Old photos of front of Dulwich DIY wanted

[Minitoots]

I've just been into Dulwich DIY and they said the council is threatening to start charging them for displaying goods on the pavement outside the front of the shop. It is not a health and safety issue. They have been there for over 30 years and have always used the outside area and need help in making a case against having to pay a fee on top of their business rates. The council have apparently agreed to consider their case if they can prove that they have been displaying goods outside for over 10 years, which I know they have. Does anyone have any old photos of that part of Lordship lane showing the outside? Or maybe someone knows a local historian who may have access to old photos from pre- 2006.

If anyone can help them in any way please contact them direct by emailing them at [email protected] as the shop is great - helpful friendly staff and a real treasure trove of goods. Please pass the message on.

www.dulwichdiy.com

[Lowlander]

I remember buying something that was outside in 2011. Much the same now as it was then.

Would customer statements be enough if there are no photos?

Edited to add - Google streetview has a history view back to June 2008 - in the top left hand corner, click the clock button. So in 2008 they had stuff outside.

[Loz]

Minitoots Wrote:

> The council have apparently agreed to consider their case if they

> can prove that they have been displaying goods outside for over 10 years, which I know they have.

Easily more than 10 years. At least since I moved to ED in 1999.

[edcam]

Longer. I moved to ED in 1995 and they always had stuff outside then. Council t*!$s

[KidKruger]

1990+

[spider69]

Does this mean that all traders will be subjected to the cash raising exercise if they have things outside their shop.

The French House has benches outside, will they be charged?

[edhistory]

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

[JeanieB]

I took this in 2000, I think. I'll email it to them. I took a lot at the time of traders standing outside their shops around Lordship Lane. Virtually all of them have changed hands now.

[Minitoots]

Thanks so much everyone. Sue of the Dulwich Society also told me about Street view from 2008 so I'll let them know.

We've lived in the area for over 24 years and would also be able to vouch for them re: stuff outside during all of that time.

[Duvaller]

Many of us might not agree with charging for using too much space on the pavement, but the Council do have a point about obstructive displays. The pavement there is quite narrow and pedestrians do get obstructed there. There should be a rule about minimum available pavement space combined with a percentage utilisation by displays.

With Plough Homecraft, their hardware display takes up less space than Dulwich DIY - even though the pavement outside PH's premises is much wider.

Sean's hardware also has a modest pavement usage on the pavement.

This is a problem that Dulwich DIY have made for themselves. It has hints of New Delhi where shop building extensions encroach on the pavements so much so that pedestrians have to walk in the gutter.

Just imagine if every shop (including the undertakers) had a display on the pavement.

[Charles Notice]

Duvaller wrote abaove

"This is a problem that Dulwich DIY have made for themselves. It has hints of New Delhi where shop building extensions encroach on the pavement"

Suspect a complaint has been put in. Cannot have ED brought down to this level

[cella]

I do think that shops should not be able to encroach further by using valuable pavement space. It's nothing personal towards the traders but the very narrow pavements along Lordship Lane are far too small for the increase in pedestrian usage built up over the last 20 years and pavements are for pedestrians I feel. Maybe the many shops who do encroach should consider themselves lucky to have been able to do this for free for so long. Rather than make a charge all pavements should now be freed up for walkers/pushchairs/wheelchairs etc.who have to jostle for the existing space.

[edhistory]

> I do think that shops should not be able to encroach further by using valuable pavement space.

What does this mean?

[Sue]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> 1990+

Same here

[Penguin68]

I can confirm back to Autumn 1988, when I became an ED resident.

[taper]

Dulwich DIY is an ace shop. I got butcher's hooks and wasp nest destroyer from there only last week; all for less than a tenner That side of the road isn't particularly narrow. So Save the East Dulwich Al Fresco Mop Display I say

[red devil]

JeanieB Wrote:

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

> I took this in 2000, I think. I'll email it to

> them. I took a lot at the time of traders standing

> outside their shops around Lordship Lane.

> Virtually all of them have changed hands now.

Great photo, loving the tin baths... :)

[Jaypainter]

Well done.

[alice]

Am I going mad ? A couple of posts were removed and are now back

[nxjen]

cella Wrote:

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

> I do think that shops should not be able to

> encroach further by using valuable pavement space.

> It's nothing personal towards the traders but the

> very narrow pavements along Lordship Lane are far

> too small for the increase in pedestrian usage

> built up over the last 20 years and pavements are

> for pedestrians I feel. Maybe the many shops who

> do encroach should consider themselves lucky to

> have been able to do this for free for so long.

> Rather than make a charge all pavements should now

> be freed up for walkers/pushchairs/wheelchairs

> etc.who have to jostle for the existing space.

I was under the impression that the strip of pavement immediately outside the shop was actually part of the shop's premises. This is why there is a problem with pooling when it rains on other parts of Lordship Lane and the pavement is not under the control of the Council. I can remember back to 1984 and the DIY shop definitely displayed goods on the pavement then, it is nice to see that photo of the couple who ran the shop at that time. And for those who made the New Delhi reference - shame on you.

The old photo EDHistory posted showing 20-22 Lordship Lane (date?) clearly shows goods displayed outside on the pavement. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1741228

[rendelharris]

Charles Notice Wrote:

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

> This is a problem that Dulwich DIY have made for

> themselves. It has hints of New Delhi where shop

> building extensions encroach on the pavement.

>

> Suspect a complaint has been put in. Cannot have

> ED brought down to this level

I thought this was a bit of trolling, then saw some of your other posts and realised it's not, you're really like that. Given that Dulwich DIY is owned and run by Asians the "hints of New Delhi" comment is out and out racism, you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

[Charles Notice]

If you had looked at the post by Duvaller you would have realised who wrote this.

I have amended the post to show this so you will not get confused.

[KidKruger]

"This is a problem that Dulwich DIY have made for themselves. It has hints of New Delhi where shop building extensions encroach on the pavement.

Suspect a complaint has been put in. Cannot have ED brought down to this level"

What's New Delhi got to do with it Charles ?

If your referring to the people on the photo I think they're Pakistani origin.

Personally I'd prefer less-sterile shop front set-ups than we currently have in ED. This ain't Knightsbridge.

[Charles Notice]

Perhaps you should read the original post before making a comment

[rendelharris]

Charles Notice Wrote:

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

> If you had looked at the post by Duvaller you

> would have realised who wrote this.

>

> I have amended the post to show this so you will

> not get confused.

Charles, my sincerest apologies for the error. Without quotations it does look as though "Suspect a complaint has been put in" refers to the shop, and "cannot have ED brought down to this level" looks like complaining about East Dulwich, rather than the forum, brought down. I just saw nxjen's comment about someone making a New Dehli reference and scrolled up to yours which, unamended, was confusing. Apologies again.

Duvalier, you should be ashamed of yourself for your not even thinly veiled racism.