Jump to content

Recommended Posts

steveo Wrote:

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

> However, I'm sure they'd represent any tenant who

> didn't need legal aid or pro bono.

>

> Or who was a tenant of an existing client.



the existing client being the landlord - Steveo throw away your spade, you are out of your depth - literally and figuratively

Surely a law firm should WANT to take it down once they realise they (perhaps inadvertently - maybe they just asked Londis for permission?) have infringed a law. I don't see what else they could do but take it down themselves, otherwise they've compromised their own integrity.

Shaila Shah Wrote:

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

> I think if they don't have permission, the sign

> should come down. If it is supposed to be

> directional,then maybe a mini road map showing ALL

> the retailers and businesses on NX Road should be

> put up in its place.


Excellent idea, but to be useful would have to be kept up to date. I am unclear who exactly has flouted the planning regulations: the owners of the wall who have allowed the sign to be erected on their property, and no doubt charging rent, or the solicitors.

I suggest the Community Council invite a representative of the relevant department to explain to the bewildered public exactly how 'visual harm' is defined, how it is measured, what the threshold of 'sufficiency' is, who and how decided on that threshold, details of any consultation held and, of course, documentary proof that the Council has never enforced against anything objectively measured as being below that threshold.


I'm sure they'd be delighted that we're so interested in their work, and be eager to explain.


And, if not, at least we'll know who they're really working for.

Burbage Wrote:


>

> I'm sure they'd be delighted that we're so

> interested in their work, and be eager to

> explain.



I still can't believe that anyone is. In fact, I can't actually believe this conversation is still going on and we haven't got anything better to do (myself included).... (yawn)

Cedges Wrote:

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

> Its been there years - who cares - move on and spend our tax payer money dealing with things that

> actually matter please.


The problem is that this sort of thing sets precedents. If more people decide to put up advertising boards and charge rent for them, they will use this one and say that the council tacitly approved it via inaction.

steveo Wrote:

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

> Mr Army: My original response was wrong and I

> admitted it. What I meant was that Glazer Delmar

> will work for anyone who can afford to pay them.

>

> And I suspect you knew that was what I meant


hello steveo, I did not say I could not afford the advice from GD, it would not matter, they do not represent or work for the tenant, and this wry throw away line of mine has gathered speed. It was an alert as much as anything. Thank you for your reply, the sign will, I suspect, stay.

Sue Wrote:

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

> Elphinstone's Army Wrote:

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

> -----

> Steveo

> > throw away your spade, you are out of your depth

> -

> > literally and figuratively

>

Yes ! you are quite right Sue, where that came from who knows, thanks for pointing it out, Confused by Idioms!


>

> How can he be "literally" out of his depth?

>

> Unless he is presently in water?!

This is a test case. The thin end of the wedge. The droplet before the deluge.


If we don't come together and make a stand, shitty walls everywhere will be festooned with shiny signs and it is the children - our little ones - who will pay for our indolence.

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

    • I agree, the people in the park office seem to be invisible. Quite why we need a park office I am not sure. Perhaps it is to do with all the maintenance and upkeep for which there will be organisation and admin. It may be expensive but I do think funding some sort of regular park safety oversight should be a priority. Southwark to want young people to use the park, as do we all, but there probably does need to be some sort of supervision for everyone's sake.  
    • The big difference, other than increasingly flaking paint, seems to be graffiti. The question is, will that/ can it be controlled?
    • I took back my 🤣 because I think the idea is unworkable expensive and would produce little result.  There seems to be people in the office next to the toilet but I don’t think they leave the office. I’m not sure what they do there.  The toilets have been in a disgusting state for months and months with many promises to repair they are not functional and they invite vandalism. I shall  try to add a couple of photos. The council doesn’t care why should we?
    • There will always be kids pushing the envelope as the saying goes, but having some boundaries should help most understand what they can and cannot do. I think dedicated, daily park wardens is exactly what is required...with a hotline to SNT teams on the beat. Is there no way money made from Gala or from Park parking fees can be diverted to provide that funding? I feel it would be a really good use of money. The principle aim being to maintain the park as a safe and relaxing environment for all. If funding really cannot be found I wonder if there might be funding to at least train volunteer park wardens?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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