LondonMix

JohnL -- have you read the planning application?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yeah... think the Polish builders started doing > well back in the 2000s because of the work ethic, > not the price. Exactly. Polish builders are known to be better and harder working, not just cheaper.

Makes sense though it doesn't always work that way. I can't be sure but I don't believe most countries with significant immigration have a similar pattern.

That's ridiculous! Why even bother with the facade?! The entire world is spin these days...

I have no doubt the character of the place will change with this development. Even if all the retail is comprised of local independent shops as they are intending, it still won't be Meat & Fish! As far as gentrification goes though, at least this development is striving to retain some of its indie character. I just hope there is someplace left we can buy ingredients for curry goat! Any, what I find most depressing is the state of journalism in the era of social media. There used to be a time when you had to check facts before publishing something. You also had to at least contact the other side for comment and publish any quotes they gave you. Nowadays, articles read like higlyh spun press releases. I mean, that's fine for a blog I guess but I?d expect better from TimeOut.

I totally understand if people currently operating the CLF etc are concerned about access issues during the actual construction period. Its not clear to me at all how that's supposed to work. However, the claim that the new shops existence is going to prevent people queuing for entrance to the Bussey is patently absurd. The shops are only being oriented there to serve the people queuing and going to the Copeland Park etc. They are even widening the alley to help accommodate this in the plans. A large part of the retail strategy is designed to capitalise off of Bussey's success aligning opening hours etc. Now the church that's unceremoniously being kicked out, them I feel bad for... All that said, I'm not saying the developers are good guys. Steam rolling over people isn't nice. But they appear to know how to get things done.

I think these developers are ultra experienced and wanted to deal with the demands of the authorities fully instead of making it a tripartite negotiation. They say they listened in on other consultations for other schemes to get a sense of the community ethos rather than consuiting directly. I think the backlash to that strategy is normal as not being brought on board causes ill will and distrust. Either way though the developers look very likely to get their approval so I suppose it's worked for them.

Much longer post summarizing what is going on based on my brief review of the main supporting documents for those interested: This application is almost certainly going to be approved. It was prepared in detailed consultation with Southwark, various heritage and conservation authorities, and includes Bream environmental certification of excellent, no reduction in D1 / D2 use currently in the building, detailed noise studies, accessibility studies etc. Senior planning officer Neil Loubser was heavily involved with the design development and some of the weaknesses (i.e. no parking) have already been officially signed off in the pre-planning application process. The firm claim to be founded by architects and design driven (the designs themselves are good) but what?s clear is these guys are hyper professional. You can?t even begin to compare this application with some of the ones we?ve seen in the local area. The stated aim of the developer is to take advantage of the heavy footfall to the Bussey Building and Copeland, which is consistent with the firm?s retail strategy of units facing the alley and courtyard. They are in fact planning to widen the alley as part of the overall works to increase accessibility and on numerous occasions they have specifically stated they have designed the facilities to work with the nighttime economy of the local area, and specifically the night club scene. As already stated, the acoustic design of the project reflects this. Also, the proposed operating hours of the new retail units are requested to be in line with the Bussey Building as they want to service that clientele. The firm also has the sated aim of not overly sanitizing the building as part of the renovation and intend to keep the street art etc that is currently on it from ROA. They have subdivided the currently large retail unit into 5 smaller units at ground floor level. They say the smaller units (some very small ?at just 10 sqm which is basically a kiosk) are designed to appeal to small local independent businesses. They have done this to keep the local character of the area, rather than maintaining one large retail unit that would better appeal to a large chain (their words, not mine). This claim is fairly credible?the largest unit on the ground floor will be 98 sqm, the second largest will be 70sqm and the rest are tiny. By way of context, Iceland is currently in 450 sqm and M&S are enlarging that for their minimum footprint to circa 600sqm. A coffee shop like Starbucks typically has 170 sqm for their minimum unit size. Pizza express is circa 250 sqm based on what I can quickly find on line. Some retail will potentially be in the basement as well. The D1/ D2 community space is likely to be either a gym or a cinema in the two basement levels (though there is some flexibility). They have 4 offers in total for the space to date without any marketing. The two strongest are both from gyms and there are ongoing discussions with another gym and a cinema for the D1 / D2 community spaces. The flats are huge and a pretty even mixture of 1, 2 and 3 bed units with one ultra large 4 bed unit in the roof extension. The acoustics have been designed to reflect the resi is situated next to a night club. One of the more innovative elements being wintergarden conservatories on the Eastern facade. Overall, the restoration work is attractive and very sympathetic-- in part due to heavy input for planning and conservation teams.

Any how, before I post what I've learned, I'll state what I would like to see amended as part of the application and some of its acknowledged weaknesses. Overall though its a very strong application. 1. There is no social housing provision. I believe at least a portion of the residential units should be affordable in some way (social / key workers etc) and I believe 11 units hits the threshold for this requirement though hopefully someone else can come along and confirm 2. The D1 /D2 use. They have 4 interested parties through off market efforts but acknowledge they have been informed that there is strong demand for a place of worship (specifically a black church). They have not been in touch with any such groups they say. I like hipster Peckham but it would be nice if old traditional black Peckham was genuinely seen as part of the community too and actively courted to take up the community space making it truly inclusive project. 3. The site occupational density is above guidelines. They've justified this working in light of good transport links etc. I have no specific concern but its one of the few areas in which there is actual scope to challenge the application 4. There is no parking provision. Again, I have no specific objection to this and ultimately I don't think it will be viable ground for an objection as they had this cleared as part of their pre-planning application 5. I think that they should detail what steps will be taken to reduce / eliminate the impact of the works on surrounding businesses. They intend to widen the alley for instance but how on earth will this be achieved without severely (even if temporarily) reducing access? They might do this in a part of the applications supporting docs that I haven't had a chance to review yet-- I am at work and haven't had time to read everything. If anyone sees anything please let me know. ETA that I just remembered there is already a church in the building. That the developers haven't even spoken to them about staying on shows what their idea of community is. As far as I can tell the only group truly negatively impacted by this project is the existing church tenant. Surprised no one mentions them in all of the outraged press articles...

How many of those signing do you think have bothered to read through the publicly available information to figure out their position? My guess- less than 5% and that's being very generous. Its probably closer to zero and there are genuine things to be concerned about. JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Over 100 anti comments on the application and 1500 > almost on the petition. > > Whatever the merits/spin it's taken off.

That is factually inaccurate. There is residential just as close to Bussey already and just as close to the railway. Its detailed in the application. If you don't want it that's fine but the reason needs to be based in actual fact. Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Because unlike other residential units LondonM > these are right on the doorstep of the Bussey and > Railway.

By the way, as far as I can see-- the developer isn't calling the luxury flats. That's the spin machine out of Peckham trying to get people's blood up! They will undoubtedly be eye-wateringly expensive though!

Why don't you think its the right location for housing Blah Blah? As I thought (and is confirmed in the application) almost all of the surrounding buildings have residential units above the retail units. Also, there is a large residential directly behind it and across from the Bussey Building already. Nigello- I won't miss the dirt and traffic but I'll miss some of the more elements that made it fun and unique. Areas in East London are all the very same bland idea of cool (and everything is very expensive). Peckham right now, has interesting things to do but without all the slick polish that homogenizes almost everything in London these days. Also, there were still charming affordable things about like Peckham plex, which despite being run down,in my view is a gem. I'm almost done review the docs. Will be back with my thoughts shortly.

Yes, its a restoration of the original Art Deco facade which is great. Its treated by Southwark as a building derserving of listing so the restoration should be very sympathetic but yes, it won't be Khans as we know it for much longer.

I'm reading through the documents at the moment which are extensive and will probably take probably all my lunch hour. I'll reserve judgement until the end. One thing the Design and Access statement highlighted is all the changes on Rye Lane. Did anyone else realize the 135 Rye Lane (Khan's) has already had a planning application approved to refurbish the entire building and been granted a change of use from a shop to a restaurant! I had no idea. In a few years Rye Lane is going to be unrecognizable which I know is inevitable but part of me is going to miss its current incarnation. My friends and are were just talking about the potential loss of the cinema and saying we wonder if new people moving to the area can even appreciate any of its sticky smelly charm... http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage

Also, to answer some of my own questions: 1. Meat and Fish is going 2. Residential and community space entrances will be off Rye Lane, not Bussey Alley or the courtyard 3. Retail is oriented on Rye Lane (largest unit), courtyard (second largest), and a few smaller units along the Bussey Alleyway

Jeremy, I found a way to access the documents http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=15/AP/3666&system=DC I'm not sure that argument will fly with planning given the developer has addressed it in numerous places in the documentation -- as JohnL's link shows (which is just one of many extracts on the details). They've assessed the noise impact of the rail station and night economy and are insulating accordingly. The sound insulation will be tested by Southwark as part of final occupancy certificate. I didn't realise from the original post that the building is actually retain a large community space for D1 / D2, which it will need to insulate the residential units from as well.

So Jeremy, the fear is that once resi is developed there, the new flat owners will object to the pre-existing night time businesses making noise and have them shut down? Bloono-- do you know if they have included soundproofing in the design? Have you seen the full application and how they address potential noise issues and complaints?

Bloono, can you explain a bit more? I want to support the petition but the plans aren't available on Southwark's website (an error keeps coming up)and your explanation of the problems aren't entirely clear for me. I would strongly push for some affordable flats to be incorporated in overall residential conversion as 11 flats exceeds the threshold for that and will help keep some economic diversity in the area. With that said it would be great if you could answer the questions below: 1. What is happening to Ash Meat and Fish, which is the current retail unit at 133? Is that closing and being broken into 8 small retail units facing Bussey Alley and / or Rye Lane? If they are planning retail facing the alley vs just facing Rye Lane its probably to sell stuff to people going to the Bussey Building / Copeland park. Otherwise, it would make no sense to orient the retail that way as it has no other foot traffic. Can you explain why you think this is going to restrict access to Bussey etc? 2. How do the proposals restrict access and use of the courtyard? Retail facing the courtyard, again, only seems to make sense if you are anticipating heavy foot fall so it wouldn't make any sense for the developer to restrict this in anyway. 3. I love the roof top cinema. Can you explain if the top of the additional two roof levels of the new 133 roof is exactly at the same height as the top of Bussey? If so, when holding an event on the roof of Bussey, wouldn't you still be able to have unrestricted views of London? I'm asking because in your first post you say these are at the same level, which doesn't immediately strike me as problematic for the cinema views (which I love). 4. Can you explain how the multi-story car park is impacted-- isn't it higher than the Bussey building (I can't remember for sure)? Also its further north so this development shouldn't impact Frank's views of London. Also, given that car park and cinema have officially been awarded to someone for redevelopment, it might be more relevant to understand how 133 interacts with the new proposed scheme, rather than what is currently in place there. 5. How is the overlooking you mention going to impact the new station square exactly? Are you saying people won't use the roof top gardens because people in their flats will be able to see them in the public gardens? Is this overlooking only possible from 133 Rye lane if it gets the higher floors or do other buildings overlook the square / proposed gardens already? Why do you think the overlooking prevent the gardens being used? 6. ETA: You've mentioned where the retail is going to oriented but where is the residential access point for the flats? Is that off Rye lane rather than the alley or courtyard? I imagine that's the case but it would be great if you could confirm. Its always better to actually object to a planning application with things that are not just assumptions and that are also viable issues for planning consideration. Getting people all riled up over points the developer may be able to easily dismiss rather than focusing more keenly on things that can be influenced would be a missed opportunity. I'm not saying that's what you are doing, but its why I'm asking all these seemingly pedantic questions! Edited for typos. Back to work now.

She said it was a jacket not a jumper. 25 quid for a jacket is very reasonable.

Its not just about university. The under-performance is across numerous measures including reading ability at each key development stage as well as progress made at testing for each key development stage in core subjects. A few people seem to think the white British working class don't view education as a means of social mobility the way that other groups do. I don't know if that's true as like I say, it doesn't tally with my personal experience but its an interesting theory.

50% of working class kids do not go on to higher education though. In fact working class white children go on to university less than any other group and that's been the case for years and years now. I know personally many people who don't fit that profile and who were the first inter family to attend uni etc. The underperformance compared to all other groups though is a serious problem nonetheless as is the underperformance of boys vs girls at all levels of education and in all ethnicities. No one can understand it so nothing is being done. The government has studied it extensively but are still at a loss as to what the specific policy changes are that are needed.

I think its fairly common to ask about empty shops and I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't think its appropriate to discuss people's personal circumstances online,when they can be identified.

Would it be wrong though to bring the age in line with retirement age as Otta has said? What's the logic between having it below that? Also, means testing it makes sense (though I agree the administration of means testing would like wipe out the savings). That's in large part why some many benefits are universal. You have to want to exclude all but the poorest before means testing starts to make sense from a cost benefit perspective.

What's a freedom pass exactly? Is it pre-paid travel on public transport?