Old photos of front of Dulwich DIY wanted

[nxjen]

Perhaps it's irony, perhaps it's not.

[Minitoots]

Can we get back onto the subject of the request for old photos such as the lovely one posted by JeanieB and any other helpful information? also, The historians at the Dulwich Society tell me the Southwark Local History Library would have photos from the 1980s when a street survey was done.

[email protected], so I'll let Dulwich DIY know to contact them. I'm signing off from this post now.

[BrandNewGuy]

Looks like Southwark aren't alone in seeing retialers as easy prey in this regard. This article claims Croydon are looking to charge retailers ?1500 pa to have things on the pavement.

https://southnorwoodtouristboard.com/2016/10/22/is-croydon-council-using-smoke-mirrors-to-keep-the-public-in-the-dark-concerning-economic-policies-which-appear-to-compliment-the-greed-of-landlords-whilst-transparency-is-not-the-order-of-the/

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

nxjen Wrote:

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

> Perhaps it's irony, perhaps it's not.

It might be steely. I expect if you took it into Dulwich DIY they'd be only too happy to tell you which metal it is. They've always been very cheap, knowledgeable and friendly to me.

[rcmacf]

It's an aside, but if you've wondered about the metal studs in the pavement you see places like grove vale, they denote the extent of the trader's pavement usage rights (or at least used to) and you often see the same done using differently shades or colour of bricks.

[Duvaller]

RendelHarris and CN,

Your criticism of my post is nothing short of an ill-considered knee-jerk reaction. I suspect you both have ultra-sensitive antennae to the issues like racism. Some people just love trotting out ?the race card?. It is frankly pathetic.

Consider the points made in my post?.

1. The pavement there is quite narrow ? Fact

2. pedestrians do get obstructed there ?Fact

3. With Plough Homecraft, their hardware display takes up less space than Dulwich DIY ?Fact.

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

5. This is a problem that Dulwich DIY have made for themselves- Fact

6. New Delhi where shop building extensions encroach on the pavements- Fact

7. This is a problem that Dulwich DIY have made for themselves ? Fact

Now consider other relevant information.

1. The couple in the photo are not from New Delhi or even India. You can tell from the dress.

2. I have lived and worked in New Delhi for several years and love the place and its people. I go back there often.

3. You neglect my positive references to the other two hardware shops ? one of which is also owned by an Asian family.

4. Would you consider it racist if I had made comments about Paris cafes encroaching on the pavement?

There was no racist comment there and none was intended. Furthermore, I probably have much more experience of, and affinity to, India and Indians than either of you two so kindly reconsider your immature and insulting insinuations.

The only apology I would consider making in this case would be for my pathetic attempt at humour with my remark ? ??Just imagine if every shop (including the undertakers) had a display on the pavement??

http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=FOOTPATHS-NOWHERE-TO-STEP-Shops-and-cops-encroach-05092014006016

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/readers-speak/article4885381.ece

du Valler

[rendelharris]

You described a shop owned by Asians (and whether or not they're actually from New Dehli is irrelevant) as making East Dulwich look like New Dehli. Fact, as silly people like to say.

The only thing that's pathetic is your attempt to justify your racism.

ETA I'm married to a woman of Asian heritage and spend a lot of time with her 1st generation immigrant parents and extended family so I do know rather a lot about India, thanks.

Oh and you haven't even read the original post properly, the issue is not about how far Dulwich DIY's displays encroach on the pavement but whether or not the council are going to force them to pay for the space. Fact!

[red devil]

Duvaller Wrote:

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

> 3. With Plough Homecraft, their hardware display takes up less space than Dulwich DIY ?Fact.

> 4. Sean's hardware also has a modest pavement usage on the pavement. ?Fact

As long as Dulwich DIY are displaying their wares within their shop frantage zone, then it's totally irrelevant whether they have more wares on display than other DIY shops such as the Plough and Sean's. If these shops choose not to maximaise the use of their frontage zone, so be it, it doesn't mean Dulwich DIY have to follow suit. You've also not considered the size of each shop's frontage zone, they're unlikely to be the same...

[Duvaller]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> You described a shop owned by Asians (and whether

> or not they're actually from New Dehli is

> irrelevant) as making East Dulwich look like New

> Dehli.

Read my original post again. I made no reference as to who owned the shop or theirr origins. I aslo commented favourably about another hardware shop which is owned by Asians.

>

>

> ETA I'm married to a woman of Asian heritage and

> spend a lot of time with her 1st generation

> immigrant parents and extended family so I do know

> rather a lot about India, thanks.

Well, that does explain your knee-jerk reaction.

I also notice that you didn't mention living and working in India which suggests your knowledge is relatively limited.

Pathetic in the extreme.

du Valler

[rendelharris]

Ain't lived or worked in Nigeria either, but if someone said that an African owned store made East Dulwich look like Lagos I'd call 'em racist. You've made a racist allusion - consciously or not - and no amount of "I've been to India" changes that I'm afraid.

[alice]

Excellent post rh. D's use of capitalised facts and the words 'race-card' make it clear what he is. I had asked for the post to be removed, it did seem to disappear then return. Unusual.

[adonirum]

I have really really been trying to resist making a contribution to this thread but just cannot anymore.

Why does this sort of hijacking/deviation of a thread seem to happen so much on this forum?

Looking at some of the (possibly) guilty here, they do not appear to be trolls (when perusing their previous) so why have "the guilty" introduced accusations of racism ? In the absence of face-to-face contact, how do you manage to interpret that Duvaller is being/is a racist? You cannot hear the tone of the/any words being spoken, you cannot read body language, you have nothing to safely base your supposition on, for that is what you are clearly doing, you're just supposing, arbitrarily deciding that that is how it is, according to your own prejudices. Let's hope none of you ever end up as magistrates or any other such position whereby rational decisions affecting others have to be made/taken. Just think of the miscarriages of justice that would inevitably occur.

Of course, some of you are so wrapped up in your own importance, that you don't even realise what you are writing. An example, Alice writes "Am I going mad. A couple of posts were removed and are now back" and then writes "I had asked for the post to be removed, it did seem to disappear then return". So you're not going mad, indeed, you knew exactly why, what and where because you tell us in your own words that you were aware!!!

Anyway, the shop has been like that since the early eighties (as mentioned by another contributor) and, like Minitoots, I've had enough of reading this thread.

[cella]

edhistory Wrote:

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

> > I do think that shops should not be able to

> encroach further by using valuable pavement

> space.

>

> What does this mean?

Any of the exterior pavement space outside shops

[alice]

maybe my post was confusing. but as no-one else seems to have noticed the posts disappear them return maybe I was'going mad'.

[Duvaller]

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200083/roadworks_and_highway_improvements/605/obstructions_on_roads_and_pavements

[rendelharris]

adonirum: the original post simply asked for any pictures which could support Dulwich DIY in their effort to prove that they had had pavement displays for more than ten years so they wouldn't have to pay Southwark's demands for rental of the pavement space. Then a certain person came on complaining that DDY were making East Dulwich look like New Dehli. I and others have responded to that. Who hijacked the thread initially?

ETA: "In the absence of face-to-face contact, how do you manage to interpret that Duvaller is being/is a racist? You cannot hear the tone of the/any words being spoken, you cannot read body language, you have nothing to safely base your supposition on, for that is what you are clearly doing, you're just supposing, arbitrarily deciding that that is how it is, according to your own prejudices."

Seriously, you don't think that one can make a judgement of someone's opinions or attitudes by the words they write? You have to hear those words spoken by a person to know what they mean, what they write is not enough? Have you really thought this through? You are of course accusing other people of being "so wrapped up in your own importance, that you don't even realise what you are writing" without hearing them say those words face to face, how does making that judgement accord with your previous statement? Are you perhaps "arbitrarily deciding that that is how it is, according to your own prejudices"? Or do your own arbitrary standards not apply to your good self?

[edhistory]

> 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

[rendelharris]

Interesting EDH, so who owns what - and if Southwark have rights over the pavement, why will they not charge DDY if they can prove pavement displays for ten years? Is there a sort of "squatter's rights" element at play?

[rendelharris]

Duvaller Wrote:

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

> http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200083/roadworks_

> and_highway_improvements/605/obstructions_on_roads

> _and_pavements

Clearly irrelevant if what the OP wrote is the case, and one has no reason to suppose it is not:

"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."

It's nothing to do with whether they're allowed to have displays outside the shop, but whether or not they should have to pay a fee so to do. Look at the wrong end of the stick, that's the bit you've latched onto.

[cella]

Everything needs to be reviewed from time to time and the footfall levels are greater now, particularly at weekends during the day. Those pavements are far too narrow to accommodate this. A lot of the shops along LL also display goods etc outside or use the space for additional seating. Whether this is a practice that has gone unchallenged for many years or whether individual businesses have negotiated with Southwark for which there may be a rental cost is an important dstinction. It can be a struggle for pedestrians and fhose who may have pushchairs, wheelchairs etc to have easy access. It's entirely right that cyclists and road users are considered for better road facilities and I do think that pedestrians deserve consideration too.

[rendelharris]

cella Wrote:

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

It's entirely right that

> cyclists and road users are considered for better

> road facilities and I do think that pedestrians

> deserve consideration too.

I quite agree Cella, but it does appear from the OP (and I'm willing to stand corrected) that Southwark are not disputing the amount of space employed, they're just asking to be paid for it.

[edhistory]

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

[edhistory]

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.

[rendelharris]

edhistory Wrote:

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

> 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

It's really not overhelpful to be utterly pompous and rude though, don't you think? Your post listed quite a lot of information but as far as I could see didn't actually explain anything about the situation. If you think someone's wrong, politely explain why - what's your "expertise", by the way?

[cella]

edhistory Wrote:

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

> 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

You are right that I don't have too much expertise on local planning issues, just an interest as a local resident. Perhaps you have misconstrued my post? Can you tell me what the incorrect information is as I don't think I gave any did I - merely an opinion?