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

    • We needed a bedroom ceiling to be replastered, complicated by the layer of Artex applied by the previous owners.  We applied a primer (Blue Grit) and arranged for John to do the rest. There was a minor problem with the ceiling in one area, which John handled with his usual skill. Great results as always.  John's a great character, and a superb plasterer - experienced, knowledgeable and conscientious. Highly recommended.
    • Back on topic (!),  just a reminder that the new incarnation of the ED Forum drinks will be in The Palmerston TOMORROW Wednesday 11 June from 7pm. Turn immediately left as you come in by the main  Lordship Lane entrance, and we will be in the area there. Hope that at least a few of you will be up for getting to know some of your fellow forum members in real life!
    • For the past 15 years, I’ve been subjected to persistent passive-aggressive bullying and harassment by my upstairs neighbours. Their behaviour has included tampering with my plants, opening bin bags and questioning me about their contents, and interfering with misdelivered post — some of which appeared to have been opened. There has also been consistent noise disruption, like loud door banging and deliberately dropping heavy objects. They often laugh or stare at me when I’m in the garden, creating a constant sense of intimidation. Much of their conduct is subtle and hard to prove, often falling into a grey area that could easily be dismissed as paranoia, which makes it even more distressing. In the early years, I sometimes responded, but I realised this only seemed to encourage them. Since then, I’ve tried to remain calm and avoid confrontation — but unfortunately, this seems to have escalated things. After the recent death of a close family member, they left a condolence note, which at first seemed kind — but it came with a request to cut back my laurel bush, which I maintain for privacy, as I often feel watched in my own garden. The timing and nature of the request felt inappropriate. Still, I arranged for a gardening service and slightly reduced the laurel, though likely not as much as they wanted. Shortly after, one neighbour commented on how lovely one of my potted plants looked — which struck me as unusual, since we’ve barely spoken in years. Just days later, they told me the same plant looked like it was dying and asked if they should water it. Soon after, it rapidly turned yellow, brittle, and died — in a way that looked clearly unnatural. From photos, it appears the plant was poisoned, likely with a chemical weed killer. Access to that area is restricted — it’s behind a locked front gate monitored by a Smart CCTV camera. No one else had access, and it would be very difficult for someone to climb over the wall unnoticed. Given the timing and condition of the plant, I strongly suspect it was deliberately poisoned. I brought this up in a chat with my next-door neighbours, and they revealed they’d lost three trees along the same fence line over the past few months. One of them had previously been asked for access to cut back those very trees. One of the affected trees was a mature silver birch, whose sudden death should leave chemical evidence if tested. I’ve reported the incident to the Environment Agency and requested soil testing to check for toxins. The police have also been notified. I’ve installed another CCTV camera for additional monitoring. I’m not looking for confrontation — I just want to live peacefully and without further interference. But their behaviour continues to feel calculated and harassing. Has anyone experienced anything similar? What steps would you recommend next? I feel at a loss as to how to protect my space and sanity.
    • The Post Offcie certify copy documents. Check with whoever needs it if they would be appropriate 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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