"A" Boards blocking the pavements

[cella]

You appear to be prioritising the shops over people. We clearly need businesses to thrive but when it comes to being able to negotiate their way through pedestrians need proper access. Not sure what you are suggesting above to assist with this though you acknowledge it's difficult for people - you want customers to be able to get to your business surely!

[Penguin68]

Once again there is a confusion between where 'pedestrians' can legitimately expect free and untrammelled access - the public pavement - and where shops may legitimately accept their curtilage runs to - where they may quite legitimately and legally place anything they want (within reason). It is their choice whether they rate advertising benefits over access - and indeed if they are not catering to the push-chair mummy brigade then not offering free access though their space to people who aren't likely to be their customers in order to advertise to those who might be seems a legitimate commercial choice. If you believe that the public pavements (outside the shops' curtillages) are too narrow, try petitioning Southwark to have them made wider.

[cella]

Think that's where I personally started! The pavements are too narrow for the increased useage. It's down to Southwark to decide how much pavement is "owned" by businesses but either way they need to look at all the extraneous blockages that are there, including the things we've both mentioned, and do something about it. Otherwise customers won't be battling their way, particularly during busy times, to any of the shops etc - I know I only do evening stuff! Pedestrians first!

[nxjen]

How is it down to Southwark to decide how much of the pavement is owned by the shops? Btw there is no need for quote marks around the word owned: it is precisely that - legally owned.

[Penguin68]

It would be a bad state of affairs if Southwark could start exercising compulsory purchase powers to take over people's front gardens etc. (this is what it amounts to) to extend the pavement area. There are many side streets in ED where the pavement is too narrow for two double buggies to pass each other, are you happy if the pavements are widened by taking your frontage in these circumstances?

[cella]

Sounds like your priority is the shops whereas mine is pedestrians! I'm more focussed, as mentioned, on getting rid of extraneous stuff - unnecessary street furniture, cars parked on pavements, cyclists, skateboarders, speedier roadworks etc. You seem to be on the anti yummy mummies/large buggies/Southwark side of things whereas I would just like to see more considerate behaviour from all users.

[monica]

Cella nobody is anti mummy or buggies, I am trying to explain the situation re our private land, are you going to take out a compulsory purchase order for our 1/2 metre of shop frontage? That is what you will need to do, to try and stop the local shops from using their privately own land.

We are going round in circles, next time you are having a coffee outside the coffee shop on lordship lane, think clearly re what you have said.

Good luck with your plans with the removal of everything from the pedestrian pathway. Not sure the local mums and dads will be happy, when little tommy or Alice, cannot cycle on the path anymore, while mummy or daddy are cycling on the road.

[cella]

Think you appear a little blinkered and proprioritial about your own interests. My thoughts didn't just extend to your views on here. You need customers to be able to get to your business and others in LL but, over time, the increase, changing profile and habits of locals have evolved massively. Southwark need to, and to a degree are, look at how life can be made easier for pedestrians as well as road users. And businesses need top,ay their part.

[Penguin68]

'Businesses need to play their part' - what, by giving up to the public (you, in fact) what is rightfully theirs - part of their own, legal, property? Will you 'play your part' to ease pedestrian congestion on your street by giving up your front garden so that people can walk through it? And if not, why not?

[nxjen]

It's going to be an awful lot of half metres or more that will need to be compulsorily purchased, the lawyers will get very rich and the cost will all come out of our council tax. While everything should be done to aid the progress of wheelchair users, there are upsides to a narrow pavement:

1. When people have to slow down to let each other pass, they usually smile at each other which enhances East Dulwich's reputation as a friendly place.

2. It discourages many cyclists. If there were less obstructions, there would be more cyclists and scooters on the pavement, travelling at greater speed, providing a more hostil environment for pedestrians.

[TE44]

As someone said earlier, wouldn't it be easier to

speak to businesses concerned. Has anyone tried this,

If anyone sees anyone struggling to pass (with wheelchair, etc) maybe it will be a good idea

To go into premises for someone who can't. I can't see why there can't be a solution attempted.

[Sue]

Surely there is much more obstruction caused by people stopping to chat in ridiculous places (like right outside a shop entrance or on narrow parts of the pavement) or people with buggies walking side by side than by a few A boards placed on shops' own land?

[rendelharris]

I don't get this at all; if the shops own the area outside their doors, they could presumably, if they wished, completely rail it off, fill it with displays or tables, or whatever. Perhaps they should be being commended for, for the most part, keeping the spaces generally clear rather than castigated for having a perfectly legal advertisement on their own property? Penguin's point nails it - how many of us would be happy to give up our front garden, which we'd paid for and owned, without recompense, to widen the pavement?

[cella]

Not sure anyone is suggesting businesses give up their legally owned land or getting into CPOs are they? My personal view is that the changes and increases to the demographic round here mean that the infrastructure isn't fit for purpose any longer. We all want businesses to thrive and there's lots of engagement with traffic, CPZs, cycling facilities - all good - but the pedestrian seems to be the poor relative. There are lots of things, inc all previous suggestions on here, that Southwark could consider to improve access. The Southwark link already provided above outlines ways that Southwark could enforce their own rules and that would be a start.

[rendelharris]

cella Wrote:

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

> Not sure anyone is suggesting businesses give up

> their legally owned land or getting into CPOs are

> they?

Well, without them the shopowners are legally entitled to put their advertising boards on their own land, so how else are Southwark going to get them to take them down?

[nxjen]

The Southwark link describes advertising boards and displays of goods that are unauthorised. If set up on the shop's own land, they are not unauthorised.

[EPB]

SMBS? Farmers? Organic Village? Dulwich D.I.Y? Johnnies? Etc etc etc ....

[cella]

nxjen Wrote:

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

> The Southwark link describes advertising boards

> and displays of goods that are unauthorised. If

> set up on the shop's own land, they are not

> unauthorised.

Sigh - My concern has never been the legality of the boards - that's for Southwark to enforce - it's about being able to move freely as a pedestrian on pavements. I'm beginning to think the business owners represented here genuinely don't care about their customer access as long as their space and boards are kept!

[JoeLeg]

I?m beginning to think you?re deliberately trolling...

[nxjen]

JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> I?m beginning to think you?re deliberately

> trolling...

Yes I've been thinking that. I'll be kind and assume it is a very confused individual

[cella]

Actually I'm mildly surprised at you JoeLeg as I am always interested to read your posts - you always come across as reasonable - you're taking up a position on this one for some reason. Not surprised at you obviously nxjen - you are usually meanspirited on here. It won't stop me commenting on the Forum but it's always dispiriting when it's made personal rather than debating the actual issues. I know that others have commented in the past on what appears to be a clique on the Forum who seem to resent it when infrequent posters get involved.

[JoeLeg]

But I don?t understand what about this you don?t get?

The land outside the shops belongs to them; we have no more say in what they put there than they do to tell us what we do in our front gardens. If they encroach beyond that then of course the council can do something about it, but for the rest of it they pay their business rates and are allowed to proceed as they please.

These are independent businesses trying to make a living in an increasingly challenging area - just look at the number of places getting priced out by rent increases. Surely it?s in our interests locally to allow them as much opportunity as possible? Certainly the big chains won?t give a rodents backside what we think about how they proceed in any manner, so I?d rather allow small places the leeway to do what they are in fact legally entitled to do.

I?d gently suggest that your energies might be better directed on getting Southwark to be a more responsible council, but I also recognise that getting Southwark to be better is a pipe dream.

[Siduhe]

I was interested enough to take a walk down LL around 11am on Saturday - there are lots of A-boards, largely on the shop forecourts, or half on forecourt/half on pavement, which don't present any real issues as far as I can see.

I was surprised, however at the number of shops that do have A-boards fully on the pavement. Some, like the Tart and Meat Liquor ones are fairly easy to navigate around because the pavement is wide and there weren't that many people around. Others, like the Hisar one and the Tippler one, were harder because the pavement is narrow and it basically meant two people can't walk past each other in other directions, or for people with prams or mobility issues. There were also two big boards outside Johnnie's Cafe but to be fair, the manager was taking one of them in as I walked past as it was impossible for people to get past with both of them out there.

I can only attach three files so I'll do these in separate posts but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect A-boards which are fully on the pavement to allow for full pedestrian flow. I completely agree what a shop does on its own forecourt is a matter for them.

[Siduhe]

The other two "fully on the pavement" boards:

[flocker spotter]

Won't anything think of the retailers?