Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The pavements in lordship lane and the road where I live are in a very bad state. I have complained to council but heard nothing. I am partially sighted and now have a precious bundle in pram to push around. Has anybody else contacted Southwark?

Also......sorry for moans! But parking around goose green is a nightmare.......we would welcome parking permits as we can hardly ever park near our house!!! Are there any old threads about this or any ideas for introducing residents permits. Right moaning over!!!

Looking forward to Xmas and the trees by edit!

What road do you live in? I live in the same area and I don't want parking permits to be brought in. Southwark have tried twice to implement a RP scheme and have been defeated both times. Having a parking permit doesn't guarantee that you will have a place to park outside your house.


Pavements are a different matter. I agree that lots of them are in bad shape. Contact your local councillor and post on James Barber's thread.

The proposals for residents parking (that have been regularly defeated) have reduced the number of spaces allocated in the roads effected. Unless the number of permits is also very restricted your chances of parking close to your house will still be diminished (indeed, where there are multiple small zones, then if you can't park in 'your own' you may have to drive considerable distances to get to an unrestricted road). Where the zones are large, then your chances of parking reasonably close are better, but probably no better than having no zone at all. One of the roads close to ED station (that I know quite well) is only really parked-up at night, and not during the day when commuters using ED station might be expected to be using side streets to park. So the parking pressure may well be a function of the number of people with cars (including multiple car households) who actually live in your area. Residents parking will not help in this circumstance, unless permits are savagely restricted.
I am 100% with you on the pavement issue. In March this year Southwark Council spent (no doubt) a small fortune digging up the existing speed bumps on Henslowe Road to replace them with full width speed bumps. A total waste of time - the original bumps were perfectly fine and it's a one way road that's not a cut through so traffic flow is extremely low. If speeding was an issue with the old bumps the new ones certainly made no difference. The pavements which are in a terrible state were totally overlooked. In September this year, Southwark Council dug up all of the new speed bumps they'd laid in March and re put down identical speed bumps???? The pavements, yup, they're still in a terrible state. Excellent use of tax payers money - well done Southwark and well done Lib Dems for failing to address the really issues in ED as ever. Oh and thanks to you as well for the pointless double yellow lines at the end of the street. We never had a parking issue on Henslowe Road, we do now!!!

I don't want.. CPZ in SE22.


LL pavements are in a terrible condition...


James Barber did say (I seem to remember)sometime back in the year this was in hand with Southwark Council.


Well it must still be in hand because they are getting worse.


Have not seen the pretty pavement lights outside East Dulwich Station.

They probably cost a lot of money.

I'm sure they are very nice.



DulwichFox

I quite agree first mate . And I can never understand why Lordship Lane pavements always seem to take priority over ,for example ,turnings off Rye Lane ,like Highshore .


Or why Court Lane got fancy sinusodial speed humps .

No money for actually fixing the pavements when some local idiot must have decided to put fading coloured lights in a semi circle around ED station. Just cross from there and you almost fall over the pavements are so uneven.

But no, bright coloured lights that fade in and out, much better investment by the council and our hard earned cash.


Which bright spark did that?

speedbird Wrote:

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

> No money for actually fixing the pavements when

> some local idiot must have decided to put fading

> coloured lights in a semi circle around ED

> station. Just cross from there and you almost fall

> over the pavements are so uneven.

> But no, bright coloured lights that fade in and

> out, much better investment by the council and our

> hard earned cash.

>

> Which bright spark did that?


Whoever it was it was apparently done approximately 10 years ago.

Andrew1011 Wrote:

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

> speedbird Wrote:

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

> -----

> > No money for actually fixing the pavements when

> > some local idiot must have decided to put

> fading

> > coloured lights in a semi circle around ED

> > station. Just cross from there and you almost

> fall

> > over the pavements are so uneven.

> > But no, bright coloured lights that fade in and

> > out, much better investment by the council and

> our

> > hard earned cash.

> >

> > Which bright spark did that?

>

> Whoever it was it was apparently done

> approximately 10 years ago.


And a completely different "budget" no doubt.

Andrew1011 Wrote:

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

> speedbird Wrote:

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

> -----

> > No money for actually fixing the pavements when

> > some local idiot must have decided to put

> fading

> > coloured lights in a semi circle around ED

> > station. Just cross from there and you almost

> fall

> > over the pavements are so uneven.

> > But no, bright coloured lights that fade in and

> > out, much better investment by the council and

> our

> > hard earned cash.

> >

> > Which bright spark did that?

>

> Whoever it was it was apparently done

> approximately 10 years ago.



No, it was a recent bright spark! A couple of years ago max. Super tosser.....

This may be related to the sewers. I learned in another thread that East Dulwich has frequent small floods, possibly due to too many new developments, as compared to the amount expected > 100 years ago.


I imagine those incidents would put a strain on the sidewalks.


Henry

Totally agree. Except half the width of the pavements (at least on one side) are privately owned by dozens of different landlords. Refurbishing the publicly owned section would probably look ridiculous.


Oh and a CPZ is an absolute inevitability. Ridiculous that we're the only bit of zone 2 (North or South of the river) that doesn't have one. ED isn't and shouldn't be a special case.

I've received plans of the proposed pavement works to 133-159 Lordship Lane to remove the ponding and make an even surface. It is expensive complicated work as utilities are close to the surface, private shops forecourts and shop owners need to agree to the works. These works would be centrally funded.


I've also asked officers what it would cost to use some devolved highway renewal money to do redo other parts of Lordship Lane pavements that are in a pickle.

  • 2 weeks later...

James Barber Wrote:

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

> I've received plans of the proposed pavement works

> to 133-159 Lordship Lane to remove the ponding and

> make an even surface. It is expensive complicated

> work as utilities are close to the surface,

> private shops forecourts and shop owners need to

> agree to the works. These works would be centrally

> funded.



Any update on doing practical works to pavements instead of disco light config?

>

> I've also asked officers what it would cost to use

> some devolved highway renewal money to do redo

> other parts of Lordship Lane pavements that are in

> a pickle.

I much prefer living in a CPZ. Provided you have the cash to buy your permit (plus books of vouchers for friends/tradespeople) and are relatively organised. I park right outside my house every time.


Doubt the traders along LL would be quite so keen, though.

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

    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
    • Aria is my go to plumber. Fixed a toilet leak for me at short notice. Reasonably priced and very professional. 
    • Anyone has a storage or a display rack for Albums LPs drop me a message thanks
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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