rch

Yes, that’s council property at the edge of a housing estate. I tried to sort out the inside garden as well, but that got vandalised. One year I counted approx 2000 apples available, but the orchard hasn’t been maintained properly, so it’s probably diminished now. It’s really sad raising public money to make things better for a community and then just watch it get trashed… so I’ve given up trying to improve the area now.

Yes, sunbob, it’s been an Urban Orchard for years… you can read the background on the notice board there. It was basically designed to stop the antisocial behaviour in that space while giving everyone free apples. Over the years there’s been a neighbourhood gang that goes out and picks all the apples overnight, but I think it’s been slightly better recently, fingers crossed.

This was one of my tree projects when I was a councillor. We did an experiment with two Yoshino trees at the corner of Melbourne and Lytcott (in front of the Urban Orchard), then a Yoshino avenue along Winterbrook (and half of Stradella) in Herne Hill, then Milo Road off Lordship Lane. I meant to do more along Melbourne, but there were complex residential issues.

Thanks, Northern Star… the more people that email Highways, the more say that the residents will get, as the council will have to acknowledge the technical issues. first mate, in the online version that I have, you can indicate how many days a week and how many hours a day you want. I noticed that the survey questions were flicking around the screen, so you may have to scroll back and forth/up and down a few times to read them all properly. fyi, I haven’t owned or driven a car since the mid 90s (long story), so this won’t affect me personally. In fact several residents at my end of Melbourne (close to Lordship) don’t have cars… most of the cars parked around here are the teachers at both nearby schools and some doctors from Tessa Jowell, whereupon at school holidays and weekends the road is fairly empty down here. Plus, a significant number of Lordship shopkeepers and workers drive in from out of town, so if they can’t park nearby then we may begin to lose even more shops on Lordship… William Rose the Butcher has a sign in their window asking residents to help them fight for staff parking spaces. I attended the drop in session on Saturday because I have a lot of solutions to some of these issues… some of which I tried to implement when I was a councillor… plus there are several technical errors on the diagram that need addressing. So, from my perspective, I’m neutral… but my observation is that whoever designed this proposal has done it really badly. The council officers I spoke to at the drop in session weren’t very knowledgeable. I’ll post more specifics if I can find time to type properly…

Interesting, first mate. It would be useful to put down a marker by emailing Highways directly and copy James McAsh in… as I’ve now been told by several council officers that the problem is just with me and they’ve had a significant number of replies already.

Hi first mate, I also had three failed attempts to submit the survey, so I spent approx three hours yesterday tracking down the correct council dept and cc’d James McAsh. i eventually got through to Highways who suggested that I should use this direct link:- https://engage.southwark.gov.uk/en-GB/projects/melbourne-grove-south-parking-survey It took me to the same page, but my response actually went through the fourth time. I’m not sure if the direct link made the difference or if they quietly reset the server… but it’s interesting that you still can’t get through today. The other option they suggested was to post the paper copy or drop it in to the Session on Thursday… but I went to the session on Saturday and I didn’t want to fill out the paper version because there are too many technical errors on the diagram of my end of Melbourne, which would take too long to write out… so I was more comfortable typing. But even when I tried the final on-line version, the questions kept jumping around on the screen, which made it difficult to fill in my answers. They seemed to think that the problem was just me, but I told them that I’d seen your post on the EDF and suspected that there were more people who had given up. You can contact Highways directly by email at [email protected]

Thanks, first mate. I’m not completely back yet, as I’m still dealing with Thames Water damage repairs. But I jumped in because I feel really strongly about properly reinstating the Lordship pavement so that we don’t have to keep jumping through the puddles…

The shop that occupied the space before Joe and the Juice didn’t have the outside wall… the wall creating the outdoor seating area was built after the plane tree was planted. The quantity of delivery drivers hanging around Joe and the Juice also block off the road and the pavement. If all the shops walled off their forecourts, then it would severely change the atmosphere of Lordship Lane. Most of the shops engage with the public, I’m still regularly in touch with the chairman of the shop association. We liaised with every shop in the locations where we planted the trees… in some cases we even moved the proposed tree location if the shop owner didn’t want it in front of their shop. Fortunately most shops understood the how a tree lined boulevard would change the atmosphere on Lordship Lane to the point where it would have increased the number of shoppers. Now we have to get the defective pavement repaired… I agree with build outs in general, but these would take out too many parking spaces on Lordship Lane. Several councillors campaigned to have the shop forecourts paved over in order to visually make the pavement appear wider… one councillor actually got the funds allocated, but it never transpired.

From memory (don’t have time to look it up) Lordship Lane was a boundary road that separated two large manors/farms in Victorian/Edwardian times (I think Friern Manor was one of them). It was emphasised with plane trees forming a visual line. Some of the trees died over time and some were destroyed during the WWII bombing. One of the old ones is at the crossing near Meghans and a second one is outside Robert Carder Shoes. The trees were intended to be pruned horizontally to form an avenue of kissing canopies (which we managed to achieve in one section, but it’s been destroyed now)… this would create shade for shoppers and outdoor restaurant tables, but also stop the trees from blocking out light from the flats above the shops, plus it would control the roots from expanding. Chestnut trees were also very popular boundary trees, but they’re even bigger…

I definitely wouldn’t have planted these plane trees on a residential road. But Lordship Lane is a main road, with the shops set back. As I said before, they were meant to replace the original plane trees which lined the road (two of which still exist). All of this work was done under the control of the best arboricultural officer (Oliver Stutter) that Southwark has ever had, who I completely trusted. It’s still possible to repair the Lordship pavements properly… although the tarmac bodges are frustrating, hence the request for KBI Flexipave.

We took all this into account when we planted the trees… the spacing of the trees and the maintenance, which wasn’t adhered to. You’ve probably noticed that all the Lordship trees were severely pollarded last autumn, which will help to control the roots… but this wouldn’t have been necessary if they had maintained them in the way we intended (long story). The problems with the Lordship pavement is down to other factors… *** Thanks for the support, Rockets. Couple of points… It’s relatively economical to improve local highway issues if it’s done properly. The problem with the Lordship pavement is that when the paving slabs were upgraded to the current ones, there was no backfill or infill put under the new slabs. The old slabs were just lifted and the new ones laid, which means that there are a multitude of locations with support issues. It was basically a way of saving money, which we’ll have to deal with now as the situation deteriorates. Also, as some of you are aware… the Dulwich Village residents campaigned when I was a councillor over a decade ago to block off Court Lane and Calton and create a square. Their argument was that it would address speeding issues which was changed during Covid to car pollution. I spent several months working with highways officers on the proposal, which they advised wouldn’t be constructive as it would displace car use to the surrounding local roads. There are still ways that the current layout could be changed… Calton could remain closed with a square and Court Lane could be reopened as a through road. But now that the current design is being made permanent, there will have to be other ways of dealing with the issues. One way of funding various improvements is to use the income generated by the LTN traffic fines, which can only be used to fund highway issues. I’ve actually wondered if these funds can be used to reinstate the Lordship Lane pavement…

Hi guys…. thanks for engaging. Firstly, Moovart. Don’t even get me started on the burst water mains. When we researched the replanting of the avenue of plane trees which had originally lined the road decades ago, we contacted Thames Water to get information about the location of their water mains for exactly the reason you cite. They informed us that their water mains were located in the road, but their diagrams transpired to be completely inaccurate. The root problems are exacerbated by two issues… firstly, the trees were meant to be maintained in a specific manner (long story), but the council dropped this policy. Secondly, we experimented with a process called KBI Flexipave which allows water to percolate and not cause puddles in the way tarmac does, plus it helps the roots to evolve more naturally. We tried this process around the ancient plane on the corner of Melbourne and Lordship and it works really well. But the council dropped this solution as well. Fyi, Malumbu, I sold my car in 1997 and haven’t driven since then… I’m a dedicated pedestrian and a bus girl. I’m not opposed to cycling (although I don’t cycle myself for health reasons), but it has to be accommodated in a logical manner. As far as our area is concerned, if the council genuinely wants to decrease car usage, they need to increase local public transportation significantly, as our PTAL rating sucks. One of the projects that I worked on with the highways transport officers was to create a local bus service that connected Dulwich Village and East Dulwich, including multiple schools. This was actually recommended by our officers in a cost effective manner, but was dropped when I moved on from being a councillor. Thirdly… perfect reply, Teddyboy! From my personal experience, both the council and Thames Water make decisions to cut costs, which then significantly increase costs in the future,..

Thanks for posting your photos, Renato. Ironically I took a photo of one of the same locations that you’ve attached! Fyi, I’ve repeatedly reported the Lordship Lane pavement problems in the past, but I’ve been distracted with repairing Thames Water damage to my house for the past couple of years. Fix My Street will address specific issues, but the problem with Lordship Lane is that when the paving was upgraded over a decade ago it wasn’t done properly (long story)… so it all needs to be lifted and properly backfilled and reinstated from Melbourne Grove down to Goose Green. I've submitted several Highway funding bids over the years to address this issue in various sections of Lordship, but the ward councillors wouldn’t approve them. Unfortunately I was a ward councillor for Dulwich Village for 8 years, so I couldn’t fix the East Dulwich/Goose Green ward issues… I’ve said repeatedly that if the council wants to reduce car usage then they need to upgrade the local pavements for pedestrians… but creating cycle lanes seems to be a priority.

I live at the Lordship Lane southern end of Melbourne Grove where there are several residents who don’t own cars (including me)… but we all opposed the CPZ partly because of the shops but also because there are a significant number of teachers who park here due to the Harris school on Lordship and also the Charter school at the northern end of Melbourne, which does have a CPZ. I’m regularly saying hello to the Charter teacher who parks outside my house, stressing to her that I don’t mind her parking there at all. So I suspect that as the cabinet member who is overseeing this is a teacher, he may be sympathetically delaying the Goose Green CPZ imposition. Ironically, during the school holidays, our end of Melbourne is completely empty.

Just heard that the former Pedder Estate Agent on Lordship Lane is going to become a furniture/homeware shop.