edhistory

Error ridden.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > An interesting new charity 1139952 based in TW10 > 7LG and E8 4YR > > The 2014 accounts show the orchard tree per buck > figure. > > Perhaps the charity could start with Melbourne > Orchard. > > John K > never could spell paarrashewte

Who are you, J.Ressler?

Another year comes around. Attached is a scan of the lucifer box cover that was produced by Dulwich Hamlet Football Club during the 1919-20 season to record the club's Roll of Honour.

Great fun ganging up on a minority group. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/bc/75/d0/bc75d086e677d94a1f35b884b9c5846e.jpg

> the council houses on Dekker Rd. Dulwich College Estate tied cottages.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > what's your "expertise", by the way? Personal direct experience in three Lordship Lane cases.

This is the best picture I have that illustrates the drastic nature of the compulsory land purchases needed to get trams running along Lordship Lane.

Cella, I don't think you have any expertise in this area. It is unhelpful to post, and continue to post, incorrect information. John K

> rental of the pavement space. The point is that this is not "pavement space". This thread has been confused by several different usages of the word "pavement" Southwark Council claim to have a ?Council?s Definitive Map? of boundaries for Lordship Lane. The Council have not been able to utter this. Lordship Lane is unusual as there was a large compulsory purchase of land to widen Lordship Lane so the tram lines could be laid. These pieces of legislation define the boundaries: Camberwell Borough Council Road Lordship Lane Adoption Order 1882. An Act To Authorise The Peckham And East Dulwich Tramways Company To Construct Tramways In The County Of Surrey And For Other Purposes, 1883, 46 & 47 Vict, Ch ccxxvii London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Act, 1902, 2 Edw 7, Ch ccxix The land schedules are an Act appendix. The plans of plots purchased are in the House of Lords Library. No matter what Southwark Council decided in July 2012, or its putative map, it does not trump two Acts of Parliament. John K

> I do think that shops should not be able to encroach further by using valuable pavement space. What does this mean?

No old photos. Southwark street workers tried this on the SE22 8HN terrace in 2015. They work for: Mark Adams Licensing Enforcement Officer London Borough of Southwark PO Box 64529 London SE1P 5LX 0207-525 7638 In face of detailed non-photographic evidence they backed off. The OP is wrong in the sense that Southwark Council have to prove the case. Dulwich DIY does not to disprove the allegation. The legally flawed rules date from 2012 and are buried deep on the Southwark web-site. Why should evidence be asked for that pre-dates the rules? I'm not a lawyer but I imagine 20+ witness statements would be sufficient. John K

mikeb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What I would really like is one of these > > http://stephenwalter.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015 > /04/RIVERS-OF-LONDON-2014-2.jpg > > or these > > http://stephenwalter.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015 > /05/LONDON-SUBTERRANEA-2012.jpg > > But they're just a bit more expensive ... And totally inaccurate for our neck of the woods (good joke there), but Mike already knows this. Jhn K

This is the pair of shops that Mr Barber is campaigning to bring back into retail use. Details are on his blog. I don't think we will get a full reinstatement as in the attached photo. The photo does illustrate the recent EDF discussion about forecourts.

Naff.

No dual carriage-way refuge until at least 1954 when the tram tracks were removed.

Much missed Smith's

100 Lordship Lane is a "protected frontage".

When Lordship Lane had class.

Jim1234 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > M&S syphon off profits to their head office. SMBS, > assuredly, don't. Profits enhanced by negotiating a different business rates scheme with big boy discount.

The new ground floor footprint is interesting too.

For reference here is a picture of car park before it was built over. Still awaiting the District Valuer's measurements.

> Currently I do not believe any restrictions of professional dog walkers are in place. Just need prior Council registration and consent. See current bye law attached.

> There are also questions over the permissions within the planning applications which are causing grumbles... with M&S passing everything over to their legal team this could go on for sometime! All of which M&S knew about when signing the lease?

Were not the time window for deliveries and their maximum daily number specified in the planning permission documents? M&S would not do anything else.