"A" Boards blocking the pavements

[civilservant]

similar thing down North Cross Road on Saturday - A-boards squarely on the pedestrian part of the pavement.

Thinking it would be churlish to nudge them back onto the retailers' forecourts, I wound my way around them along with the prams, the dogs and the couples introducing their parents-in-law to the delights of ED.

[maxxi]

civilservant Wrote:

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

>couples introducing their parents-in-law to the

> delights of ED.

This has definitely become a major ED weekend activity... (Pointing at artisan cheese-shop/deli/pop-up/market-stall) "Yes, it's become our fave (they never use it) and the bread's a little expensive (they got caught with a loaf of Allinson's) but their cheese is to die for (Dad-in-law is a Brie bore)..."

[rendelharris]

maxxi Wrote:

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

> This has definitely become a major ED weekend

> activity... (Pointing at artisan

> cheese-shop/deli/pop-up/market-stall) "Yes, it's

> become our fave (they never use it) and the

> bread's a little expensive (they got caught with a

> loaf of Allinson's) but their cheese is to die for

> (Dad-in-law is a Brie bore)..."

Favourite line ever of Marty Crane from Frasier:

Frasier: Would you like to come dad? The food there's to die for!

Marty: Your country, your family and your freedom are to die for, son. Food's for eatin'.

[monica]

Double sigh cella, why are you assuming the owners are not interested??? I am one of the owners, with the Aboard on our property. I am not sure what else to say to you, just please stop your trolling, its tiring and ridiculous and just plain boring.

cella Wrote:

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

> nxjen Wrote:

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

> -----

> > The Southwark link describes advertising boards

> > and displays of goods that are unauthorised. If

> > set up on the shop's own land, they are not

> > unauthorised.

>

> Sigh - My concern has never been the legality of

> the boards - that's for Southwark to enforce -

> it's about being able to move freely as a

> pedestrian on pavements. I'm beginning to think

> the business owners represented here genuinely

> don't care about their customer access as long as

> their space and boards are kept!

[monica]

Double Double sigh. We pay our part in paying very expensive business rates. We have been open for 18 years, and not one person has made a comment about our A board, its pretty simple really.

We own the land where its clearly marked by different tiles, so therefore we can do what we like with our land. You have no jurisdiction in what we do, as you ave nothing to do with my business.

Simple enough, or do I need to make it even more simple.

Its people like you that put people off from posting on here. Now I remember why I no longer post in the general section.

I will be in the whats on section if you want to chat, unless you want to make stupid mindless comments on the Dulwich Physic garden. JEEEEZ

cella Wrote:

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

> Think you appear a little blinkered and

> proprioritial about your own interests. My

> thoughts didn't just extend to your views on here.

> You need customers to be able to get to your

> business and others in LL but, over time, the

> increase, changing profile and habits of locals

> have evolved massively. Southwark need to, and to

> a degree are, look at how life can be made easier

> for pedestrians as well as road users. And

> businesses need top,ay their part.

[cella]

Chill Monica - if you are so confident about your "legal rights" then you have nothing to fear from Southwark. You clearly haven't properly read my comments nor the more recent comments from others and appear to be focussing only on your own narrow interests. Wonder what sort of business you run as you don't sound very welcoming.

[mikeb]

Cella - please can you identify exactly which part of Lordship Lane is causing you problems? I would not expect this to be a part which also has pavement which belongs to shops, as these parts are typically wider than average.

[JoeLeg]

cella Wrote:

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

> Chill Monica - if you are so confident about your

> "legal rights" then you have nothing to fear from

> Southwark. You clearly haven't properly read my

> comments nor the more recent comments from others

> and appear to be focussing only on your own narrow

> interests. Wonder what sort of business you run as

> you don't sound very welcoming.

Ok, I think the problem here is that you are not delineating between the section of paving which is the public highway, and the private land owned by the shops.

You describe Monica's "legal rights", putting quotation marks arounds the words legal rights which makes it seem as if you don't entirely agree on the authenticity of such rights.

The simple fact is - as pointed out very early by Penguin68 - if that part of the paving is within the deeds of the shop, then it doesn't belong to anyone else, and nobody (not you, me, the council or the Prime Minister) can tell the shop how to administer it. The rest of the paving is public highway, and encroachment onto that can reasonably incur the wrath of Southwark's enforcement officers.

Your comments are things such as:

"The pavements are for people walking with everyone else on the actual road and it's not clear how life is to be improved for pedestrians with other users and shopkeepers asserting their rights."

and

"I think the point being made is that pedestrians need space on the pavements to walk freely and safely. Anything that impedes this needs to be looked at carefully."

Nothing wrong with that per se, but it makes the assumption of an equivalence between the public highway part of the paving and the private land owned by the shop. There isn't one.

Your beef, it seems, is not with the shopkeepers, but with the law that allows this in the first place. They aren't doing anything wrong, and those "legal rights" which you seem so disparaging of are actually legal rights. They aren't up for debate or interpretation - it's like someone trying to tell me that my front driveway is part of the pavement just because it isn't fenced off from the public highway. You disapprove of people "asserting their rights", so if you want things to change you'll need to force a change in the law and remove the land from the deeds held by the businesses.

I'm genuinely mystified as to why you feel shops should not be allowed to put out an A board on their own land. Is it really so terrible?

[flocker spotter]

of course shops can do what they want on their own land within reason, this does not however absolve them of responsibility should the public access that land as a matter of course.If the shop puts an A board on their property, then they also have to assume the liability for issues that may occur wrt that A board and a member of the public who rightfully have reason to be on that land. The shopkeepers cannot have their cake and eat it.

So many lawyers in ED, yet so much guff remains uncorrected

[JoeLeg]

What on Earth...??

All we?re talking about here is shop owners putting out A boards on land they own. It?s being turned into some kind of crusade against savage A board placement that somehow interdictes the rights of fair ED denizens to perambulate wherever they please. It?s a small wooden sign, for heavens sake?!

Perhaps you and cella can form some kind of A Board watch scheme, naming and shaming those who you feel aren?t showing the proper respect for the locals?

Honestly, these are people just trying to make a living, and they?re invariably little independents scraping by on thin margins, run by people passionate about their business. Why can?t we just recognise that? As I said before, if the whole road goes to the big chains, they won?t give a rodents backside what any of us think. Just look at the sly way Nero got its licence?

We say we want these people running these kinds of shops. This is part and parcel of it.

So many Nimbys in ED, yet so much unnecessary righteousness remains.

[Penguin68]

The net effect of this sort of attack is that shop owners will fence or place obstacles to delineate the land that they own and have rights to, permanently blocking access to that for others. At the moment many owners are prepared to share some of their space with pedestrians, where that is convenient to them, whilst continuing to use part in furtherance of their trade.

Some already do block off their space. Do you really want all of them to?

Of course, where owners are placing items on the public pavement that is a different issue. Please note, a different issue. Not the same issue.

[rendelharris]

flocker spotter Wrote:

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

> of course shops can do what they want on their own

> land within reason, this does not however absolve

> them of responsibility should the public access

> that land as a matter of course.

Good job nobody's suggested that then. The point being made is that on their own land, shopowners have no responsibility for considering the convenience of the public when positioning their A boards or other furniture (unless of course they were contravening disability or emergency access regulations). Of course they'd be liable for any injuries arising from dangerous or negligent placement, but they do not have a responsibility to provide for the convenience of passersby, even if they do step onto their land "as a matter of course."

Despite your habitual lofty and patronising dismissal of everyone else, it would seem to be you who has missed the point by quite a margin.

[flocker spotter]

I am not wrong here nor is my comment in any way misplaced.

[rendelharris]

flocker spotter Wrote:

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

> I am not wrong here nor is my comment in any way

> misplaced.

Oh well that's us told.

Your comment was (rudely) castigating others and complaining about a lack of knowledge regarding an argument nobody else had made, you created it yourself! Come on, you do this a lot, time to pack it in and either join the discussion sensibly or not at all.

[JoeLeg]

flocker spotter Wrote:

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

> I am not wrong here nor is my comment in any way

> misplaced.

Well I feel I backed my argument up, so I?d be interested to read it if you do the same?

[flocker spotter]

I am merely added a Rousseau/Proudhon slant to an errant wayward beef. I Shall take my leave from the ring and watch from the cheap seats now. Good luck

[rendelharris]

Silly person.

[nxjen]

FS posts work well as satire but in this very odd thread who's to know. Hope OP got information they were looking for.

[monica]

Cella my dear, you are deliberately winding people up, I have read your comments and I have read other posts re your comments. I am not sure what else to say, as I said earlier. But you can't argue with stupid

cella Wrote:

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

> Chill Monica - if you are so confident about your

> "legal rights" then you have nothing to fear from

> Southwark. You clearly haven't properly read my

> comments nor the more recent comments from others

> and appear to be focussing only on your own narrow

> interests. Wonder what sort of business you run as

> you don't sound very welcoming.

[monica]

Thank you Joeleg. I remember back in the 90s when we bought our premises and East Dulwich was nothing more then charity shops, pubs and curry houses. The only decent stores were SMBS and Greetings. Watching the tide change over the years has been an eyeopener, and just amazing. We are proud to be part of the community, and despite one or two negative people on here, I think this forum has been invaluable, to the community.

There will always be a know it all, on here, however people like that will not deter me from posting.

I was going to boycott this section and just focus on community projects, however Cella's last comment convinced me otherwise.

Good luck Cella in your crusade, hope it doesn't get lonely up their on your higher ground. :)

JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> What on Earth...??

>

> All we?re talking about here is shop owners

> putting out A boards on land they own. It?s being

> turned into some kind of crusade against savage A

> board placement that somehow interdictes the

> rights of fair ED denizens to perambulate wherever

> they please. It?s a small wooden sign, for heavens

> sake?!

>

> Perhaps you and cella can form some kind of A

> Board watch scheme, naming and shaming those who

> you feel aren?t showing the proper respect for the

> locals?

>

> Honestly, these are people just trying to make a

> living, and they?re invariably little independents

> scraping by on thin margins, run by people

> passionate about their business. Why can?t we just

> recognise that? As I said before, if the whole

> road goes to the big chains, they won?t give a

> rodents backside what any of us think. Just look

> at the sly way Nero got its licence?

>

> We say we want these people running these kinds of

> shops. This is part and parcel of it.

>

> So many Nimbys in ED, yet so much unnecessary

> righteousness remains.

[cella]

You appear to be the only one who is wound up Monica my dear. And patronising. Coy about your business it appears - go on - do tell.

[rendelharris]

"it's always dispiriting when it's made personal rather than debating the actual issues"

cella, on this thread, April 16th. One imagines you find your own posts fairly dispiriting then?

[cella]

Driven to stoop below my own standards I'm afraid rendelharris! I've had some helpful and positive pms which is good so, when time is freed up after the elections, will pursue alternative routes then.

[JoeLeg]

Well cella, what can I say?

You?re determined to attack a local shopkeeper whilst ignoring points made by Penguin68 which demonstrate the innate flaws in your argument, and you have the gall to call her patronising? You should re-read your own posts! Oh, and please don?t pretend you haven?t been getting wound up by this too.

It?s your kind of nimbyism and presumption which makes me sad for the place where I grew up. This kind of unreasonable attack on people who just want to run a business is bizarre, frankly. A Boards? On private land? This is really something you feel needs tackling?

To me it?s the thin end of the wedge, when we try and control independents in this manner. They aren?t doing anything legally wrong, and as far as I?m aware no one has been injured by a carelessly positioned A Board. So what does it matter?

Do we want to end up with a high street dominated by big name chains with no local soul or character? Or can we allow these people the leeway to do what they?re entitled to do anyway, and perhaps realise it?s all a bit insignificant in the grand scheme.

But then you?ve had PM?s from the silent majority, so maybe the A Board Watch Scheme will be coming to the Lane soon. Well, much satisfaction may it bring you, but I still think you?re being a nimby.

[cella]

My original concerns remain - the pavements are too narrow for the amount of people, cyclists, joggers, buggies, cars etc using them. Added to the users is the range of random street furniture, chained cycles, signs, etc all taking up space. And yes some A Boards too. The concerns on here for shopkeepers and business owners legitimate outside space is connected to this but has dramatically overridden the original post. However, though personally I'm a firm supporter and frequent user of many of the local businesses in LL in particular, due consideration has to be given by Southwark to the needs of pedestrians. How they do this will be challenging and some people have wrongly interpreted this as an attack on local businesses and their space. Nobody has suggested that they should give up any land at all as far as I can see. Really though, things have to improve for pedestrians and shops have a vested interest in their customers being able to reach them easily and safely. I've been sent a couple of suggestions for routes through to Southwark so will pursue after elections.