Lordship Lane pavement on a rainy day is a disgrace

[RenatoMattos]

When is the Council going to improve the pavement on Lordship Lane? Does anyone know who we can talk to in the Council to request it? It is almost impossible to walk on it on a rainy day! The Council has three people walking around handing out tickets, plus another one on a motorbike and another in a car parked opposite the Neighbourhood vet every morning - It would be great to see some of the money they make invested on Lordship Lane! #southwarkcouncil

 

Edited August 26 by RenatoMattos

[Penguin68]

30 minutes ago, RenatoMattos said:

 The Council has three people walking around handing out tickets, plus another one on a motorbike and another in a car parked opposite the Neighbourhood vet every morning

These people 'earn' money for the council by fining all who use our shops etc. and who can be fined - there's nothing in it for the council repairing roads and pavements. Additionally shop owners frequently also own some of the pavement area in front of their shops - so not all of the puddles will be on common property. We in 'the Dulwich's' are a cash-cow for Southwark, but 'they' have little interest in spending money on us (except for in Dulwich Village to support their traffic ideas). I suspect a lot of resurfacing in Lordship Lane could have been paid for with the monies squandered in DV.

[march46]

Report it via Fix My Street

[RenatoMattos]

1 hour ago, march46 said:

Report it via Fix My Street

Done, thanks! 

https://report.southwark.gov.uk/P/FLoq7PA4JYXtE3E6aB

[malumbu]

Looks like many other streets in London.

Perhaps you are unaware that local authorities are strapped for cash, as costs increase, in particular as the population ages.  Unnecessary austerity under the coalition government exacerbated the situation.

Look at the big picture and perhaps you may cut local authorities some slack 

[Rockets]

Dulwich Square doesn’t look like that…..perhaps if we rename East Dulwich to Dulwich Village then the “strapped for cash” council might find a spare £5m or so to fix the problems…..although of course in the Village they are happy to spend money on things that didn’t actually need fixing….priorities and all that…

[rch]

Thanks for posting your photos, Renato. Ironically I took a photo of one of the same locations that you’ve attached!

Fyi, I’ve repeatedly reported the Lordship Lane pavement problems in the past, but I’ve been distracted with repairing Thames Water damage to my house for the past couple of years.

Fix My Street will address specific issues, but the problem with Lordship Lane is that when the paving was upgraded over a decade ago it wasn’t done properly (long story)… so it all needs to be lifted and properly backfilled and reinstated from Melbourne Grove down to Goose Green.

I've submitted several Highway funding bids over the years to address this issue in various sections of Lordship, but the ward councillors wouldn’t approve them.

Unfortunately I was a ward councillor for Dulwich Village for 8 years, so I couldn’t fix the East Dulwich/Goose Green ward issues…

I’ve said repeatedly that if the council wants to reduce car usage then they need to upgrade the local pavements for pedestrians… but creating cycle lanes seems to be a priority.

[Moovart]

6 hours ago, rch said:

I’ve said repeatedly that if the council wants to reduce car usage then they need to upgrade the local pavements for pedestrians

At the same time needing to address the rapidly growing Plane trees, many of which were planted only 20 years ago. These are already huge and have caused breaks in the water main and sinking and lifting of the pavement and are going to get a lot bigger in the next twenty plus years.  I foresee ongoing and bigger problems in store. 

[malumbu]

6 hours ago, rch said:

Thanks for posting your photos, Renato. Ironically I took a photo of one of the same locations that you’ve attached!

Fyi, I’ve repeatedly reported the Lordship Lane pavement problems in the past, but I’ve been distracted with r

I’ve said repeatedly that if the council wants to reduce car usage then they need to upgrade the local pavements for pedestrians… but creating cycle lanes seems to be a priority.

Don't YOU think we should reduce car use?

[teddyboy23]

Who's driving cars on the pavement 

[rch]

Hi guys…. thanks for engaging.

Firstly, Moovart. Don’t even get me started on the burst water mains. When we researched the replanting of the avenue of plane trees which had originally lined the road decades ago, we contacted Thames Water to get information about the location of their water mains for exactly the reason you cite. They informed us that their water mains were located in the road, but their diagrams transpired to be completely inaccurate.

The root problems are exacerbated by two issues… firstly, the trees were meant to be maintained in a specific manner (long story), but the council dropped this policy. Secondly, we experimented with a process called KBI Flexipave which allows water to percolate and not cause puddles in the way tarmac does, plus it helps the roots to evolve more naturally. We tried this process around the ancient plane on the corner of Melbourne and Lordship and it works really well. But the council dropped this solution as well.

Fyi,  Malumbu, I sold my car in 1997 and haven’t driven since then… I’m a dedicated pedestrian and a bus girl. I’m not opposed to cycling (although I don’t cycle myself for health reasons), but it has to be accommodated in a logical manner.

As far as our area is concerned, if the council genuinely wants to decrease car usage, they need to increase local public transportation significantly, as our PTAL rating sucks. One of the projects that I worked on with the highways transport officers was to create a local bus service that connected Dulwich Village and East Dulwich, including multiple schools. This was actually recommended by our officers in a cost effective manner, but was dropped when I moved on from being a councillor.

Thirdly… perfect reply, Teddyboy!

From my personal experience, both the council and Thames Water make decisions to cut costs, which then significantly increase costs in the future,..

 

[RenatoMattos]

On 26/08/2024 at 23:10, malumbu said:

Looks like many other streets in London.

Perhaps you are unaware that local authorities are strapped for cash, as costs increase, in particular as the population ages.  Unnecessary austerity under the coalition government exacerbated the situation.

Look at the big picture and perhaps you may cut local authorities some slack 

They seem to have plenty of cash to spend in the Village. The number of changes made in the last two years on Carlton Ave with Turney Rd is absolutely ridiculous. 

[malumbu]

Pleased to hear RCH.  But why not just say if "we", or "society", want to reduce car journeys, not "if the council" as this is painted out by many as unreasonable Southwark vs victimised car drivers.

Also you play into the common view by many, oh we have to drive because the trains and buses aren't good enough, the pavement has too many cracks, crossing the road is not safe,  and there are too many puddles.  OF course everything can be improved, but we do have pavements, trains and buses, and 20mph speed limits.  Some areas and the country may have none of these and crossing the road in a village with no controlled crossing with traffic at 60mph isn't fun.

[Moovart]

15 hours ago, rch said:

When we researched the replanting of the avenue of plane trees which had originally lined the road decades ago, we contacted Thames Water to get information about the location of their water mains for exactly the reason you cite. They informed us that their water mains were located in the road, but their diagrams transpired to be completely inaccurate.

You overlooked the fact that every building has a water pipe, many original from circa 1900s, from the street main into the buildings.  With the trees so close together, it is inevitable that roots will find their way towards and around these supply pipes and that soil movement risks damaging these pipes.  I believe Thames Water covers the cost of such repairs so I guess Southwark isn't worried about that.

[RenatoMattos]

23 hours ago, malumbu said:

Don't YOU think we should reduce car use?

I'm totally in favor 🙌, I don't drive! We could widen the sidewalk and halve parking on Lordship Lane - that would help the shops and shoppers! Would love to see some of the side roads closed too!

6 hours ago, malumbu said:

Pleased to hear RCH.  But why not just say if "we", or "society", want to reduce car journeys, not "if the council" as this is painted out by many as unreasonable Southwark vs victimised car drivers.

Also you play into the common view by many, oh we have to drive because the trains and buses aren't good enough, the pavement has too many cracks, crossing the road is not safe,  and there are too many puddles.  OF course everything can be improved, but we do have pavements, trains and buses, and 20mph speed limits.  Some areas and the country may have none of these and crossing the road in a village with no controlled crossing with traffic at 60mph isn't fun.

I'd love to find out how and where Southwark Council has been spending our Council tax! I don't believe it has been on Lordship Lane!

[Rockets]

6 hours ago, malumbu said:

Also you play into the common view by many, oh we have to drive because the trains and buses aren't good enough, the pavement has too many cracks, crossing the road is not safe,  and there are too many puddles. 

But Malumbu - an ex local councillor is giving their opinion based on their experience of being a local councillor - that's not them playing into the common view.

 

21 hours ago, rch said:

As far as our area is concerned, if the council genuinely wants to decrease car usage, they need to increase local public transportation significantly, as our PTAL rating sucks.

The above speaks volumes - something many refuse to acknowledge.

 

21 hours ago, rch said:

One of the projects that I worked on with the highways transport officers was to create a local bus service that connected Dulwich Village and East Dulwich, including multiple schools. This was actually recommended by our officers in a cost effective manner, but was dropped when I moved on from being a councillor.

And this seems like a perfectly sensible idea to address the issues.

The current council have their priorities all wrong and have (perhaps deliberately) overlooked pedestrians and public transport and identified cycling as the cure-all.

 

When they finish splurging millions on Dulwich Square compare that to the state of Lordship Lane if you want a visual metaphor on where their priorities lie.

[RenatoMattos]

On 26/08/2024 at 23:31, Rockets said:

Dulwich Square doesn’t look like that…..perhaps if we rename East Dulwich to Dulwich Village then the “strapped for cash” council might find a spare £5m or so to fix the problems…..although of course in the Village they are happy to spend money on things that didn’t actually need fixing….priorities and all that…

Would love to see a report on all the changes made and money spent, in the last two years, at the crossing on Carlton Ave with Turney Road? 

[rch]

23 hours ago, Moovart said:

You overlooked the fact that every building has a water pipe, many original from circa 1900s, from the street main into the buildings.  With the trees so close together, it is inevitable that roots will find their way towards and around these supply pipes and that soil movement risks damaging these pipes.  I believe Thames Water covers the cost of such repairs so I guess Southwark isn't worried about that.

We took all this into account when we planted the trees… the spacing of the trees and the maintenance, which wasn’t adhered to.

You’ve probably noticed that all the Lordship trees were severely pollarded last autumn, which will help to control the roots… but this wouldn’t have been necessary if they had maintained them in the way we intended (long story).

The problems with the Lordship pavement is down to other factors…

***

Thanks for the support, Rockets. Couple of points…

It’s relatively economical to improve local highway issues if it’s done properly.

The problem with the Lordship pavement is that when the paving slabs were upgraded to the current ones, there was no backfill or infill put under the new slabs. The old slabs were just lifted and the new ones laid, which means that there are a multitude of locations with support issues. 

It was basically a way of saving money, which we’ll have to deal with now as the situation deteriorates.

Also, as some of you are aware… the Dulwich Village residents campaigned when I was a councillor over a decade ago to block off Court Lane and Calton and create a square.

Their argument was that it would address speeding issues which was changed during Covid to car pollution.

I spent several months working with highways officers on the proposal, which they advised wouldn’t be constructive as it would displace car use to the surrounding local roads. 

There are still ways that the current layout could be changed… Calton could remain closed with a square and Court Lane could be reopened as a through road.

But now that the current design is being made permanent, there will have to be other ways of dealing with the issues.

One way of funding various improvements is to use the income generated by the LTN traffic fines, which can only be used to fund highway issues.

I’ve actually wondered if these funds can be used to reinstate the Lordship Lane pavement…

Edited August 29 by rch
Two posts got combined and I can’t separate them.

[Moovart]

53 minutes ago, rch said:

We took all this into account when we planted the trees… the spacing of the trees and the maintenance, which wasn’t adhered to.

If my neighbour planted a new London Plane 3m from my Victorian house I would be very worried about future damage to my house.  This is effectively what happened when these trees were planted around 20 years ago. It seems there was no concern for neighbouring buildings and future risk of damage by planting new trees.

Other lesd massive trees could have been chosen.  The pruning done recently was fairly minimalist, not like a French pollarded city Plane tree, and by the time Southwark does another round of pruning all that growth will be back and even more.

I appreciate the intention at the time but I really don't think it was thought through properly.  The problems, like the trees are only going to get bigger.

[rch]

I definitely wouldn’t have planted these plane trees on a residential road. But Lordship Lane is a main road, with the shops set back.

As I said before, they were meant to replace the original plane trees which lined the road (two of which still exist).

All of this work was done under the control of the best arboricultural officer (Oliver Stutter) that Southwark has ever had, who I completely trusted.

It’s still possible to repair the Lordship pavements properly… although the tarmac bodges are frustrating, hence the request for KBI Flexipave.

[Moovart]

2 hours ago, rch said:

As I said before, they were meant to replace the original plane trees which lined the road (two of which still exist).

When were the original Plane trees in existence and what happened to them?

[rch]

From memory (don’t have time to look it up) Lordship Lane was a boundary road that separated two large manors/farms in Victorian/Edwardian times (I think Friern Manor was one of them). It was emphasised with plane trees forming a visual line.

Some of the trees died over time and some were destroyed during the WWII bombing. One of the old ones is at the crossing near Meghans and a second one is outside Robert Carder Shoes.

The trees were intended to be pruned horizontally to form an avenue of kissing canopies (which we managed to achieve in one section, but it’s been destroyed now)… this would create shade for shoppers and outdoor restaurant tables, but also stop the trees from blocking out light from the flats above the shops, plus it would control the roots from expanding.

Chestnut trees were also very popular boundary trees, but they’re even bigger…

Edited August 30 by rch
Corrected the location of the vintage plane trees.

[Moovart]

So mainly existing before the buildings were built.  

Attempting to recreate an historical Plane avenue with existing Victorian/Edwardian buildings with shallow foundations was imo a poorly thought out plan. 

Outside shops such as Joe and the Juice, there is so little pavement space that, when the recently planted Plane tree reaches full size with a trunk diameter of up to 1m, it will barely be possible to walk past it let alone get a buggy or wheelchair past!

[march46]

The trees should be on build outs in the road wherever possible, not reducing space on the already narrow pavements. 

[rch]

The shop that occupied the space before Joe and the Juice didn’t have the outside wall… the wall creating the outdoor seating area was built after the plane tree was planted. The quantity of delivery drivers hanging around Joe and the Juice also block off the road and the pavement.

If all the shops walled off their forecourts, then it would severely change the atmosphere of Lordship Lane.

Most of the shops engage with the public, I’m still regularly in touch with the chairman of the shop association. We liaised with every shop in the locations where we planted the trees… in some cases we even moved the proposed tree location if the shop owner didn’t want it in front of their shop.

Fortunately most shops understood the how a tree lined boulevard would change the atmosphere on Lordship Lane to the point where it would have increased the number of shoppers.

Now we have to get the defective pavement repaired…

17 minutes ago, march46 said:

The trees should be on build outs in the road wherever possible, not reducing space on the already narrow pavements. 

I agree with build outs in general, but these would take out too many parking spaces on Lordship Lane.

Several councillors campaigned to have the shop forecourts paved over in order to visually make the pavement appear wider… one councillor actually got the funds allocated, but it never transpired.