The 124 Lordship Lane eyesore

[DaveR]

"Agree. No ones business but the owners. Keep noses out."

This isn't accurate. LAs have wide discretionary powers re property adversely affecting amenity, widely defined. It clearly includes visual impact ("eyesore"), and the fact that 'high street' retail or commercial premises are lying unused "prime retail space"). Gov guidance says:

"Public perception of this kind of enforcement action has proven extremely popular.

The issue of eyesores is clearly one that is close to people?s hearts and confronting

the problem head on using s215 powers could potentially show the LPA in a

positive light. Run-down and derelict buildings convey all sorts of negative

impressions. If an LPA combats them with comprehensive remedial action, people

will feel better about the area, whether they are residents, businesses or tourists.

There is an important economic issue in favour of comprehensive s215 action: if a

town is presentable, people will want to visit or live there, and businesses will want

to locate there."

Whether this is an appropriate case for action may be a matter of opinion, but an opinion that the empty shop should be tidied up and made fit for use is a perfectly valid one.

[Jeremy]

I broadly agree that people should do what they want with their own property. But letting it fall into complete disrepair shows lack of respect for the neighbours.

[DulwichFox]

It IS of concern to others (Well, neighbours either side)

When buildings are neglected it can lead to water ingress. walls / wall plates / joists can be affected to

neighbouring buildings causing serious damage in some occasions. Risk of fire.

Also there is a risk of insect infestation and mice, even rats.

Needs to sorted.

DulwichFox

[ponderwoman]

DaveR are you really trying to suggest that LL is being brought to its knees by one 'interesting' ex shop not having a compulsory makeover which, if it had, would then make people 'want to visit or live here' and 'locate their businesses here'?

I thought this building was a tiny representative of the diversity of the human condition which in itself deserves respect before needing to worry about the neighbours. I'd be happy to live next to it, but then I've never had a hankering for a 'managed' gated community. Some of you are really scary.

[DaveR]

"DaveR are you really trying to suggest that LL is being brought to its knees by one 'interesting' ex shop not having a compulsory makeover which, if it had, would then make people 'want to visit or live here' and 'locate their businesses here'?

I thought this building was a tiny representative of the diversity of the human condition which in itself deserves respect before needing to worry about the neighbours. I'd be happy to live next to it, but then I've never had a hankering for a 'managed' gated community. Some of you are really scary."

I suggest you have a lie down, then read my post again.

[*Bob*]

(edited on account of repetition)

[Seabag]

I'm rather fond of the duff looking places in ED and elsewhere

This one and the abandoned chip shop behind the police station are favourites

And what was the place that the Porsche crashed into once, now with a smile face on it

But, that butcher shop with the old car outside, (near o the cemetery) is NOT my favourite

[LondonMix]

Its easy to be fond of something if you aren't next to it. Like Dave R and others have said, derelict buildings pose genuine hazards. Also, we encouraged cllr B to remove some overly person information posted about someone on here, but this shop is not a simple case of the owner not wanting do so anything with it. Its much more complicated than that.

[Seabag]

It's not derilict though is it, scruffy yes. Is the lady no longer there ?

The flats above are in good order

That aside it's actually a beautiful old shop front. I hope whatever happens it doesn't get ripped out

I'm off to watch Lady in The Van this week, maybe this could provide the sequel

"Lady in The Shop"

[Penguin68]

But, that butcher shop with the old car outside, (near o the cemetery) is NOT my favourite

It's by far the best butcher locally - and the most wonderfully eccentric shop - internally in very good order - the owner collects classic cars, the ones outside are settling into gentle decay perhaps, but it's not everywhere you can find a car in NY taxi livery.

[LondonMix]

Its had some fire damage and for reasons already stated, its not appropriate to discuss the people who may or may not live there.

[Seabag]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Its had some fire damage and for reasons already

> stated, its not appropriate to discuss the people

> who may or may not live there.

But it's appropiate to discuss what to do with her property on a public forum ?

And please hell no, let's not get some fekkin street 'artist' involved. It's an old shop, it won't be there forever. It's an interesting juxtapose to all the speedy commerce that surrounds it

It was there when you moved in wasn't it LondonMix ?

[LondonMix]

I think its fairly common to ask about empty shops and I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't think its appropriate to discuss people's personal circumstances online,when they can be identified.

[Lynne]

I felt very sorry for the people trying to sell their house next door to the very scruffy one on Frogley Rd. Living in a community does imply some sort of tolerance of community mores. Or we cold all live in vans

[Seabag]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> I think its fairly common to ask about empty shops

> and I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't

> think its appropriate to discuss people's personal

> circumstances online,when they can be identified.

Empty shop with covered windows, so not really a shop in fact. I think she lives at the back, so the property is occupied.

There's a shop on the end of Ryedale, nothing going on in there either

What are we to do with that one?

[LondonMix]

I can't respond to your assumption about the owner of that building for reasons I've said before. James Barber, the council and a few locals do in fact know what the situation is and the council is in touch with the parties in question. I won't say anything more than that.

If something needs to be done because any building in abandoned, empty or derelict, you are supposed to report it to building control who legally can take action. I have no idea if this is appropriate or not for Ryedale but if you do, go ahead.

[Penguin68]

In general (restrictive covenants and e.g. Conservation Area issues and listing aside) it is a good thing that we cannot generally impose our personal aesthetic tastes onto third parties. One man's 'scruffy' is another's 'lived-in'.

At a certain stage there may be issues of danger (to health, to others structures etc.) - but where these aren't an issue then we should learn to live with other's choices.

[Otta]

I love stories like this.

Candy-stripe house redesign makes Kensington neighbours see red

http://gu.com/p/47gve?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

[DaveR]

"In general (restrictive covenants and e.g. Conservation Area issues and listing aside) it is a good thing that we cannot generally impose our personal aesthetic tastes onto third parties. One man's 'scruffy' is another's 'lived-in'.

At a certain stage there may be issues of danger (to health, to others structures etc.) - but where these aren't an issue then we should learn to live with other's choices."

There's obviously though a middle ground between "personal aesthetic tastes" and danger to health/property - not least in legal terms (where the word used is 'amenity'). Some posters on here have been unnecessarily vitriolic and/or absurd about perfectly reasonable opinions that it would be better if the shop was tidied up and/or in use. (FWIW I couldn't care less).

[LondonMix]

I'm not particularly bothered either. I only what what the situation is because I read James B's post before several of us told him to take it down. The post explained the full story. On reflection, James agreed it was too much to share in this format and deleted the post.

[Otta]

DaveR Wrote:

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

> There's obviously though a middle ground between

> "personal aesthetic tastes" and danger to

> health/property

I just don't get where the danger is. It's a run down shop front with flaky paint.

[NewWave]

Otta Wrote:

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

> DaveR Wrote:

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

> -----

> > There's obviously though a middle ground

> between

> > "personal aesthetic tastes" and danger to

> > health/property

>

>

> I just don't get where the danger is. It's a run

> down shop front with flaky paint.

obviously some stupid saddos obviously consider that a bit of flaky paint and and a run down shop front is a danger to their rose tinted vision of gentrification and and the health of their property values.

[Jah Lush]

NewWave Wrote:

> obviously some stupid saddos obviously consider

> that a bit of flaky paint and and a run down shop

> front is a danger to their rose tinted vision of

> gentrification and and the health of their

> property values.

This. ^^^^^

[DaveR]

"obviously some stupid saddos obviously consider that a bit of flaky paint and and a run down shop front is a danger to their rose tinted vision of gentrification and and the health of their property values"

The stupid people are the ones who don't bother to read the posts, but just shoot their mouths off and reveal their tired and pathetic prejudices. Nobody has suggested that the premises are dangerous, and only the aforementioned stupid people have mentioned gentrification and property values. If you asked any shop owner whether they would rather have all the shops on their street in use and in good condition, what do you think they would say? And I suspect you'd get the same answer from most other people working/living in the area. I couldn't give a toss about 124 Lordship Lane but the level of intolerance on this forum is just absurd.

[Azira]

DaveR Wrote:

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

I couldn't give a toss about 124

> Lordship Lane but the level of intolerance on this

> forum is just absurd.

*applauds*