Lower Lordship Lane: footpath boozers forcing passersby into traffic

[Lee Scoresby]

Walking last Friday early evening anywhere near where the bottom end of Lordship Lane meets the Goose Green roundabout, one would have been directly confronted - as I was - with this scene:

Outside the East Dulwich Tavern an impenetrable phalanx of pushing yobs, shouty louts and selfish yahoos pressed outward from the open doors of this establishment, past the curtilage (the land in front of and owned by the business), all across the public right of way, to the kerbside. This was the situation all the way along, end to end. I watched as passersby, old people, children, parents with buggies, people just going about their business, were forced by these booze-sucking bellowing scumbags onto the road - where, at that hour, traffic rushed endlessly off the roundabout.

We have, I realised, somehow become so used to this revolting spectacles as to believe it to be inevitable. It is not. This is why I'm dropping this post. Enough really is enough. This roiling boozy blockade represents a total failure by all the responsible authorities - the licencing authority, for example - but most of all (yet once more, again, as ever), by Southwark Council. Two very different comparisons to give you some perspective:

1. The Kings Head pub on the corner of Albermarle and Stafford Streets, London SW1. Here too, patrons like to drink and chat outside on a warm evening - why should they not. But here, on the latter side a line marks the curtilage on the pavement. Drinkers remain, respectfully, in good order, within the line, watched, quietly and carefully, by a security guard. I wager good money this arrangement is a condition of this pub's licence.

2. The Blue Brick is a cafe in the quiet backstreets of East Dulwich, on the corners of Fellbrigg and Shawbury Roads. Until a few months ago, about half its covers were tables out on the pavement. They bothered nobody. Oh! But they extended all of several centimetres too far into the footpath, so into fearless action swang Southwark Council officers - and now these tables are gone. Result, eh?

"Well you see," some wiseacre said to me, "There needs to be a complaint." Not actually true, but for sure this is all too often how local authorities get pushed to do what they should be doing. Hard to think why a complaint trumps, say (and god forbid!) a child being injured on the road. In which circumstance, of course!, Southwark would swing into noisy, virtue-signalling, belated action. But in any case let this post be considered a big, very definite COMPLAINT about this prolonged abuse of our public right of way. I invite readers who agree with me to add their voices. Oh, and all those wee local ward councillors might get off their chufties, defy their party managers, and actually help sort this scandal out.

Thanks for reading,

Lee Scoresby

[Jenijenjen]

I would disagree that the tables outside the Blue Brick bothered nobody. They were not within the cafe's curtilage (one table was even placed on the other side of the road!) but on a narrow public footpath where pedestrians have a "public right of way". Added to that, some customers rearranged the tables so the footpath was blocked completely. 

[Sally Eva]

5 hours ago, Lee Scoresby said:

Walking last Friday early evening anywhere near where the bottom end of Lordship Lane meets the Goose Green roundabout, one would have been directly confronted - as I was - with this scene:

Outside the East Dulwich Tavern an impenetrable phalanx of pushing yobs, shouty louts and selfish yahoos pressed outward from the open doors of this establishment, past the curtilage (the land in front of and owned by the business), all across the public right of way, to the kerbside. This was the situation all the way along, end to end. I watched as passersby, old people, children, parents with buggies, people just going about their business, were forced by these booze-sucking bellowing scumbags onto the road - where, at that hour, traffic rushed endlessly off the roundabout.

We have, I realised, somehow become so used to this revolting spectacles as to believe it to be inevitable. It is not. This is why I'm dropping this post. Enough really is enough. This roiling boozy blockade represents a total failure by all the responsible authorities - the licencing authority, for example - but most of all (yet once more, again, as ever), by Southwark Council. Two very different comparisons to give you some perspective:

1. The Kings Head pub on the corner of Albermarle and Stafford Streets, London SW1. Here too, patrons like to drink and chat outside on a warm evening - why should they not. But here, on the latter side a line marks the curtilage on the pavement. Drinkers remain, respectfully, in good order, within the line, watched, quietly and carefully, by a security guard. I wager good money this arrangement is a condition of this pub's licence.

2. The Blue Brick is a cafe in the quiet backstreets of East Dulwich, on the corners of Fellbrigg and Shawbury Roads. Until a few months ago, about half its covers were tables out on the pavement. They bothered nobody. Oh! But they extended all of several centimetres too far into the footpath, so into fearless action swang Southwark Council officers - and now these tables are gone. Result, eh?

"Well you see," some wiseacre said to me, "There needs to be a complaint." Not actually true, but for sure this is all too often how local authorities get pushed to do what they should be doing. Hard to think why a complaint trumps, say (and god forbid!) a child being injured on the road. In which circumstance, of course!, Southwark would swing into noisy, virtue-signalling, belated action. But in any case let this post be considered a big, very definite COMPLAINT about this prolonged abuse of our public right of way. I invite readers who agree with me to add their voices. Oh, and all those wee local ward councillors might get off their chufties, defy their party managers, and actually help sort this scandal out.

Thanks for reading,

Lee Scoresby

You say that this post should be considered as a complaint.

I am afraid that it won't be.

You need to write directly to the council and sign the communication with your own name.

[first mate]

1 hour ago, Jenijenjen said:

I would disagree that the tables outside the Blue Brick bothered nobody. They were not within the cafe's curtilage (one table was even placed on the other side of the road!) but on a narrow public footpath where pedestrians have a "public right of way". Added to that, some customers rearranged the tables so the footpath was blocked completely. 

Yes, in summer the footpath has been blocked by tables at the Blue Brick.

The EDT will have to start managing its clientele better.

[CPR Dave]

Give over Lee. 

Seeing young people enjoying the local amenities is one of the things that makes life great around here. We're in the middle of London, not some leafy village in the arse end of nowhere.

If it's too much for you, maybe move to SW1 or a sheltered housing estate in a boring shire county.

[Sue]

34 minutes ago, CPR Dave said:

Give over Lee. 

Seeing young people enjoying the local amenities is one of the things that makes life great around here. We're in the middle of London, not some leafy village in the arse end of nowhere.

If it's too much for you, maybe move to SW1 or a sheltered housing estate in a boring shire county.

What an extraordinarily selfish post.

Even in "the middle of London", believe it or not, there are people with buggies, in wheelchairs, with mobility aids, with visual disabilities, with shopping trolleys, with young children holding their hands,  or who otherwise find it hard to negotiate blocked pavements.

"Young people" (I'm sure this isn't just young people) can "enjoy the local amenities" within the boundaries of the "amenities", and without making life difficult for others.

Many of those others have probably lived around here long before these "young people" moved in.

This is a residential area with shops. It isn't a pedestrianised area in the West End.

[ArchieCarlos]

Surely this post is satire or ragebait?

[Sue]

33 minutes ago, ArchieCarlos said:

Surely this post is satire or ragebait?

Well if you are referring to CPRDave's post, I bit.

But the point remains the same.

Edited Wednesday at 09:54 by Sue

[Jenijenjen]

23 minutes ago, ArchieCarlos said:

Surely this post is satire or ragebait?

Perhaps, but in keeping with style and content of Lee's previous posts over the years

Edit: prepositions changed. Makes a change from pronouns eh?

Edited Wednesday at 09:45 by Jenijenjen

[claresy]

What a vitriolic post!

[Lee Scoresby]

Thank you to those who have replied. Tho, with the exception of Sue's post, I find these comments bizarre and depressing - what dark confused times we live in.

The tables outside the Blue Brick were in fact mostly within the cafe's curtilage. But there were complaints, and Dan the owner did not help himself in his reluctance to address the matter. What I find extraordinary here is the lack of any moral proportion: the nuisance there was relatively slight; and people were not being forced every passing minute into busy oncoming traffic.

As to complaints. How is this situation not self-evident, for some hours, several evenings of every week. Would a diligent local authority need to receive a complaint? Must we prod Southwark to do anything, ever?

And in fact, am I really alone in doubting Southwark Council's willingness to consider complaints and other feedback? Local governance is democratically deficient at every level in this country: a) Despite heroic 'social work' by some ward councillors, these foot soldiers are heavily managed by party apparats. b) Councils are governed by committees which exclude most councillors. c) Is it fanciful to imagine that senior local-authority officers tend to have, shall we say, their own agendas?

Sally Eva, how is 'Lee Scoresby' not my name..?

'First mate' has the hopeful idea that "The EDT will have to start managing its clientele better." The EDT is a money-making operation. (Companies House lists one officer, Steven Michael Kenee.) The EDT would be happy to have its customers all up the hill, round the roundabout and in your front garden if they could get away with it. This is why companies have to operate under rules, and these rules need to be enforced.

Where to begin with these other toxic little reflexes, all ignoring the actual problem to which I refer - which is real, dangerous and preventable - and substituting something else. CPR Dave: The assumption that I am elderly. (And gee, CPR, what other phobias do you suffer from? People of colour? Gay or trans people? Immigrants? Red hair?) You affect to believe that my real wish is to deny "young people" the chance to "enjoy the local amenities." Sue answers you eloquently. How, ArchieCarlos is this "satire or ragebait."? I do surely find the situation angering. And how 'claresy' is my post and not the endangering of pedestrians the problem?

In fact, further to Sue, one need not have either a disability or be carrying, pushing or caring for someone or something to have the legal and moral right to move freely on a public footpath.

Yes, Jenijenjen [your 'real name', obvs], I have posted over a number of years. Say what you intend clearly about these previous posts, so that other readers can judge, rather than alluding to them obscurely as if they somehow invalidate the matter I raise here. Good grief.

LS

 

 

 

 

[CPR Dave]

This would be no problem for me.

Quote

The EDT would be happy to have its customers all up the hill, round the roundabout

 

[Angelina]

I like seeing everyone out enjoying themselves.  I'd prefer Lordship Lane to be car free and all the cafes etc have tables outside.

 

 

 

 

[CPR Dave]

They do that in Chelsea. Bars and cafes can buy the parking space in front of their shop to put tables in. 

We should be more like Chelsea.

[Jenijenjen]

"The tables outside the Blue Brick were in fact mostly within the cafe's curtilage."

All the tables were placed on the pavement, not part of the cafe's curtillage any more than the pavement outside my house is a part of my curtillage. There are no signs of demarcation like studs or different paving which is usual. I believe though many cafe's were awarded licenses by the council during the pandemic allowing tables to be placed on the pavement.

"Yes, Jenijenjen [your 'real name', obvs], I have posted over a number of years. Say what you intend clearly about these previous posts, so that other readers can judge, rather than alluding to them obscurely as if they somehow invalidate the matter I raise here. Good grief." 

Blimey, you're reading something into this post that really isn't there and was not intended.  No hidden agenda, merely an observation.

 

 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

12 minutes ago, Lee Scoresby said:

Would a diligent local authority need to receive a complaint? Must we prod Southwark to do anything, ever?

And in fact, am I really alone in doubting Southwark Council's willingness to consider complaints and other feedback?

Some of the replies to you have been unnecessarily rude. It's not unreasonable for wheelchair users and everyone else to expect to have access to the footpath.

But instead of criticising the council for not already knowing about the problem and casting pre-emptive aspersions on their responsiveness...maybe you should actually take the step of letting the Council know about your concern? When I had a similar-ish complaint, the Highways team responded very quickly.

[Sue]

Deleted post which wasn't going to advance the debate in any way ....

Edited Wednesday at 11:02 by Sue

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

23 minutes ago, CPR Dave said:

We should be more like Chelsea.

We want a pedestrianised Lordship Lane, with street drinking and an Iceland.

[CPR Dave]

6 minutes ago, Sue said:

You are deliberately trolling, I imagine.

Not at all. One of the EDT's best moments was the historic celebrations of Dulwich Hamlet being promoted. That night there actually were people all over the roundabout and it was great fun and wonderful coming together of large numbers of the local community. 

2 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

We want a pedestrianised Lordship Lane, with street drinking and an Iceland.

 

I wouldn't go that far, dogkennel, but I do think a more continental style approach to restaurants and bars on our high street would be great fun.

Edited Wednesday at 11:01 by CPR Dave

[Sue]

4 minutes ago, CPR Dave said:

Not at all. One of the EDT's best moments was the historic celebrations of Dulwich Hamlet being promoted. That night there actually were people all over the roundabout and it was great fun and wonderful coming together of large numbers of the local community. 

 

I was there. Yes it was wonderful.

But nobody on the roundabout was blocking anybody else's route up Lordship Lane, or anywhere else.

[Cyclemonkey]

A radical idea but why not speak to the pub management if some of their customers are causing issues?

[DuncanW]

May I suggest, the reason people have replied back to the OP in the way they have is largely not down to the substance of what you're saying but the tone and your choice of words.

You're upset that responses have been toxic, but your OP calls people yobs, louts and scumbags for the heinous crime of being stood outside a pub having a drink. So what do you really expect?

To the substance, I walk past there all the time, and on rare occasions (mainly after Hamlet home games) it's busy and you might need to squeeze through or politely say excuse-me... believe it or not, that seems to work just fine

[alice]

It’s a mess. 

[CPR Dave]

It's not, it's fine. Leave it alone. 

[malumbu]

Did you complain to the manager?  That's the starting point. Before going to the socials.