property... hats off to her. A bit of stubborn
> eccentricity, if that's what you want to call it,
> or simply just a willingness to live and let live,
> as others on this thread have suggested!

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by kibris 10 November, 2015 16:28

Grok im with you 100% on this its no ones business

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by DaveR 10 November, 2015 17:12

"Agree. No ones business but the owners. Keep noses out."

This isn't accurate. LAs have wide discretionary powers re property adversely affecting amenity, widely defined. It clearly includes visual impact ("eyesore"), and the fact that 'high street' retail or commercial premises are lying unused "prime retail space"). Gov guidance says:

"Public perception of this kind of enforcement action has proven extremely popular.
The issue of eyesores is clearly one that is close to people’s hearts and confronting
the problem head on using s215 powers could potentially show the LPA in a
positive light. Run-down and derelict buildings convey all sorts of negative
impressions. If an LPA combats them with comprehensive remedial action, people
will feel better about the area, whether they are residents, businesses or tourists.
There is an important economic issue in favour of comprehensive s215 action: if a
town is presentable, people will want to visit or live there, and businesses will want
to locate there."

Whether this is an appropriate case for action may be a matter of opinion, but an opinion that the empty shop should be tidied up and made fit for use is a perfectly valid one.

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by Jeremy 10 November, 2015 17:27

I broadly agree that people should do what they want with their own property. But letting it fall into complete disrepair shows lack of respect for the neighbours.

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by DulwichFox 10 November, 2015 18:21

It IS of concern to others (Well, neighbours either side)

When buildings are neglected it can lead to water ingress. walls / wall plates / joists can be affected to
neighbouring buildings causing serious damage in some occasions. Risk of fire.

Also there is a risk of insect infestation and mice, even rats.

Needs to sorted.

DulwichFox

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by ponderwoman 10 November, 2015 18:35

DaveR are you really trying to suggest that LL is being brought to its knees by one 'interesting' ex shop not having a compulsory makeover which, if it had, would then make people 'want to visit or live here' and 'locate their businesses here'?

I thought this building was a tiny representative of the diversity of the human condition which in itself deserves respect before needing to worry about the neighbours. I'd be happy to live next to it, but then I've never had a hankering for a 'managed' gated community. Some of you are really scary.

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by DaveR 10 November, 2015 18:48

"DaveR are you really trying to suggest that LL is being brought to its knees by one 'interesting' ex shop not having a compulsory makeover which, if it had, would then make people 'want to visit or live here' and 'locate their businesses here'?

I thought this building was a tiny representative of the diversity of the human condition which in itself deserves respect before needing to worry about the neighbours. I'd be happy to live next to it, but then I've never had a hankering for a 'managed' gated community. Some of you are really scary."

I suggest you have a lie down, then read my post again.

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by *Bob* 10 November, 2015 19:43

(edited on account of repetition)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2015:11:10:20:07:24 by *Bob*.

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by Seabag 10 November, 2015 23:32

I'm rather fond of the duff looking places in ED and elsewhere

This one and the abandoned chip shop behind the police station are favourites

And what was the place that the Porsche crashed into once, now with a smile face on it


But, that butcher shop with the old car outside, (near o the cemetery) is NOT my favourite

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by LondonMix 11 November, 2015 07:25

Its easy to be fond of something if you aren't next to it. Like Dave R and others have said, derelict buildings pose genuine hazards. Also, we encouraged cllr B to remove some overly person information posted about someone on here, but this shop is not a simple case of the owner not wanting do so anything with it. Its much more complicated than that.

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by Seabag 11 November, 2015 07:57

It's not derilict though is it, scruffy yes. Is the lady no longer there ?

The flats above are in good order

That aside it's actually a beautiful old shop front. I hope whatever happens it doesn't get ripped out

I'm off to watch Lady in The Van this week, maybe this could provide the sequel

"Lady in The Shop"

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by Penguin68 11 November, 2015 08:24

But, that butcher shop with the old car outside, (near o the cemetery) is NOT my favourite

It's by far the best butcher locally - and the most wonderfully eccentric shop - internally in very good order - the owner collects classic cars, the ones outside are settling into gentle decay perhaps, but it's not everywhere you can find a car in NY taxi livery.

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by LondonMix 11 November, 2015 08:29

Its had some fire damage and for reasons already stated, its not appropriate to discuss the people who may or may not live there.

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by Seabag 11 November, 2015 11:02

LondonMix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its had some fire damage and for reasons already
> stated, its not appropriate to discuss the people
> who may or may not live there.


But it's appropiate to discuss what to do with her property on a public forum ?

And please hell no, let's not get some fekkin street 'artist' involved. It's an old shop, it won't be there forever. It's an interesting juxtapose to all the speedy commerce that surrounds it

It was there when you moved in wasn't it LondonMix ?

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by LondonMix 11 November, 2015 23:56

I think its fairly common to ask about empty shops and I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't think its appropriate to discuss people's personal circumstances online,when they can be identified.

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by Lynne 12 November, 2015 08:57

I felt very sorry for the people trying to sell their house next door to the very scruffy one on Frogley Rd. Living in a community does imply some sort of tolerance of community mores. Or we cold all live in vans

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by Seabag 12 November, 2015 22:30

LondonMix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think its fairly common to ask about empty shops
> and I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't
> think its appropriate to discuss people's personal
> circumstances online,when they can be identified.

Empty shop with covered windows, so not really a shop in fact. I think she lives at the back, so the property is occupied.
There's a shop on the end of Ryedale, nothing going on in there either
What are we to do with that one?

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by LondonMix 13 November, 2015 12:13

I can't respond to your assumption about the owner of that building for reasons I've said before. James Barber, the council and a few locals do in fact know what the situation is and the council is in touch with the parties in question. I won't say anything more than that.

If something needs to be done because any building in abandoned, empty or derelict, you are supposed to report it to building control who legally can take action. I have no idea if this is appropriate or not for Ryedale but if you do, go ahead.

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by Penguin68 13 November, 2015 12:40

In general (restrictive covenants and e.g. Conservation Area issues and listing aside) it is a good thing that we cannot generally impose our personal aesthetic tastes onto third parties. One man's 'scruffy' is another's 'lived-in'.

At a certain stage there may be issues of danger (to health, to others structures etc.) - but where these aren't an issue then we should learn to live with other's choices.

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by Otta 13 November, 2015 14:38

I love stories like this.
Candy-stripe house redesign makes Kensington neighbours see red


[gu.com]

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by DaveR 13 November, 2015 14:57

"In general (restrictive covenants and e.g. Conservation Area issues and listing aside) it is a good thing that we cannot generally impose our personal aesthetic tastes onto third parties. One man's 'scruffy' is another's 'lived-in'.

At a certain stage there may be issues of danger (to health, to others structures etc.) - but where these aren't an issue then we should learn to live with other's choices."

There's obviously though a middle ground between "personal aesthetic tastes" and danger to health/property - not least in legal terms (where the word used is 'amenity'). Some posters on here have been unnecessarily vitriolic and/or absurd about perfectly reasonable opinions that it would be better if the shop was tidied up and/or in use. (FWIW I couldn't care less).

messageRe: The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore
Posted by LondonMix 13 November, 2015 15:43

I'm not particularly bothered either. I only what what the situation is because I read James B's post before several of us told him to take it down. The post explained the full story. On reflection, James agreed it was too much to share in this format and deleted the post.

Goto Page: Previous123456Next
Current Page: 4 of 6

Back to top of page
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Donate                   Terms of use                  Help & FAQs                   Advertise               RSS rss feed