Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Saw the boards going up a few weeks ago. Is it me, or has this made the space on the pavement more constrained for people to walk through? The phone boxes and cycle rings don?t leave much space for people to get by on the pavement. The surface is very uneven and between the amount of pedestrians, buggies, dogs, scooters, and disabled folk trying to get through at busy times it is quite scary, especially for little ones. Perhaps take out the phone boxes or cycle rings till work on facade is complete temporarily?
  • 2 weeks later...

Sincerest apologies for the inconvenience, we were careful to measure the space remaining once the hoarding went up but it is slightly dependant on how cycles are parked too. We're going try and complete the front facade works by Jan and will no longer be in people's way. Once again sorry for inconvenience.

Vib

Thank you for the update and wish you luck with the new space. Unfortunately, this is an issue that the local councillors should address regarding the quality of pedestrian space on Lordship Lane. I know this has been brought up before on other threads as well, but it doesn?t seem to be getting much attention. The space left for people to walk comfortably and safely in getting more constrained. The whole corner or EDG and LL could do with a redo.


I pass through the area several times a week and it is getting worse for navigating safely for a variety of reasons:


1- there is no crossing light to across EDG.

2- the pavement is encumbered by too much street furniture (two phone boxes!!! and cycle rings)

3- the car charging station on the EDG corner makes it very hard for buses to get through when two buses arrive at the corner at the same time.


All of this makes the area very chaotic in the best of times, but at rush hours when many children and parents are trying to navigate the bus stops to change buses quickly it is very dangerous.


I don?t know who or what is responsible for this, but similar to the Dulwich Village crossing planning fiasco, I fear this is a lot of different departments not talking to local residents who have to live and navigate these junctions on a daily basis.

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 see a gap in the market and a stall in North Cross Road...
    • The lack of affordable housing is down to Thatcher's promoting sale of council properties. When I was working, I had to deal with many families/older folk/ disabled folk in inferior housing. The worst ones were ex council properties purchased by their tenants  with a very high discount who then sold on for a profit. The new owners frequently rented out at exorbitant prices and failed to maintain the properties. I remember a gentleman who needed to be visited by a district nurse daily becoming very upset as he rented a room in an ex council flat and shared kitchen and bathroom with 6 other people  (it was a 3 bed flat) the landlord did not allow visitors to the flat and this gut was frightened he would be evicted if the nurse visited daily. Unfortunately, the guy was re admitted to hospital and ended up in a care home as he could not receive medical help at home.   Private developers  are not keen on providing a larger percentage of 'social housing' as it dents their profits. Also a social rent is still around £200 plus a week
    • Hello, I was wondering if others have had experience of roof repairs and guarantees. A while back, we had a water leak come through in our top floor room.  A roofer came and went out on the roof to take a look - they said it was to do with a leak near the chimney.   They did some rendering around the chimney and this cost £1800 plus £750 for scaffolding (so £2,550 total).  They said the work came with a 10 year guarantee. About a year later, there was another leak on the same wall, which looked exactly the same size and colour as the previous leak. But it was about 2 metres away from it, on the other side of a window.  I contacted the roofer about this new leak, thinking it would be covered by the guarantee. However, he said the new leak was due to a different and unrelated problem, and so was not covered by the guarantee. This new leak, he said, was due to holes in the felt underneath the tiles. He said there are holes in the felt all over the roof (so if this was the cause, I expect the first leak may have been caused by that too - but he didn't mention the holes in the felt for the first repair). It feels like the 10-year guarantee doesn't mean much at all.  I realise that the guarantee couldn't cover all future problems with the roof, but where do you draw the line with what's reasonable?  Is it that a leak is only covered if an identical leak happens in exactly the same place?  There were no terms and conditions with the guarantee, which I didn't question at the time.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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