Peckham native

Found this document on Southwark's website dated December 2005 for a compulsory purchase order.

549 Lordship Lane SE22 (excluding house recently constructed in the grounds)

3 storey detached grade II listed period house with approx. ? acre garden. Victorian built 1870

Condition - Very poor. The house has been partially boarded up, although recent surveys suggest it is still structurally sound. Needs extensive refurbishment.

The property has been empty to the EHO for at least 15 years. The property represents a possible health problem for adjoining owners and is continually flytipped and has a vermin problem and has an outstanding section 4 notice Prevention of damage by pests Act 1949 served by Public protection. A notification of dangerous structure was served on the owner in Dec 1997 under the London Building Acts 1939

The EHO, Building Control and Conservation teams have used all reasonable endeavours to contact the registered owner of the property (a Mr B Chandra Esq.), but have been unable to establish communications. The owner?s agent has applied for planning approval to demolish the property and new build, which was subsequently rejected on appeal to the planning inspector.

Not sure how up to date this is English Heritage

I do believe that the owner tried to 'secretly' demolish the building by removing much of the internal structure a couple of years ago leaving the building even more unsafe than it already was. The council sealed the site off.

I had a Saturday job in Jones & Higgins shoe department. Once got a 50p tip (only got paid ?4 for the day) from a very nice American lady - it was the talk of the store!

In the 60's and early 70's Rye Lane had all the shops you needed. Don't think my Mum ever needed to go further afield for food, clothes, gifts etc etc. Plenty of independent shops, a good market in Choumert Road plus M&S, BHS, 2 C&As, large Co Op and several supermarkets. Started to go downhill when the shopping centre opened in Lewisham.

I would assume that Cafe Nero are going to appeal the refusal and they probably have a very good chance of winning. The planning officer's report stated that the mix of shops/restaurants would not fall below the percentage set out in the UDP and recommended acceptance.

I believe enforcement notices were in place re the change of use and the fans at the back of the building. Obviously the change of use enforcement is on hold until the result of the appeal.

The planning officer's report is available on the Southwark website, if a bit hard to find, and will be good evidence for Cafe Nero!

My mum remembers the Rye being ploughed and used to grow crops fairly unsucessfully during the war and the huts up near the park entrance housed Italian POWs. Although they weren't really prisoners as they were allowed out and about during the day.

Its only fairly recently that the old concrete bomb shelters were filled in on the corner of Peckham Rye and East Dulwich Road. I still call that junction the Kings Arms although the pub is long gone.

Off your rocker I'm afraid. While Peckham Rye Common is in SE15 and Peckham Rye Park is in SE22 I think you'll find that the area surrounding the park has always been called Peckham Rye:) Peckham and Dulwich were around as villages before East Dulwich. When developments spread we got East Dulwich West Dulwich etc. Perhaps we sould rename East Dulwich South Peckham!!

Growing up in Peckham we used to 'go up the park' or 'go down the swings' at least twice a week and the park was a busy place and you didn't dare upset the park keepers. Glad to see it have its recent makeover but it was a bit of a shock when we first went back recently to see parents allowing their kids to run through the flower beds.

The old Friern School - as I will always call it being an old Honor Oak girl - is I believe the proposed site for the Harris' Boys Academy East Dulwich. It did have an opening date of 2007 but as no work seems to have started I think that might have slipped a bit!

Interesting that the Council officer involved recommended this for approval. An extract from the report from Southwark's website:-

"The use of the premises for combined A1/A3 use would result in the partial loss of retail floorspace. Although the site is located within a protected shopping frontage, the proposal which involves a combination of both A1 and A3 uses would not undermine the shopping objectives of the area as it would not result in a reduction of retail uses below 50% of the shopping frontage in compliance with Policy 1.10 of the Southwark UDP 2007. Furthermore the proposed use compliments the retail function of the parade with no adverse effects on the vitality or viability of the shopping frontage. "

Successful appeal for Nero looks more & more likely.

Totally agree swiders. In regard costs I wasn't only thinking of costs sought by the applicant but more the cost of officer hours at Southwark preparing for the appeal etc.

In answer to fractionater what will happen now is Caffe Nero will probably appeal. If the decision made last night by the Council is in anyway shown to be unsound Caffe Nero will win and there will be a high cost to the Council (council tax payers). If Caffe Nero lose they will not be able to operate on that site as a cafe/restaurant and no other business will be able to use that premises or any other retail space in Lordship Lane as a cafe/restaurant. If Caffe Nero wanted to stay in Lordship Lane they would have to buy out an existing restaurant.

By the way Southwark have recently lost appeals possibly by being swayed by local pressure groups and not making sound planning judgements. Some councillors very scared of any critisism from the residents.