Eileen

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Eileen, > It's just a list of 474 entries like this > extract. > Interesting how many outsiders are sticking their > noses in. > John K Thanks! I should have looked at this for interest if nothing else but just no time. Actually they may all have a legitimate interest as on this page extract they look either responsible for some policy aspect or are developers or commercial interests if not local people. This is what ordinary citizens who take no interest in this process but complain about what happens to their neighbourhoods need to understand - that the commercial interests watch all this planning policy development like hawks and intervene and comment as they have a right to do, but local people whose neighbourhoods it is say little. Bearing in mind the comments above that this is off topic, can you suggest a better part of the EDF to have a discussion about planning policy, and its practical application in this mid south Southwark area that we all share?

Dear Rosie Thank you for your thoughtful post which I think deserves a response even if that risks being too long and so illustrating one of your points! So my apologies for that at the start... >have you actually spent any time at all getting to know the forum?"All those posts" that were on a thread that was never about the issue you raised in the first place.I don't mean to be unkind, but if you want people to discuss an issue, handwringing isn't going to get you anywhere.You need to get them interested. At the moment, your posts are rather long and impenetrable, followed by "discuss". It reads a little like an A level question... People are probably more likely to give an opinion if they don't have to do hours of homework in order to form one. Oh dear Eileen, have you actually spent any time > at all getting to know the forum? "All those > posts" that were on a thread that was never about > the issue you raised in the first place. > > I don't mean to be unkind, but if you want people > to discuss an issue, handwringing isn't going to > get you anywhere. You need to get them interested. > At the moment, your posts are rather long and > impenetrable, followed by "discuss". It reads a > little like an A level question... People are > probably more likely to give an opinion if they > don't have to do hours of homework in order to > form one. > > Perhaps you could narrow down the scope a bit, > summarise the info in layman's terms (and give the > salient points rather than expecting everyone to > read through swathes of info), give it some > context and also offer your own opinion.

Ted Max Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Eileen, what is the relevance of the "List of > Objectors towards a Preferred Option"? It seems to > have about 500 names on it, from major landowners > to private individuals. I haven't looked at this so am responding to what it seems to be from the title. It sounds like the list of all the people and organisations who sent in objections to the last but one version the council consulted on which was in the summer of 2011. They then produced a revised PNAAP draft which incorporated changes stimulated by those objections or comments or greater clarity on their own part. That version which is called 'The Preferred Option' was consulted on earlier this year. That list of objectors you refer to is likely to be part of the background papers relating to that Preferred Option version. At each stage the list of objectors to the previous version is published along with their objections.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Your right. It plays down the fact that the > stations are actually comepeting with one another > to maintain their services! No not quite right. It may be that this is what Network Rail want us all to think. But there are questions about whether their case about a particular capacity limit is correct. See page 5 answers to Qs 18/19 in SRUG's submission for more info on this. http://www.bellenden.net/sites/default/files/SRUG%20response%20to%20DfT%20Thameslink-Southern%20Franchise%20consultation%202012.pdf I think more will begin to unfold on this point over the next few weeks.

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who are we? local residents working together on these matters, information here: http://www.facebook.com/PeckhamVision http://www.peckhamvision.org http://peckhamresidents.wordpress.com come and meet some of us.

oh dear All those posts and not one about the issue I raised. Which is the thread then to attract local people who are willing to have a serious exchange of thoughts about these planning policy matters? They are relevant to this EDF because they affect many ED residents as the town centre is on their doorstep and what happens there has a big effect on their own ED neighbourhood and shopping area.

We will be at the Peckham Rye Fete on Saturday 12pm - 5pm with all our info on the rail services issues in the current consultations, and also Peckham town centre. Do come and visit to talk about these things. See us at the Peckham Residents Network stall. It is a great community day out organised by the Friends of Peckham Rye. follow us - like us - http://www.facebook.com/PeckhamVision visit us - http://www.peckhamvision.org mailing list - http://peckhamresidents.wordpress.com

Good idea John K about a substantial thread in the main section on the PNAAP. Might a better time for that be when the new text is available? I am told this will be around 12 September, and I am willing to start it up when the new text appears. Before then can we share some thoughts about this business of evening v night economy in this thread? When the main thread starts we could make a link to this discussion on that topic. Would that work? In previous consultations I have said I didn?t think it was appropriate to go for a full night economy as the residential area is so integrated with Peckham town centre. This does not mean no night time activities but I believe they need to be the exception and not the rule. There is I have discovered a lot of loose and unclear use of language and often the work of town centre management and urban regeneration loosely say night economy when sometimes they mean 24 hours and sometimes they mean just evening. But there is a big difference. See ** below for an indication of the kinds of issues being considered under 'night' economy. I'd be glad to know what others think about what is appropriate for Peckham town centre. ******************************************************************** ** http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264275106000448 From ?creative city? to ?no-go areas? ? The expansion of the night-time economy in British town and city centres Marion Roberts, Central Cities Institute, University of Westminster, 35 Marylebone Road, London NW15LS, UK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a time span of 10 years, many English town centres have been transformed from being relatively deserted at night to being filled with concentrations of young drunken people out on the streets until the early hours of the morning. This paper considers this transformation: its origins, process, impacts, policy responses and the lessons that may be derived from it. The first section discusses the concept of the creative milieu and its relation to consumption. The second provides the context for the unprecedented expansion of night-time alcohol related entertainment in English town and city centres over the last decade. The third part of the paper discusses the impacts of the increase in licensed premises on cultural resources. The fourth section of the paper discusses the mutually contradictory tri-partite policy responses of the British Government as it tries to reconcile planning policies that promote ?cleaner, safer and greener? town centres with, on the one hand, free market inspired licensing policies and, on the other, ?tough? policies towards crime and anti-social behaviour. The fifth section provides evidence that by contrast, some local practice is ahead of national policy in its imaginative and integrated approach. Finally, conclusions are drawn with regard to the concept of the creative milieu. It is argued that the English experience demonstrates the need for a clear policy vision that comprehends the differences between creativity, cultural resources and the consumption of alcohol as a primary entertainment activity.

The Peckham Area Action Plan (PNAAP) http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200315/peckham_and_nunhead is shortly to come out for a final consultation (13 September ? 4 December 2012). This is a key planning policy document about the appropriate and allowable uses of land & buildings. One of the issues to be addressed is whether Peckham town centre should have an 'evening' economy or a 'night? economy. It would be useful to have a discussion about this and clarify the case for and against a night economy. Having seen the comments in this thread it seemed a possible place for such a discussion. What do you think?

this post about the Southwark Rail Users Group (SRUG) comments might also be useful to read: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,944735,946714#msg-946714 SRUG's comments cover the issues raised by the Thameslink consultation for users of rail services from the stations Nunhead, Peckham Rye, Denmark Hill, North Dulwich, East Dulwich, Queens Rd Peckham, South Bermondsey. See here for copy of the comments: http://www.bellenden.net/sites/default/files/SRUG%20response%20to%20DfT%20Thameslink-Southern%20Franchise%20consultation%202012.pdf Page 5 covers particularly the Wimbledon Loop questions. It is important for users who value the direct connections to St Pancras from Nunhead, Peckham Rye or Denmark Hill to email their comments to DfT before 14 September, focussing on their use of the service and why it is valuable and important to them. All relevant weblinks are in the post mentioned above.

excellent and appropriate explanation. thank you. *************************************************** rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Keep in mind that this incident didn't incur any > extra costs as all of the personnel were on > standard emergency cover anyway and I freely gave > of my time off to help to address residents' > concerns as well as investigating possible tree > maintenance issues. > > In my opinion, this was a specific situation > created by the maintenance of the tree which may > be relevant in other locations. In this time of > budget cuts, we need to make sure that our assets > are efficiently managed, as sometimes there can be > false economies and performing a monitoring > function is part of a councillors elected duty > (which was part of the underlying reason I took > the photos). There are discussions going on about > whether severe pollarding is the best way to > address regular tree maintenance and there are > specific protocols about nesting birds and this > situation illustrated both elements. > > As I understand how the systems work, this was an > easy situation for me to address, and there may > actually be a useful outcome that will save us > money in the future. > > I should probably add that, in addition to > planning, trees are another one of my passions and > I work very closely with the tree department. As > Peckham Rose has suggested, I definitely intend to > ask them to attend a Dulwich Community Council > meeting... we are in the process of launching a > Tree Warden scheme to train interested residents > in the basics of simple tree maintenance, which I > am highly supportive of. > > So, there is actually a bigger picture here.

This follows up and adds to Renata?s post giving info about the Government?s consultation. SRUG (Southwark Rail Users? Group) submitted its comments in the Thameslink franchise consultation last Thursday. I am aiming to post the info on this to various forums and to report that the Government has now extended the deadline for comments until 14th September. Email your comments to [email protected], but read below first. We have another 19 days to get many emails in to them about how important it is that we keep (and improve) our services from Nunhead, Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill to St Pancras. We want to improve them by making them 7 days a week and to have them at Tube-like times in the morning and evening. At the moment they stop at 9pm and don?t run at weekends. And we also want to increase them to 4 trains per hour. It may seem fanciful but we have had rail experts telling us that more trains can go on through Blackfriars than Network Rail are saying. We have asked in our comments if it is that we, in south London who rely on these services as the substitute for the lack of the Tube, are just being ignored once more in favour of long distance trains that in some cases have other routes to get their passengers across the river. A summary of the background and context for all this and how to make comments is on the SRUG webpages here: http://www.bellenden.net/Thameslink The link to the SRUG submission is also there, and here is a shortcut to it: http://www.bellenden.net/sites/default/files/SRUG%20response%20to%20DfT%20Thameslink-Southern%20Franchise%20consultation%202012.pdf On the proposals to terminate some St Pancras trains at Blackfriars - look especially at the SRUG response to the Government?s Qs 18 & 19, but it is worth reading the responses to other Qs as well to get the fuller story about our services to Blackfriars and St Pancras. our responses to other questions cover also the issues about our services to Victoria (cut in more than half on 9th December 2012) and London Bridge, and the state of some of our stations including East Dulwich. (The consultation covers also all our services to London Bridge and has interconnections with SouthEastern services that run into Victoria.) It seems essential now that many local users of this service, from the three stations Nunhead, Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill to St Pancras via Blackfriars, email the Department for Transport at [email protected] to say how important that service is to them, and why. Otherwise the Government may wrongly think that it isn?t important to this part of south London. Please pass this message on to anyone else you know who uses that service. If you have any queries please post them here and I will try to respond. We have nearly 600 local rail users on the SRUG mailing list, but clearly from the questions being posed in this topic many taking part in this discussion are not on our list and so missing out on our updates. So do please join our SRUG mailing list by emailing [email protected] and saying you are responding to this post.

-Heinz- Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We are not asking for more roads here, just a car > park. The link is that the more facilities for parking there are, the more cars there are and the more roads are needed. If you want to change that thinking in planning policy you have to roll your sleeves up and get engaged.

-Heinz- Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cars today are many times more efficient and clean > than a decade or so a go. Progress in that field > is constant and I am > not sure residents of ED are in any danger of > suffering from car induced pollution illnesses... > On the other hand, lefty world saving do gooders > driving 1960 VW Campervans are as green as a frog > in a blender...So > maybe we should vote to force them to offset their > carbon footprint by digging us "normals" a shiny > new underground car park under Goose Green. I recon the ratio of earth > dug up, to tonnes of Aquarious free thinking > Campervan induced carbon is about 1...So you know it makes sense. You can have these views and they may be very valid, but unless you take part in the planning policy process at local level in the current system they won't have any effect. Which part of the current process do you have in mind for the '... vote to force ...' in **So maybe we should vote to force them to offset their carbon footprint by digging us "normals" a a shiny new underground car park under Goose Green.**

-Heinz- Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When will the council understand people will > always need motorised vehicules to cart their life > around. > If you want businesses to thrive, their customers > will need cars and convenient places to park them. They might have more understanding when more residents get involved and take an interest in putting forward their views in the development of planning policies. There is I think a key part of this coming up in a planning policy for East Dulwich in the next few months. One of the local E/Dulwich ward coumcillors can give more details. The planning policy for Peckham town centre (PNAAP) is coming out for the last key consultation in September (to 4 December). Car use and parking policy are key parts of these planning policies.

-Heinz- Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fair point Z...just a bit of poking...So... on a > more pragmatic line of thought, has anyone > considered creating a car park > > under Goose Green? It would not be cheap,but it > would solve all ED parking problems in one stroke > and also stimulate > businesses in the area...quite considerably me > thinks. I think this is against the planning policies to discourage car use, so probably wouldn't get planning permission, quite apart from the lack of funding for such a venture. If Cllr RobinCH is reading this could she remind us what the planning policy is on new car parks?

Hi jimmyraj - I will see what I can find out about the latest cleaning arrangements. On the platform 3 smell - I was there yesterday but didn't smell anything like this. But I will ask the station manager next time I see him if he has noticed anything. jimmyraj Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Eileen, yes, it's the alley from Bleinham Grove > through to the station which is the problem. > There are always large piles of black bin bags, > usually ripped open, there in the morning. None > of the businesses surrounding that alley seem to > have any proper provision for disposing of their > waste so by about 7.30 it's normally blowing down > the alley. > > I have asked Southwark, via the environment help > desk to send people to clean it, and it sometimes > has a short term effect but never for very long. > Most nights on returning from work there is more > rubbish piled outside. > > It is pretty grim as most days it blocks half of > the entrance to the alley. > > If you think there is anything you can do through > the action group then i am sure it would be > helpful. > > The fish/ rotting meat smell has mainly been over > the past couple of weeks on platform three. Not > sure if there is a store of gone off food > nearby... > > Plans for the station look great. Roll on 2016!

EDforME Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Has anyone noticed the awful smell of rotting fish > that seems to be there every day, it?s vile. I > wish someone would clean this area up. > > On a side note, the ally way leading to Peckham > Rye station, can someone please advise why this is > never cleaned up? It?s littered with discarded > wigs, burger cartons and it always, always stinks. > Hardly what you want to see on your way to work in > the morning. What kind of people work and live > around here? They certainly need some lessons in > cleanliness. Hi EDforME - why do you mention Platform 3 in particular? I haven't noticed anything there like a fish smell. Can you give more details about the location of the fish smell? On the litter in the ally way - are you referring to the one leading from Blenheim Grove? I had assumed (not using the station in the early morning) that the previous day's waste is all cleaned up before the commuter run starts. Can you say what time the previous day's waste is still there when you go through? One of the early successes we had through the Rye Lane & Station Action Group http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/Rye_Lane_and_Station_Action_Group_RLSAG was to get the cleaning contract switched to the Council and that worked well for a long time. It sounds as if it might have gone to pieces again. Can we hear in this thread from other station users what their experience is on the state of waste and cleanliness in the ally ways and forecourt leading to the station, and importantly what time of day this is? We can then bring that together and see what the issue is and ask the Council to sort it out.

EDforME Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I see the plans were laid out in 5 years ago, if > it takes that long for funds to trickle down then > i suspect you can forget about it ever happening. > The news about the funding is on the page you were directed to but at the top of the page not at the end. All the funding has beenput in place over the last 12 months. Please read the first section http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/Peckham_Rye_Station and also here http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/Peckham_Rye_Station#Station_square_.26_rear_courtyard and here http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/Peckham_Rye_Station#Original_station_square_to_be_restored_November_2011 The detailed plans are now being developed and the aim is that the whole works wil be completed by 2016 and possibly earlier. The Council will bring out more detailed information on it all later this year. These matters were covered at the Peckham Vision exhibition in the Old Waiting Room http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/Old_Waiting_Room off platform 3 on 2nd - 4th August. We will have some of the exhibition material at the Peckham Rye Fete on Sat 1st Sep next week (12pm - 5pm). Do come and visit the Peckham Residents Network stall to see the displays and find out the latest. http://www.peckhamvision.org

> James Barber Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > Hi Cllr Hamvas, > > Your proposals, decided at February budget > setting > > Council assembly, make the hurdle for residents > to > > object to a planning application much higher. > Eileen Wrote: > please can you say what the hurdles will be in > future? Until this change 3 objections were needed > to prevent decision by officers. What will it be > in future? ________________________________________________ I have heard from Cllr James Barber that the bar has been raised to 5 objections. This is a shame but it is not a calamitous bar to get over. It is crucial that the guidance to the public about how to object to a planning application makes it very clear what the new rule is and any constraints on what will be viewed as an objection. Can any councillors reading this tell us what the latest guidance says, or the weblinks to it?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Cllr Hamvas, > Your proposals, decided at February budget setting > Council assembly, make the hurdle for residents to > object to a planning application much higher. > Planning applications will more often be decided > by unelected council officials even when people > have objected. please can you say what the hurdles will be in future? Until this change 3 objections were needed to prevent decision by officers. What will it be in future?

It was the first most of us had seen as he created the images for the exhibition. It is a contribution to the local discussion we want to encourage so we together refine what would be good for there. Thanks to everyone who came to the amazing gathering last night. We had over 200 registration entries and no doubt others who did not leave their details. And the room coped with all that and the exhibition displays and everything else! Let?s keep this discussion going - who else was there could give some thoughts from their visit on anything that occurs to them. Please contribute! The exhibition is open today between 1pm ? 9pm, and tomorrow Sat 11am to 3pm. This is an unrepeatable event. Don?t miss it!

mynamehere Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does anyone know what the long term plans are for > the Peckham Multi Storey Garage? I know Frank's > is there summers but what's planned long term? it is owned by the Council. So the plan is sell off and then demolition and redevelopment for mixed uses eg housing and commercial.

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Eileen. > I think what you're doing with Peckham Vision is > great. > What would you like us to discuss? Some possible topics: * why are you interested (or not) in the exhibition * what you think about restoring historic buildings in such a setting * what the effects on the town centre (place and people) might be * what you think of the partially restored Old Waiting Room * what help (or not) can restoring historic buildings give to the commercial quality of the town centre

mynamehere Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have heard very impressive things about you in > conversations with Barbara S. I would recommend to > those in charge of regeneration on Southwark > Council that they use groups like yours and Living > Streets and London Cycle Campaign (there are many > others but these as examples) as equal partners > when they plan the future of urban areas. > > I'll help with pleasure. If you would like to help at the exhibition - please come come along Thursday evening to see us and work out when you can come Friday and/or Saturday. Or email: [email protected] cc [email protected] . We still need more stewards. I agree your comment on regeneration (principle applies to all other topics also) but it will need a systemic culture revolution in local government to enable this. I am working on that! - if you want to know more let me know and I will send a weblink to my paper.