LondonMix

They are meeting with thetas from the Bussey Building tonight.

I agree with red devil. Its almost most certainly that.

Pork chop, I agree that a tweak to the Bold scheme to include more event / community space with perhaps just a little retail would have felt like a better compromise. Does Bold have a confrontational relationship with the council as you'd think the council otherwise would have helped them understand what they were looking for. Anyhow, Bold is not the community, they are members of the community. I'd like to see more engagement from all parties with the pre-existing Peckham community groups - the longstanding independent retailers, the church groups etc when crafting community projects. I'm from Miami and I've seen how longstanding residents get left behind when a place like Wynwood (which I love) starts transforming a previously neglected neighbourhood.

I imagine by now those running the Bussey Building have read the planning application so a lot of what they are spreading in social media is very cynical. The last two paragraphs really nail it though. They simply don't want the vibe of Peckham Rye to change. They want the entrance to the Bussey to be hidden and feel underground because it's next to a butcher in a crumbling building. Anyway, none of that will actually prevent the application going through. It's appropriate the developer speak to them at this community event before continuing on with the application but in light of the views expressed in the article I doubt there will be any meeting of the minds. The CLF oppose the application as a matter of principal rather than because it poses access issues or noise concerns (which have been addressed in the application). I hope someone on the forum can attend the event this week and report back.

No idea. Take a look at the planning application for 133 Rye Lane. In the design and access statement the highlight all of the buildings that are earmarked by Southwark for redevelopment. I can't remember the fate of that one specifically but over the next 5 years the council clearly have plans to change the face of Rye Lane. I just hope its done well.

Sorry, why is creating an artistic hub more of an opportunity for Peckham than creating a space for artists and other small local businesses and entrepreneurs? If that is the point, I am definitely missing it so please explain.

Manufacturing of course is a terrible example-- substitute manufacturing for insurance brokering or the like and hopefully the point will be clearer!

You have highlighted perfectly what I see as the problem with the Bold proposal. I agree 100% that the lack of studio space in London urgently needs to be addressed by the way. However, I don't think it is one community's responsibility to address it. Community projects in Peckham should still reflect what Peckham needs rather than trying to solve problems that are London-wide. For instance, if there were a shortage of manufacturing facilities in London, would it seem appropriate for a major community asset to be devoted 100% to supporting manufacturing (for instance) even though it didn't reflect what local entrepreneurs and artists here need? Of course not! The arts is no exception to that. Just because London has a shortage of studios doesn't imply that all community assets in Peckham should be 100% focused on dealing with that shortage. That's not fair to the other local interests that exist in a very diverse community. The problem needs to be addressed more systematically across London. I get that the arts have been priced out of other areas but they don't get to then claim all community assets for themselves in new neighborhoods just because they need them.

Its not just free community space! Its free community space and significant work space for local entrepreneurs regardless of industry. If you are going to dismiss the benefits of the other proposal at least be fair in characterizing what they are. Also, can you please explain how supporting all local entrepreneurs rather than just those in the creative industry reduces the economic diversity in Peckham rather than enhances it?

I never said anything was elitist and I never said the Bussey building is anti-community. In fact, I said I go there myself and support Peckham becoming one of London's artistic hubs... Just because I disagree with something you say doesn't mean I am attacking everything you are about. The point I am trying to make is that a facility offering multi-use event space 25% of the time for free to anyone in the community as well as work space regardless of industry to local entrepreneurs, and retail was going to be more useful for more members of the community than 800 artist studios offering gallery exhibitions, educational programs and maybe a cafe. In assessing proposals, I think its right that Southwark take into account how many people in the community will be able to directly use and benefit from the space in recognition that Peckham's community is diverse. I haven't seen the detailed proposal for the 800 artist studios, but if it was designed with a layout so that other non-creative entrepreneurs could also use them and with the expressed intention to lease them to any local business on equal footing that of course would be very different. Are you arguing that's what was in the proposal or the intention of the losing bid that was put together?

I didn?t know that, and that?s interesting. However, do you really think that ?maybe? having a public caf? and having a gallery open to the public provides the broader non-artist community in Peckham with the same utility as having a multi-use event spaces free of charge to the community 25% of the time as well as various pop-up retail ventures and premises for various local entrepreneurs (irrespective if their new business is related to the arts) as the Pop Community Proposal provides? Hopefully, the 50 artist studios that are created as part of the Pop Community award will still include some element of gallery exhibition space. I really am sympathetic to the need for more studio space for the creative industries and would be behind and order of protection for all existing spaces and requirements to include developing new studio space as part of new schemes in the city. However, Peckham is not comprised solely of artists. There are and always have been a lot of people living in Peckham before the CLF opened its doors and I think sometimes what they may want or need gets overlooked by the growing and vocal creative community that has moved in. Unlike Detroit or other dying cities, Peckham Rye (while somewhat dirty and neglected) has been relatively vibrant. Well before the CLF existed the high street had lots of shops that were well used by both the local community and people from all over South London to meet their needs and it also had a large residential community. The artists who came here weren?t discovering an abandoned, vacant city to make entirely their own and use entirely for their own purposes. I say all of that as someone who goes to the Bussey building and who really enjoys the events put on there and would like to see Peckham become one of London's artistic hubs. But everything can't be entirely oriented towards the arts without any consideration of what long standing residents may get more use of is all.

I'm not saying there are any schemes anywhere else. If its really important to Londoners, protecting and developing artist studios should be mandated by law in planning. However, Peckham is not only for artists and while I agree artists are an important community within Peckham (and so support studio space being created) only catering to artists in community projects could arguably be seen as narrow rather than inclusive.

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_52464 Change of use

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=14/AP/1285&system=DC This one is the application for the restoration

Put 135 Rye Lane into the planning portal for Southwark. I don't remember who was behind the application but one of the many things that was part of the multiple applications was a change of use from retail to food. If you can't find it, I'll look tonight when I'm home. Edited to update address correctly!

Louisa, the art deco building is being restored (planning permission was recently granted) and a change of use to a restaurant from retail.

Yeah, the acoustic report said that on the facade facing Rye Lane the traffic noise is so load you it overwhelm the sound of the music even on a club night! In reality the noise pollution from the trains and traffic will be so loud I doubt anyone in that building will ever open their windows.

I'm not particularly bothered either. I only what what the situation is because I read James B's post before several of us told him to take it down. The post explained the full story. On reflection, James agreed it was too much to share in this format and deleted the post.

Actually, most if not all of the properties have balconies so despite what the noise report states I suppose natural ventilation is possible. I'm not sure how the noise authorities would treat a noise complaint by someone who has the option for mechanical ventilation but chooses to open their balcony instead? Anyone ever worked on an issue like this? That might be something to raise with the developer at the questions evening.

Blah Blah-- I don't know exactly what they have in mind for the mechanical ventilation. Probably a full HVAC system which is common in modern developments. Air handling units circulating fresh air into the building and removing stale are likely to be installed as part of the over all mechanical engineering plan system. They aren't using the HVAC system for acoustic insulation though. They are saying the white noise these systems make (think about the quiet noise in an office building or NYC condo) as part of their mechanical action will help cover up some of the ambient noise from outside. Even without this though, the facade and glazing specification meet guidelines in terms of noise intrusion. If someone made a noise complaint (let's say they are super extra sensitive), the council would have to come and measure the noise penetration. The requirements are not zero so as long as the systems work as designed the complaint wouldn't be actionable. The noise team actually bring very sophisticated noise measuring equipment with them. I've had to make a noise complaint in past!

Again, I'm not saying there is nothing to be concerned about (I've already listed my concerns elsewhere) but if you are really that worried about this application, I strongly recommend taking 1-2 hours and actually reading through the proposals and information (this isn't directed to anyone in particular). I know most people don't have the time but if you are going to spread information online about what you think is wrong, I think its important to at least invest that amount understanding what is going on. If the community want a good outcome, engaging from an informed position is always necessary. That way you can actually influence the things that need to be changed rather than wasting community energy raising comments to Southwark and questions at the engagement event that can be easily dismissed by the council and the developer. Make no mistake, it is very apparent Southwark back this application so objections need to be relevant and focused if you actually want to influence anything about the final outcome.

JohnL I think Jeremy spoke about that case yesterday. Have a look at the acoustics report. The insulation results are very good and exceed minimum standards for lab tested glazing and they are going above that glazing in total acoustic design. Lab testing isn't done by the acoustic consultant but is official lab tests widely known in the market. Blah, Blah, also read the acoustic report. There is no natural ventilation via the windows- see the extract below. 6.5.2 Ventilation The levels of noise at the site preclude the use of natural ventilation in any of the residences as even acoustically attenuated trickle events will result in the internal noise criteria being exceeded. Every dwelling will therefore be mechanically ventilated. The inherent sound associated with mechanical ventilation should help to provide some beneficial masking of noise ingress from outside.

I agree. I won't be able to attend but do let me know how it goes. I'd be interested to know how the developers plan to carryout the work without disrupting the existing traders logistically. Its a positive sign that they've invited the developers to come along. In the planning application, the developers said they are architects that decided to go into development and are a design led firm. Hopefully, their creative backgrounds will allow them to effectively communicate with other creatives and smooth over some of the misunderstandings.

A 4 bed house in Peckham already costs over a million pounds. Many people who own homes in Peckham can probably easily afford these 11 flats. Though I do think some affordable housing should be included in the scheme.

I can't respond to your assumption about the owner of that building for reasons I've said before. James Barber, the council and a few locals do in fact know what the situation is and the council is in touch with the parties in question. I won't say anything more than that. If something needs to be done because any building in abandoned, empty or derelict, you are supposed to report it to building control who legally can take action. I have no idea if this is appropriate or not for Ryedale but if you do, go ahead.