intexasatthe moment

I guess there might be some 5 storey buildings along Peckham Rye ( Harris School ) but are there really 5 storey buildings in Barry Rd ?

Roy Brooks is staying ,but there is no mention of any other business being retained and mention made of one being lost . But I guess just because the application shows an estate agency on sit and doesn't show the vets or anything else apart from a supermarket it doesn't necessarily mean other businesses won't be relocated on site or elsewhere . I can't quite get my head round the relevant bit of the Southwark Plan http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2284/the_southwark_plan pages 30 - 33 ,but I think Southwark are beholden to the London Plan which requires them to conserve and expand office space - hence estate agents ( class B ) Roy Brooks is retained . But I think ( really not sure ) that the site meets these criteria ( policy 1.4 ) i. The site fronts onto or has direct access to a classified road; or ii. The site is in a Public Transport Accessibility Zone which in turn means that the hairdressers and vets etc should be offered alternative accommodation or relocated within the new development ,because ,as Southwark explains " Small business premises are often vulnerable to displacement by other uses and therefore need special protection and support" "Policy 1.5 Small Business Units 159 The LPA will protect and encourage appropriate business and commercial developments which meet the needs of small businesses in the following ways: i. Any proposals for the change of use or redevelopment of employment sites which include small business units and to which Policies 1.2, 1.3 or 1.4 apply shall make equivalent provision for small units within the replacement floorspace for Class B uses unless the existing Small Business Units have been vacant for 12 months or there is comparable alternative provision provided by the applicant; " But I could be completely misunderstanding .

Yes it looks like the only retained business will be the estate agents .So goodbye lovely vets with handy parking and great location .Farewell friendly social hub barbers with refreshments on tap/bottle . The application pointedly omits mention ,always making reference to the " existing uses " being " primarily minicab offices and takeaways " . I presume ( can't work it out ) that the estate agents get offered alternative premises because they are a B type use /office and the hairdressers and vets aren't . To my mind the development looks too big and incongruous . The proposal is a bigger footprint - 577sq m.to 640 sq.m and the ground floor extended 1.9m beyond the existing plot line . The proposal says " The maximum height specified by the Planners is 3 storeys to Barry Road, 4 storeys to Peckham Rye, and articulation of the corner at maximum 5 storeys." Extracts from Southwark's requirements quoted for this conservation area are "? Heights of three and four storeys and,..... in each situation buildings should remain within the range of heights of the block of buildings in which it is situated; ? Rooflines typically to particular blocks within the Conservation Area must be maintained. Extensions and changes to the basic roof form are generally unacceptable even where set back from parapet lines." and "4.5.1. There is limited potential for development in the Conservation Area. The most obvious example is Barry Parade, which as a single storey development makes poor use of the site. Its prominent location is worthy of a good 3-4-storey corner building" and "? Building to be no higher than 4 storeys on Peckham Rye; ? Building to be no higher than 3 storeys on Barry Road; ? One additional floor at the corner may be possible but it should be a marker and not extend significantly back along Peckham Rye and still less along Barry Road " IMO it's too high along Barry Rd . See the elevations http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=15/AP/2698&system=DC And finally - if Southwark ,talking about this conversation area says "Do not introduce design details or features that are out of character with the area, such as the use of windows and doors made of aluminium or UPVC or other non-traditional materials. " how are the following proposed finishes ok ? " Ground floor shopfront windows to be polyester powder coated aluminium frames in RAL 7022 (Umbra grey) p Residential windows to be polyester powder coated aluminium frames in RAL 7022 (Umbra grey) Louvres, railings and external doors to be polyester powder coated in RAL 7022 (Umbra grey)"

hopefully they'll have tree preservation orders ? Have you contacted Southwark Adolfo Gonzalez Arboricultural Officer [email protected] Parks & Open Spaces Environment & Leisure Southwark Council 160 Tooley Street PO BOX 64529 London SE1 5LX Tel: 020 7525 5945 or Robin ,rch on here is great on these issues . Good luck .

Mmm - probably squeeze a couple of schools in there ...

Bet the owner wouldn't agree . But maybe not and that's why they're not secured .They look stylish to me . I no nothing about bikes so probably shouldn't be commenting .

mynamehear makes a good point ,I once did that with a bunch kids who ,with bikes ,were blocking my way and refusing to move .Was amazed when they moved . They are kids when all said and done and sometimes are just full of hot air and bluster . But... guess if I were out with little ones I 'd just want to avoid and not antagonise .

Blimey bikes like that wouldn't be abandoned !

Agree that some wardens v unhelpful . But in case it saves anyone else from a ticket - if the machine is not working you need to find one that is or pay by phone . As johannaf found non working/malfunctioning machine doesn't entitle you to park . Every sympathy with johaanaf and agree warden should have exercised discretion .

Sorry ,yes council tax ! Mmm think you're right ,will depend on whether visitor has a permanent residence where he pays council tax .

This is in Lambeth - relative ( 23 years ) staying with someone who receives reduction in hsg benefit for single occupancy for 3 month internship . Would this affect the reduced council tax benefit ? anyone Know ?

rch is really passionate and practised at saving trees ..maybe she could help ? eg http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1470880,1472865#msg-1472865

I tend to think that " not oversubscribed " in this context probably means " just enough " .So neither under nor over .

FWIW Jane Fletcher Harris ED Girls gives the same message as that from Academy @Peckham "we are not oversubscribed for 2015 and demand is not forecast to increase significantly in 2016 or 2017 " http://www.charter.southwark.sch.uk/_files/users/50/EB784C4411EE6173F6C0BDB154953046.pdf

Well put .

I guess my views are coloured by personal experience of the most jaw dropping lies, power and bullying exhibited by Westminster and a venture capitalist who were intent on forcing a school,against overwhelming opposition to become an Academy . Though of course the experience taught me that flouting procedure matters very little if you have lots of money and political influence . Harris's attitude and threats seem a big deal to me . I think having to re run the consultation would lead to major problems by delaying everything ,and an opening date postponed until 2018 is one of Harris's stated aims . But ....if a new vision and ethos with a clear offer re SEN were to emerge that would be one positive .

Reading your post bawdy-nan it does indeed throw Charter 2's silence into high relief . It's incredibly depressing how little has improved over the years . Clearly the Charter 2 team must be giving a lot of thought as to how to counter the Harris FED and the possibilty of a Judicial Review . Hopefully while they're regrouping they will address this gaping SEN hole in their proposal . I suppose the absence of any comment from team Charter 2 is the result of legal advice . As no doubt was team Harris's silence ( until too late ) during the consultation period when they obviously were aware but knew it would be politic to let the situation develop leaving them able to mount a formal challenge of inadequate process .

Londonmix - yes see exactly what you are saying about having to have lottery if have zones .I can be a bit dense sometimes !

not having a dig but just want to emphasise that according to Harris vice principal Academy@Peckham not oversubscribed for 2015 nor expected to be for 2016 or 2017 .

I don't think it's "if" ;the tone of correspondence from Harris shows that they ARE throwing their weight around . Additionally I can see no other reason behind their refusal to meet and discuss with Charter 2 until September than a deliberate attempt to delay the project making it impossible for Charter 2 to meet important deadlines . FWIW given that Harris have mentioned an admissions policy based on zones I don't think they'll be pushing for a lottery .And personally I think zones have much to recommend them ,not least that they prevent an ever decreasing catchment area as popularity grows . But I do think they'll hold out for a reduced admissions number . While I think it's wrong that the current status of education with competing schools and differing admissions procedures allows politics and capitalism to give Harris so much power and I dislike their methods ,they do have a point . We need to hear from the steering group/Charter/local councillors what their take on Harris's threats is and how it can be dealt with in a constructive way . Writing to MPs and Sec.of State seems a good option .

On a different note my understanding of the Harris banding system is that it reflects the national ability range ,not that of the cohort applying in any one year or that of the local area . Which if correct would mean that if unable to obtain an intake matching the national ability profile from near the school they would take pupils from a wide geographical area . So the concerns they express in the report http://www.charter.southwark.sch.uk/_files/users/50/EB784C4411EE6173F6C0BDB154953046.pdf page 50 about Charter 2's vision " being aimed at affluent children " with the result "that we ( Harris ED ) will see the percentage of children with challenging backgrounds and social issues increase " shouldn't worry them . Should it ? Though the concept that children from financially deprived backgrounds equates to children with challenging backgrounds and social issues might worry us . (I'm sure ,but of course could be wrong ,that the ED Harris boys school had this info re the type of banding used on it's website ,but I can't find any evidence of that now .)

Regarding the question of whether The Academy@Peckham is oversubscribed or not I would say that there is probably some discrepancy between the number of applications received ( as quoted on Southwark's site ) and the number of applicants who take up places . The executive principal of the Peckham Academy ,writing in response to The Charter 2 consultation on 30 June says "Harris Academy Peckham is not oversubscribed for 2015 and demand is not forecast to increase significantly in 2016 or 2017 " http://www.charter.southwark.sch.uk/_files/users/50/EB784C4411EE6173F6C0BDB154953046.pdf page 53 It may be worth noting that The Academy@Peckham reduced it's intake a couple of years ago and that despite opening a ( one of 2 feeder ) primary school on it's premises has a very large site .

Aah ,that makes sense .I'll google how to dampen it .

" Do Harris really have the power to scupper the 2016 opening at this stage? " - I hope not but feel sure that their influence will be felt . My guess would be by reducing the planned admissions number and altering the admissions policy . With that going on they won't need to target delaying the opening date . The letter from the federation is loaded with threats - that the consultation wasn't correctly carried out and that this leaves the process " open to challenge " ,that they'll question the DfE's equalities impact assessment if they don't agree with it ,and that nasty clincher ,already quoted by redjam . 'we will challenge any decisions to proceed with all the means available to us' Not ameliorated by the qualifying " if we feel our schools and vulnerable young people they serve are damaged by this proposal " which they clearly think they are .So change the proposal or we'll fight . And what does this "Having been involved in opening Free Schools we can make some higher level comments about the process and validity of what you are doing ;and what ministers are in danger of doing without adequate thought ." mean ? We have the ear of policy makers and can ensure that they make the "right" decision by giving them food for thought ?

Quite agree about heave ,and feeling sad . I'd like to have more detail/see reports about the "suspect" damage .