Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Widening the pavement might provide a route around a large tree but it won't prevent the impending subsidence and root damage to buildings and pavements from massive tree growing within 1.3m of Victorian foundations and water pipes.

The romantic notion that there is an original tree outside Meghan's is not supported by the photo of bomb damage on the front of Farmers.  There are no trees on that photo. 

Young Plane trees are still being planted in Lordship Lane.  I reiterate to RCH that if your neighbour did this so close to your house you would be worried about future damage to your house.  Strangely Southwark doesn't seem to worry at all about this.  

10 minutes ago, RenatoMattos said:

The council could make the pavement wider but they won't because they need the money from the fines, pure greed! 

The people who park in the 'shopping' part of Lordship Lane do so, I'm imagining (and it would be true of my experiences) because they are visiting the establishments there either to buy from them or to serve them. Removing what parking there is (taking into account length of stay and time to park restrictions) will be to undermine the shops and food outlets etc. scope to survive fiscally. Which, I'm sure, a proper socialist/ anti-capitalist regime would applaud. Keeping parking may be keeping establishments open, something which I would applaud, but hey - horses for courses.

  • Like 1
2 minutes ago, Moovart said:

This article from Bristol is relevant 

Only as regards 'unstable and unsafe' plane trees - which Southwark would also remove. This is ancillary anyway to removing a fountain to replace with an open retail space. Plane trees make a substantial contribution to air quality, not I notice a current argument for their retention in this debate.

In deed, and addressing climate change.

A rainy day in Lordship Lane, sometimes I think it's raining all over the world...

4 hours ago, RenatoMattos said:

The council could make the pavement wider but they won't because they need the money from the fines, pure greed! 

Yes damn them for providing public services.  Maybe the American model of no sidewalks and drive in shops and services would be a better model

Edited by malumbu
2 hours ago, RenatoMattos said:

The council could make the pavement wider but they won't because they need the money from the fines, pure greed! 

Source: trust me, bro

3 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

Removing what parking there is (taking into account length of stay and time to park restrictions) will be to undermine the shops and food outlets etc. scope to survive fiscally.

The empirical evidence suggests otherwise. But in any case no one is seriously proposing what you are opposing.

https://www.businessinsider.com/downtowns-cities-holiday-shopping-eliminating-street-parking-spots-boosts-retail-2023-10?amp

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0966692323002053?via%3Dihub

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
33 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

The empirical evidence suggests otherwise. But in any case no one is seriously proposing what you are opposing.

Are you saying that all those posters who are asking for pavements to be widened (implicity and sometime explicitly by removing parking), are not serious in their proposals? I had assumed that they weren't being satirical.

On 05/09/2024 at 10:49, Penguin68 said:

The people who park in the 'shopping' part of Lordship Lane do so, I'm imagining (and it would be true of my experiences) because they are visiting the establishments there either to buy from them or to serve them. Removing what parking there is (taking into account length of stay and time to park restrictions) will be to undermine the shops and food outlets etc. scope to survive fiscally. Which, I'm sure, a proper socialist/ anti-capitalist regime would applaud. Keeping parking may be keeping establishments open, something which I would applaud, but hey - horses for courses.

What waiting restrictions? Most of the parking on the East side of the lane is unregulated I believe. Much of it is being used for long term car storage, e.g.:

Reinstating the widening that was in place during Covid would improve businesses up that end of the lane imo. Narrow pavements which are difficult to navigate don't help trade.

Doing this alongside a 24 hour bus lane would also help improve bus journeys as they often have to slow to a stop to pass each other / the line of parked cars. 

I suspect the number of people who drive to Lordship Lane to shop are minimal. There aren't many parking spaces anyway. We're cramming hundreds of shoppers onto narrow pavements at weekends for the sake of probably less than a dozen spaces up the southern end of the lane, many of which are just being used for free on road storage. I would retain a few dedicated spaces for disabled drivers, maybe one or two for loading and repurpose the rest of the space to create a more pleasant shopping environment personally.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
19 hours ago, Nigello said:

LL isn’t wide enough for a bus lane and besides, 24/7 is a hammer/nut proposition that gladdens the heart of zealots and unnecessarily irks Mr and Mrs Joe Q Public (writes a car/motorbike/cycle-less pedestrian). 

I’m talking about the existing bus lane, which currently only operates at certain times.

The pavements were widened during Covid and it was a great improvement. Absolutely zero reason not to reinstate it, except that it inconveniences a handful people who park their car there at the expense of hundreds to people visiting the businesses along the lane (particularly those with mobility issues). 

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

The cars parked there rarely change, reckon it’s business owners more than customers using the space.

Agree it’s a huge shame the pavement widening wasn’t kept, it made for a much more pleasant experience as a pedestrian. 
 

Does anyone know why there are no parking restrictions outside these shops unlike the rest of Lordship Lane?

Edited by march46
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
On 06/09/2024 at 13:32, Earl Aelfheah said:

What waiting restrictions? Most of the parking on the East side of the lane is unregulated I believe. Much of it is being used for long term car storage, e.g.:

Reinstating the widening that was in place during Covid would improve businesses up that end of the lane imo. Narrow pavements which are difficult to navigate don't help trade.

Doing this alongside a 24 hour bus lane would also help improve bus journeys as they often have to slow to a stop to pass each other / the line of parked cars. 

I suspect the number of people who drive to Lordship Lane to shop are minimal. There aren't many parking spaces anyway. We're cramming hundreds of shoppers onto narrow pavements at weekends for the sake of probably less than a dozen spaces up the southern end of the lane, many of which are just being used for free on road storage. I would retain a few dedicated spaces for disabled drivers, maybe one or two for loading and repurpose the rest of the space to create a more pleasant shopping environment personally.

 

I completely agree with you, but it seems like the greedy Southwark Council is more focused on the number of tickets they can issue to fine people!

That doesn’t make any sense at all. If that were the case, the parking spaces would be heavily restricted - not given away for free and blocked up by dodgy trucks and vans for days, weeks or months at a time.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
On 05/09/2024 at 10:49, Penguin68 said:

The people who park in the 'shopping' part of Lordship Lane do so, I'm imagining (and it would be true of my experiences) because they are visiting the establishments there either to buy from them or to serve them. Removing what parking there is (taking into account length of stay and time to park restrictions) will be to undermine the shops and food outlets etc. scope to survive fiscally. Which, I'm sure, a proper socialist/ anti-capitalist regime would applaud. Keeping parking may be keeping establishments open, something which I would applaud, but hey - horses for courses.

Having parking spaces outside the shops on Lordship Lane seems to benefit Southwark Council more than anyone. They offer 30 minutes of free parking, but have three parking officers patrolling, ready to issue fines the moment the time is up. On top of that, the signs are unclear or not visible to must drivers. A good example is the parking space outside Kanella, where parking isn't allowed before 10:00 AM. The number of tickets issued to drivers in the morning is unbelievable!

7 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

That doesn’t make any sense at all. If that were the case, the parking spaces would be heavily restricted - not given away for free and blocked up by dodgy trucks and vans for days, weeks or months at a time.

There was a black van parked outside Lordship Flooring for months, and I never once saw it get a ticket! After months parked outside Lordship Flooring, the van was moved to the front door of FitFor gym and stayed there for over a month as well! 

1 hour ago, RenatoMattos said:

There was a black van parked outside Lordship Flooring for months, and I never once saw it get a ticket!

Not sure whether you want the council to enforce parking restrictions or not have them at all. 🤷

 

There was a survey of shopping habits  of Lordship Lane some years ago, produced by Southwark Council, and it focussed on where people came from to shop there. I will see if I can find it as I think car was quite high as a lot of visitors came from neighbouring (and those further afield) boroughs. 

 

On 06/09/2024 at 13:32, Earl Aelfheah said:

What waiting restrictions? Most of the parking on the East side of the lane is unregulated I believe. Much of it is being used for long term car storage, e.g.:

 

I prefer something a bit more modern myself but there's someone with some style.

Edited by raptortruckman69
spelling
On 06/09/2024 at 13:32, Earl Aelfheah said:

What waiting restrictions? Most of the parking on the East side of the lane is unregulated I believe. Much of it is being used for long term car storage, e.g.:

A quick search revealed that that monster truck is in fact a rental vehicle and not someone's over-sized family wheels...no doubt much to the disappointment of Dulwich Roads...

https://www.bookaclassic.co.uk/ford-f150-truck-london/

 

In response to Earl- Isn't the general advice from the resolutely anti car lobby that we should all use rental cars for any necessary car use? Presumably those rental cars have to be parked somewhere, whether in use or not? If more people ditch their own cars and start using rentals then there will also be more rental cars. Or are you against all car use, whatever the need?

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

What difference does it make if its a rental vehicle? Think you missed the point somewhere.

Well Dulwich Roads refers to the vehicle as "taking up residence" and "appearing in the same places many days in a row" which is clearly trying to project that someone owns this vehicle (they often use such language when they see a vehicle they disapprove of) which is designed to play into the "ludicrously large vehicles clogging up our roads" narrative.

 

And you used it as an example of long-term car storage by posting this followed by the Dulwich Roads post:

On 06/09/2024 at 13:32, Earl Aelfheah said:

What waiting restrictions? Most of the parking on the East side of the lane is unregulated I believe. Much of it is being used for long term car storage, e.g.:

 

So rather than me missing the point I think both you and Dulwich Roads (who often post without thinking or researching as well) have tried to make a point without knowing the full facts. They do this all the time - never let the truth get in the way of a good story is their modus operandi on pretty much everything they post and they never correct anything when the truth emerges, happy to leave their "loose" interpretation of fact on their feed no doubt happy in the knowledge that they have "spun" the story they want their followers to believe, thus reinforcing their own ideology.

There are a million reasons why that ludicrously large vehicle, that is utterly unsuitable for our roads and no doubt an absolute pig to drive, had been parked there for a couple of days - long-term car storage was probably not one of them.

But I am sure our good friend Raptortruckman69 was salivating with envy given that a Raptortruck is the modern-day equivalent! 😉

 

 

 

 

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 never said I thought it was targeted or deliberate. There also has never been a “stand off” or confrontation, we’ve spoken to them in a friendly manner about it. Our experience is they don’t seem to care. That’s the frustrating thing for us, if someone politely raises a concern at least take a second to reflect. Treat others how you would want to be treated.  I don’t want them to lose their job, far from it. But considering it could cost me a days work to fix any damage, I’m within my right to try prevent it.   
    • The SE22 Evri delivery family are lovely, and always say hello wherever we spot them in the area. We gave them a box of chocolates during Covid as they were working their socks off at Christmas
    • What was he doing on the stage at Glastonbury? Or on the stage at the other concert in Finsbury Park? Grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst pissed and stoned 20 somethings on the promise of free internet sung-- Oh Jeremy Corbyn---  What were his policies for Northern mining towns with no jobs or infrastructure? Free Internet and university places for youngsters. What were his other manifesto pledges? Why all the ambiguity over Brexit?  I didn't like Thatcher, Blair or May or Tony but I respected them as politicians because they stood by what they believed in. I respect all politicians across the board that stick to their principles. Corbyn didn't and its why he got  annihilated at the polls. A socialist, anti imperialist and anti capitalist that said he voted for an imperialist and pro capitalist cabal. He refused to say how he'd vote over and over again until the last knockings. He did so to appease the Islington elite and middle class students he was courting. The same people that were screaming that Brexit was racist. At the same time the EU were holding black and Asian immigrants in refugee camps overseas but not a word on that! Corbyn created and courted a student union protest movement that screamed at and shouted down anyone not on the left . They claimed Starmer and the centre right of labour were tories. He didn't get elected  because he, his movement and policies were unelectable, twice. He turned out not to have the convictions of his politics and died on his own sword.    Reform won't win an election. All the idiots that voted for them to keep out Labour actually enabled Labour. They'll be back voting tory next time.    Farage wouldn't be able to make his millions if he was in power. He's a very devious shyster but I very much doubt he'd actually want the responsibility that governance requires.
    • The purge of hard left members that were part of Corbyn's, Mcdonnel's and Lansmans momentum that purged the party of right wing and centrist members. That's politics. It's what Blair did to win, its what Starmer had to do to win. This country doesn't vote in extreme left or right governments. That's partly why Corbyn lost  We're pretty much a centrist bunch.  It doesn't make it false either. It's an opinion based on the voting patterns, demography and statistics. Can you explain then why former mining constituencies that despise the tories voted for them or abstained rather than vote for Corbyns Labour?  What is the truth then? But he never got elected!!! Why? He should have been binned off there and then. Why he was allowed to hang about is an outrage. I hold him party responsible for the shit show that we've had to endure since. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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