Thursday 10 April 2003 8.28pm
Once again I find myself having to correct you on the perceived nature of The Trinity
church square area - and it's inhabitants.
You make a comparison with the old kent rd and trinity st, however I note that Street furniture and lamp-posts are all being repainted AGAIN along the old kent rd. Great, nice to see southwark doing some routine maintenance for once.
However, The victorian lampposts on trinity street have not been painted for 10 years. They are all peeling and look disgraceful.
The council actually has a statutory duty to up-keep a conservation area.
Our residents association has been asking the council if they could paint the lamp-posts - only to be told that there is no money for this, and that the estate should have them painted at our own expense.... Do you pay extra to have YOUR local lamp-posts painted??
What do we pay council tax for I wonder???
This directly contradicts your perception of council investment being skewed.
I too am happy to see Tabard Gardens
being invested in, and the Old Kent Rd, but why do you still perceive that the many low income residents of The Trinity
st area are "favoured" - just because we live in a conservation area.??
Post edited (10 Apr 03 21:30)