Jump to content

The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore


Recommended Posts

Dear Owner of the shop front infecting the space between William Rose Butchers and His Lordship Launderette on Lordship Lane - this is an eyesore. At least get rid of the trashed awning.


Southwark Council! - is there anything to be done?


Does anyone know the story behind this prime piece of retail space?


A link:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been discussed on the forum a few times. People have posted that an elderly lady lives or lived there, and has done for most of her life and doesn't want to move. There was also a fire which damaged the shop a while back. No idea what the current position is, but it's a bit more complicated than you might think. And involves/involved a real person - so using words like "infecting" seems a bit out of proportion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Siduhe Wrote:

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

And

> involves/involved a real person - so using words

> like "infecting" seems a bit out of proportion.



Agreed.


And the borough we live in is Southwark, despite its strange pronunciation :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it personally, the blackness, the fly posters and the awning. Though im my heart i'm torn between this and the chinese chipshop behind the old Police station


Though this prime location you speak of would be ideal for a Pop-Up cup cake store


When the current owner is dead enough, i'm sure you'll get first dibs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Infecting"!

I completely agree with Siduhe.


As far as I can remember an elderly person lived at that address and has done for many years...it's her home and she's entitled to live how she wants to live after all these year as she's certainly been in the area a lot longer than others.


Live and let live

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seabag Wrote:

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

> I like it personally, the blackness, the fly

> posters and the awning. Though im my heart i'm

> torn between this and the chinese chipshop behind

> the old Police station


AArrh the old Chinese Chip Shop.. I remember it well.




The bare light bulb in the flat above would indicate someone lives here too.



DulwichFox

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay everyone - perhaps the word infecting is too harsh. It wasn't meant as a personal dig to the owner. What about the actual issue?


And I take issue with assuming that because the owner is an elderly lady, she is somehow incompetent. This is sexist and ageist. Does she need help? If so, that's an important issue to be address as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ms Blueberry Wrote:

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

> It's a derelict site which negatively effects

> everything around it and it's not the right thing

> to let a property go to rack and ruin.


If you close one eye it will appear half as bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I quite like it. It's a reminder of what quite a few of the shop fronts at this end of Lordship Lane used to be like. You only have to go a little way up the hill to see one or two similar examples.


Anyway, it's really not worth getting excited about, at least nowhere near as excited as Ms Blueberry appears to be. No doubt this 'prime piece of retail space' will eventually hit the commercial property market. After all, it's only gaining in value. And perhaps, who knows, it may even become the long awaited Waitrose, albeit a very little one.


I also suspect the kind of 'help' hinted at may not be what the said elderly lady is looking for or needs. Like many very elderly people, she may just wish to see out her days in her home of many years and in familiar surroundings, without being forced to conform and smarten up their property which could possibly be at great expense beyond their current means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ms Blueberry Wrote:

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

> It's a derelict site which negatively effects

> everything around it and it's not the right thing

> to let a property go to rack and ruin.



It's not derelict.


It doesn't seem to be negatively affecting anything around it judging by the queues outside William Rose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ms Blueberry Wrote:

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

> It's a derelict site which negatively effects

> everything around it and it's not the right thing

> to let a property go to rack and ruin.



Perhaps she can't afford to smarten it up-Is it actually causing you any harm looking like that? I think not-there are disused shopfronts like that on most London Local high streets.

I'm fuming that you (who probably wouldn't have pissed on this entire area if it was on fire before the gentrification started) have the audacity to fume on about a shabby shop front when all around families and pensioners are resorting to food banks. I'd rather the shop looked like that than got turned into a smug nappy valley vendor selling S**t that no one really wants " oh look! a mug with Peckham on it! a tea cosy covered in Owls! How lovely" ugh!

Rant over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NewWave Wrote:

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

> Ms Blueberry Wrote:

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

> -----

> > It's a derelict site which negatively effects

> > everything around it and it's not the right

> thing

> > to let a property go to rack and ruin.

>

>

> Perhaps she can't afford to smarten it up-Is it

> actually causing you any harm looking like that? I

> think not-there are disused shopfronts like that

> on most London Local high streets.

> I'm fuming that you (who probably wouldn't have

> pissed on this entire area if it was on fire

> before the gentrification started) have the

> audacity to fume on about a shabby shop front when

> all around families and pensioners are resorting

> to food banks. I'd rather the shop looked like

> that than got turned into a smug nappy valley

> vendor selling S**t that no one really wants " oh

> look! a mug with Peckham on it! a tea cosy covered

> in Owls! How lovely" ugh!

> Rant over.


That's a bit unfair New Wave.


When it comes to 'a mug with Peckham on it! or a tea cosy covered in Owls!

one of my favourite shops on Lordship Lane is Lush Designs .


After all I got my Foxy Tea Towels and Foxy Mug there.


Foxy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've privately been made aware of the situation and it's not as innocent as a nice little old lady exercising her 'live and let live' rights.


It's about another person trying to making as much money as possible at the expense of the community, your community.


However, there's nothing to be done here. So enjoy 124 in its current state while it lasts.

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

    • My son’s primary school hatched duck eggs, probably under this scheme around 12 years ago.  We were all very upset to hear that 2 of the (5 year old) boys had knocked the incubator over & all eggs smashed.   feeling a lot less sad about that now!  
    • What would I do about cyclists?  The failed Tory manfesto commitment to train all kids was an excellent proposal.  Public information campaigns aimed at all road users, rather than singling some out, to more considerately share the road, as TfL have done, is welcome too. As for crunching vehicles.  I'd extend this to illegal ebikes, illegal e-scoooters (I think some local authorities have done this with the latter) but before that I would (a) legislate that the delivery companies move away from zero hours contracts to permanent employees and take responsibility for their training, vehicles and behaviour on the road.   More expensive takeaways are a price worth paying for safer roads and proper terms and conditions (b) legislate to register all illegal e-bikes and scooters so that when they are found on the road the retailer takes a hit, and clamp down on any grey markets.  If you buy an e scooter say from Halfords this comes with a disclaimer that it can only be used on private land with the owner's permission.
    • I know a lot of experts in the field and getting a franchise was a license to print money, that is why Virgin were so happy to spend lots of dosh challenging government ten years ago when they lost the West Coast franchise.  This will not be overnight, rather than when the franchise has come to the end. Government had previously taking over the operator of last resort when some TOCs screwed up. Good, at last some clear blue water between the parties.  Tories said they were going to do a halfway house, but I've not noticed.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_British_Railways   : "On 19 October 2022, Transport Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan announced that the Transport Bill which would have set up GBR would not go ahead in the current parliamentary session.[15] In February 2023, Transport Secretary Mark Harper re-affirmed the government's commitment to GBR and rail reform.[16] The 2023 King's speech announced the progression of a draft Rail Reform Bill which would enable the establishment of GBR, although it has not been timetabled in the Parliamentary programme.[5] The Transport Secretary Mark Harper later told the Transport Select Committee that the legislation was unlikely to reach Royal Assent within the 2023-2024 parliamentary session.[17]"
    • Can't help thinking that regardless of whether Joe wanted to be interviewed, the 'story' that Southwark News wanted to write just got a lot less interesting with 'tyre shop replaced with ... tyre shop'! 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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