Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I typed in Lordship Lane and it has given these results but you could type in loads of places and not just London. However, I was delighted to find a picture of my own block of flats in construction in 1938 (which means I have lived in it for nearly half it's life)


http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/quick-search?q=lordship%20lane&WINID=1484401438784


AGH I see many of the results are also of North London's LL! Sorry!

Oh no ,no ,no that's hours already I've spent looking at these .


Just finished looking at the Peckham Rye Estate and comparing the pics to google earth .How the trees have grown . How the post box has been replaced by a newer one .How little the blocks have changed .Though I wonder why the fencing was changed for the metal "stretcher " type .


Off to look at Bellenden Rd /Choumert Rd junction now .May never have time for cooking again .

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

Though I wonder why the fencing was

> changed for the metal "stretcher " type .


Presumably, like many other railings, they were removed during WWII to be melted down for munitions etc, then replaced with the surplus to requirements stretchers post-war.

rendelharris Wrote:

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


> Presumably, like many other railings, they were

> removed during WWII to be melted down for

> munitions etc, then replaced with the surplus to

> requirements stretchers post-war.



The conclusion is a big "presume".


Is there any evidence?

edhistory Wrote:

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

> rendelharris Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > Presumably, like many other railings, they were

> > removed during WWII to be melted down for

> > munitions etc, then replaced with the surplus

> to

> > requirements stretchers post-war.

>

>

> The conclusion is a big "presume".

>

> Is there any evidence?


No evidence at all, but the balance of probabilities would seem to indicate that if a building had iron railings pre-WWII which then disappeared and were replaced with post-WWII stretchers, that's what's likely to have happened, given that many hundreds of tons of London's railings were removed in the early '40s as part of the war effort (an initiative more valuable as propaganda than in any substantive way,as it turned out).

edhistory Wrote:

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

> This one has been is my probable mis-attribution

> file for some time.

>

> The LMA has it as an 1860 picture by Mandy of the

> junction of Lordship Lane and Dulwich Common.

>

> How can this be so?

>

>

> http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/view-item?key=S

> XsiUCI6eyJ2YWx1ZSI6ImxvcmRzaGlwIGxhbmUiLCJvcGVyYXR

> vciI6MSwiZnV6enlQcmVmaXhMZW5ndGgiOjMsImZ1enp5TWluU

> 2ltaWxhcml0eSI6MC43NSwibWF4U3VnZ2VzdGlvbnMiOjMsImF

> sd2F5c1N1Z2dlc3QiOm51bGx9fQ&pg=7&WINID=14844736313

> 54#F3spwUYhVYAAAAFZoQL9ZA/18074


Could it be looking south from the Hayes Grove area towards Grove Vale, Goose Green and Lordship Lane?

> The LMA has it as an 1860 picture by Mandy of the junction of Lordship Lane and Dulwich Common.


The search thumbnail is annotated:


"Record: 8107 Dulwich/Camberwell

View of Court Lane and Lordship lane, Dulwich; also showing cattle grazing and horse-drawn vehicles passsing on the road. 1860"


But I don't see that as any better a match.


The only possibility I can see in that area, looking at the 1862 Stanfords maphttp://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/view-item?key=SXsiUCI6eyJ2YWx1ZSI6IlN0YW5mb3JkJ3MgbWFwIER1bHdpY2giLCJvcGVyYXRvciI6MSwiZnV6enlQcmVmaXhMZW5ndGgiOjMsImZ1enp5TWluU2ltaWxhcml0eSI6MC43NSwibWF4U3VnZ2VzdGlvbnMiOjMsImFsd2F5c1N1Z2dlc3QiOm51bGx9fQ&pg=1&WINID=1484529722599#0yb4LPaDpY8AAAFZpKMCfw/31499, is perhaps the junction of Dulwich Common with Bark Lane (now Gallery Road). That would seem to make the large central house one of the C19 manifestations of Belair House, but I'm far from convinced of that, afaics from the 1890 photograph of its rear: the first at http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/quick-search?q=Belair&WINID=1484528532947. It is in the right place though. Playing around with http://www.suncalc.org/#/51.4425,-0.0779,21/2016.08.17/16:48/1 and taking a shadow length multiplier of 1.64 would I think place the viewing bearing more likely to be in the NNW area, depending on time of year.


[ETA 16/1 01:29 to say I've changed my mind already, after having a look at the 1870 OS map. The orientation of the house is wrong, so unless the artist has taken a liberty so as to show its frontage...]

Sheer guesswork really but couldn't this be painted at what was Glenroy's Corner - now known as the Grove Tavern junction - looking west towards Dulwich along Dulwich Common Road? The road has the correct turn downhill to the right there. That would make what looks like a pathway in front of the washing line (?) of the building on the left the start of Cox's Walk. In the centre of the picture the road appears to fork: there's no road there now but on the 1862 map there's a road running that way off Dulwich Common to "Grove House," which, if it were painted from the Grove Tavern junction, would be in about the right place for the large central house. Unfortunately I can't find any information on or images of Grove House, anyone else have any?
Edhistory, I think it is a picture taken standing in front of the Dulwich College tollgate looking up the road that leads to towards Dulwich and Sydenham golf course. The tollgate itself would be just out of shot to the right.

kford Wrote:

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

> Re: the 1860 print:

>

> This is looking down Court Lane from Lordship

> Lane.

>

> From here:

>


> on+SE21+7DR/@51.4461755,-0.0717924,3a,60y,300.1h,8

> 7.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOXknaaWyMI9ZrPizaKvmcg!2

> e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x487603ec4e5a2701:0xb

> fb4cf990d207b45!8m2!3d51.4483489!4d-0.0783488!6m1!

> 1e1?hl=en&authuser=0

>

> It's also mentioned here:

>

> http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-court-lane-and-lo

> rdship-lane-dulwich-london-1860-artist-jc-mandy-60

> 105803.html



Old Handy must have been a rotten painter then, as s/he clearly shows the road curving down to the right then going slightly uphill into the distance - whereas I know, as it's one of my favourite local take a breather freewheels, that Court Lane runs downhill all the way into Dulwich, 72 feet of descent, 0 ascent!

mikeb Wrote:

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

> Where's the "tollbar" building shown here?

> http://www.motco.com/map/81006/SeriesSearchPlatesF

> ulla.asp?mode=query&artist=390&other=941&x=11&y=11


Assume, and the better informed may be able to confirm or deny, that the top of Court Lane marks the outer boundary of the Dulwich estate, so one had to pay a toll to enter onto its roads, as is still the case on College Road, so the Tollbar building would have been the lodging for the keeper of the tollgate?

Just to clarify:


"East Dulwich" had two toll gate cottages.


One on Dog Kennel Hill which was demolished to make way for the trams.


One at the junction of Court Lane and Lordship Lane. That's the one I uploaded a photo of. It seems to have had an unusual footprint. The map(s) show it as cruciform. The photo looks octagonal, but closer examination suggest cruciform.


If Dog Kennel Hill had a toll gate it was out of operation by 1858. See incorrect map from the Illustrated London News from 6 June 1857.


The Court Lane toll gate and cottage were on Dulwich College Land. The map which does not show Court Lane, has the tollgate as still operational. Eynella Road and Townley Road did not exist in the 1850s.

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

    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
    • Very sorry to hear this, but surely the landlord is responsible for fixing the electrics?  Surely they must be insured for things like this? I hope you get it all sorted out quickly.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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