The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore

[JohnL]

Talking of dereliction

Someone had a ladder up the burnt out shop front that used to be

Greggs and the shop next door in Rye Lane today.

It's only been 4 years since the riots and someones having a look :).

[robbin]

If Louisa and DF had their way, every shop front down Lordship Lane would look like that.

I agree though, just one shop front like that doesn't bother me. Whoever lives there has to put up with the stench of dead animal from the one side and dry cleaning chemicals from the other, so I'd be inclined to cut them some slack!

But then again, who actually knows why the building is like that? - it could be the old lady, or some grasping relative, or something completely different.

[Jennys]

Ms Blueberry Wrote:

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

> I've privately been made aware of the situation

> and it's not as innocent as a nice little old lady

> exercising her 'live and let live' rights.

>

> It's about another person trying to making as much

> money as possible at the expense of the community,

> your community.

>

> However, there's nothing to be done here. So

> enjoy 124 in its current state while it lasts.

Perhaps you could tell us more, Ms Blueberry?

[DulwichFox]

robbin Wrote:

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

> If Louisa and DF had their way, every shop front

> down Lordship Lane would look like that.

Why did you find it necessary to include your little snide comment..?

It was totally unnecessary and uncalled for.

I respect the area I have lived in for the majority of my life..

Then you go on to add that the state of the place doesn't bother you..

DulwichFox

[Jeremy]

Ms Blueberry's original post was rather over-the-top, but nevertheless I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to prevent their properties falling into complete decay.

"not derelict"? Well it bloody looks it, and has done for at least 15 years. If I lived nearby it would bother me. And if I was the owner/tenant/landlord/greedyrelative/etc, I would be embarrassed.

If it really is a penniless little old lady living there, then why not ask for some volunteers to tidy it up?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Agree with Jeremy.

Also, I do love the way that people create a narrative to fit their position. One minute it's a poor defenseless old lady fighting against a tide of vicious gentrifiers, the next it's undisclosed dark forces of greed and corruption. Does anyone actually know the true situation?

[DulwichFox]

Judging by the ferocity of the fire, I find it difficult to understand anyone actually living there..

DulwichFox

[Jeremy]

TBH it didn't really look much different before the fire.

[Sue]

NewWave Wrote:

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

" oh look! a mug with Peckham on it! a tea cosy covered

> in Owls! How lovely" ugh!

:))

[DulwichFox]

Foxy's Mug From Lush

http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab167/mickdavies83/264492c8-5a6a-4e49-bfb1-f4761875ba97_zpstm5wx8wq.jpg

DulwichFox

[Earl Aelfheah]

DulwichFox - that's from one of them blowin' boutiques no? Don't tell me you're turning to the darkside.

[DulwichFox]

Don't think I have used the term blow-in. Might of slipped the term in somewhere incidently.

Had never heard the term until seeing it on here.

So don't know if it's a blow-in but Lush Designs sells things that are nice and useful...

... and not taking over something that was already there. Its designs are unique.

Where else on L.L. could I buy a Foxy mug and Tea Towels. ?

Foxy

[Help-Ma-Boab]

Lush Designs.....Coooooooooool, and that mug is...Lush.

Street cred, right there!

[LondonMix]

It's wrong to think the law cannot compel private owners to deal with derelict or dangerous buildings.

http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/reporting-empty-or-derelict-properties

[James Barber]

-

[Broadbean]

I don't feel you should be telling everyone that a building is empty James Barber isnt that just a bit irresponsible of you when it was someone's home .

[edhistory]

.

[monkeylite]

This is clearly none of the OP, and other people's business, so why would you post what is supposed to be a confidential info on a public forum, Mr Cllr?

[Ms Blueberry]

It would be wrong to assume anyone is penniless in this situation.

It may also be wrong to assume the owner is aware of the state of the shop. I am giving the owner the benefit of the doubt and will assume that if she saw the place now, she would be mortified.

Greed of others is behind the decay, and decay spreads easily. We are all responsible for the community we live in. Good community fights the rot.

[Ms Blueberry]

Does anyone remember what the business was before it was closed? It would be a nice and positive tribute to know how the owner contributed to East Dulwich, what her business offered, how long was she here, etc.

[Jah Lush]

The shop front has been like that for as long as I care to remember.

[robbin]

I don't know what James Barber posted (as it appears to have been removed), but assuming it was the name of the registered owner of the land then I think you should lay off him, because that would not be confidential information - it is in the public domain, available to all on any search at the Land Registry. I could find out online in 30 seconds who the registered proprietor is, provided the land is registered.

[BrandNewGuy]

It wasn't - it was personal details about the owner.

[robbin]

It costs 3 quid to get an office copy entry - if you are really nosey.

[Otta]

James didn't post anything particularly personal and certainly not offensive. People just quick to jump on anything.