edhistory

> 200 year old trees take pause 200 years to regrow Where are these 200 year old trees? John K

What is "affordable" in 2015? How much would you be prepared to pay for a 15 square metre workshop? I think the new artistic arrivals in Peckham may have priced you out. You are right about the availability of places 20-30 years ago. Southwark Council have a register of premises where they have used their discretion to apply a "light manufacturing" reduced business rates scheme. This is public information. An inquiry to Southwark Council. You may find vacant premises for your purposes. I'd like to see the list if you take this route. John K

1. You could define the "Copeland Park Estate" by providing a map. 2. If you know the original post code of the "Bussey Building" it would help with historical research. 3. AND, what about an answer to the coal line access and gradient problems (both ends)? John K

Is edborders an American citizen?

Has anyone worked out the process and route by which decomposition products might get into the East Dulwich water supply? John K

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The plans Southwark are embarking on will cost > millions of pounds and effectively subsidise > future burials in Southwark. They have no plans > for a sinking fund or endowment so still we > maintain these cemeteries on in year revenue. Which plans are these? I'd like to read them and see the budget projections. John K

Eileen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think you mistake the Article 4 direction. I don't think so. I have received a personal Article 4 determination notification retrospective to 8 September 2015. So I read the primary legislation, the documents on Southwark Council's web-site, and the documents Southwark Council sent me. This is what I understand. 1. All of Station Arcade is within a protected zone. 2. Southwark Council has the power allow the developers to destroy this building of national architectural importance. 3. There is no problem with this destruction area being left as a void windblown area. 4. Unless the red-line boundary is changed only A1 can be built there in the future despite there being non-A1 there now. But Southwark Council can override this. 5. Future change of use applications for new builds away from A1 use to non-A1 will be refused. But Southwark Council can override this. AND Peckham Vision might like to think about how to register this proposed open space as Metropolitan Open Land. AND if the developers plant a few trees in pots you could claim it's really "Peckham Woods". John K 5.

135 Rye Lane is "owned" by RJK PROPERTIES LIMITED.

Are we sure this is not a wind-up relating to fish and finger pies?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Surely they should cut down all but one of the > trees on One Tree Hill? The "best" mid-19th century picture shows three trees.

The Southwark Council overview document would be a good start. John K

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?20,file=199649 Here's an old aerial photo of the Phase 4 site.

Sounds like a very good idea. Can you point me to the official documents rather than the "Southwark Woods" people who have form. John K

Phase 4 has been somewhat overlooked by imminent activity for Phases 1-3. I've attached and old aerial view of the Phase 4 site as those new to Peckham and may not know the site being discussed. Interesting that someone doesn't know their East from their West. The photo just happens to show the air-gap between 133 Rye Lane and the "Bussey Building" and the entrance to the "Bussey Building" under 1-15 Bournemouth Road. John K

Thanks Eileen. I guess we will not get to see whether there is a "right of way", or "easement", or an informal arrangement. Do you know anyone who has seen the documents or are the Peckham Vision People taking the existence of a "right of way" on trust? Flying freeholds are not common in our area. Maybe the best known near you is the part of the East Dulwich Tavern over "Ralon". Ownnership details as presented of the buildings do not seem to make sense. Only a "person" can own a property. Is "Copeland Park" a "legal person". If so, at least minimal details should be in the public domain. Flying freeholds are not common in our area. Maybe the best known near you is the part of the East Dulwich Tavern over "Ralon". There is a fair amount of misrepresentation going on. The most recent shown to me is the 17-13 November Time Out article written by Tristan Parker who interviewed Mickey Smith, here credited as "CLF creative director". I hope your arm is now fully recovered. Regards. John K

Eileen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Yes it has been there since it was built in 1908, > and there are rights of way through the passageway > to the Copeland Park site which includes the > Bussey Building, and 133 Rye Lane has rights of > way through Copeland Park. From 1970 to 1992 (and perhaps later) the "Bussey Building" staff used the drive-way under 1-15 Bournemouth Road to go to and from work. John K

Is the proposed Coal Line also on hold and cannot be progressed until Network Rail do more work on revenue maximisation from "Phase Four: Western Courtyard Area"? John K

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Peckham Society News Issue 142 Autumn 2015 page > 18. > > It's good to see that Station Arcade has at long > last been recognised as an integral element in the > unique "Peckham Art Deco quarter". > > The article says the buildings were designed under > the supervision of James Robb Scott (1882-1965). There is a rare 1987 book (see attachment) Southern Nouveau by Chris Hawkins and George Reeve which provides a history of the Southern Railway Exeter works.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why do you think this would involve gerrymandering? Probably Using the same meaning as in Florida. Adjusting boundaries for political or financial advantage. Someone from Peckham Vision may be able to explain the "adjustment" to the Holly Grove Conservation Area that happened a few years ago. John K

Eileen, Three things: Is there any evidence about the "right of way"? Does the plan for 133 include a flying freehold over 135? Who owns 135a Rye Lane? John K

richard tudor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > After living in the area all my life you are > right, I dont know the buildings that well. Having > used the station for over 30 years on a daily > basis I do admit I might have missed seeing them > in their block glory > > I find them depressing, creating a dark dank > environment with mess. I actually thought that > these buildings would be removed to create a > clean, friendly open space to approach the > station. > > However I do find that they offer a wonder display > of light to enhance the artistic balls of hair > that tumble in a glorious display of dance in > partnership with the other piles of mess. That is > why perhaps I have never looked up trying not to > step in anything. > > Still lets live in the past and keep the area as > is. If you want to keep the buildings above Khans > fine. > > Perhaps if you looked down instead of up you might > have a different perspective around the station. > > It does appear that the chance to make something > of the area will be missed. So you can't identify anything about the buildings themselves. It's something else that you dislike. John K

You don't seem to know the buildings very well. Have you visited yet? I see no mess. They are well designed art deco buildings. Which features doo you think are a mess? The front over pavement canopy? The roof lights? The Crittall windows? The offset angle at the railway station end? Give us a clue. John K

What mess it that?

This applies to Station Arcade too.

Here's the previous thread: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,57435,57435#msg-57435 If you read the notebook you will see the East Dulwich classification was "done" by a local policeman. The Camberwell Grove TV documentary was very funny. John K