Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It is the right decision from the council. The Aylesham Centre has proposals for redevelopment into more intensive retail space with housing attached. Planning is about balance. And the cinema and other cultural uses of the car park, maintain that balance between retail, housing and the arts that have come to define Rye Lane in recent years.

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Excellent news indeed, but I fear it?s probably an

> open invitation for a large chain cinema to now

> bid on the downstairs space as the security of a

> longer lease beckons.

>

> Louisa.


Fear not Louisa, Peckhamplex has a very long lease (much longer than the other entities on the site), the only way they would be removed is if their lease were compulsorily purchased to enable redevelopment which, thanks to the excellent work of PeckhamVision, isn't going ahead.

The "New Southwark Plan - Area Visions and Site Allocations" has identified possible development spaces in the borough for more than 40,000 dwellings. And it also makes it clear that town centres such as Peckham need leisure facilities and other amenities to prevent whole areas from becoming 'dormitories'. So this is a good piece of news.

Henry_17 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rendel,

>

> 83 new abodes could have come in handy. Is it

> enVisioned that they will be developed elsewhere?


Of course we need more housing - though given Southwark's record at Elephant Park etc one very much doubts there would have been much affordable social housing (even under the current very stretched definition) - but that doesn't mean it's appropriate to gut a town centre of much-needed and much-loved amenities and simply plank down tower blocks willy-nilly.

Just been reading in the PP that two lots of new housing, one in Peckham (smaller development, built on a car park) and one further afield (at least three towers of ascending height, one 40 storeys) have been criticised by locals, one of whom (in the case of the former) waxed very lyrical about not wanting to miss seeing vapour trails and puddles. I like whimsy, but much prefer people to be housed in places that aren't miles away from the centre of London in already established areas. Fact is, if you accept that London is an attractive place to live then you have to accept that more needs to be done to house all the people who come here - from the rest of the UK and beyond. Puddle gazing comes a very solid second to housing.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree that the carpets could do with a deep

> clean (or preferably being taken up and

> incinerated) but in PP's defence it has (at least

> in the gents' version) some of the most salubrious

> lavatories in this neck of the woods!



The Ladies aren't bad either :))


But yes it would be good to see those carpets disappear ......


Went to see Blade Runner there last week.


Six quid (for the 3D version). Compared to fourteen quid in East Dulwich (not for the 3D version).


Worth the walk :))

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I read somewhere that it was to be an Orleans Smokehouse, opening in December, which seems unlikely
    • There are "plans" to build more reservoirs, with physical work yet to be started, with the first hoped to be completed by 2036, and a second by 2040, then time is needed for them to fill so add at least another 12 months on. However, if the 1.5 million homes are built by 2028, each averaging 2 people occupying them.(some will be more, some will be less) then thats 3 million people showering, bathing and using water.  Therefore there is a massive demand that will strain our current inferstructure between 2028 and 2037 (nearly ten years) plus all those homes will need electricity, as the ambition is to phase gas usage out, which will take just as much time to reinforce the network to cover, let alone add in the ability to cope with green production electricity that needs to be moved from wind and solar farms to where it is most needed.  Therefore, is the current plan to build more homes, regardless of where they are,  potentially going to have serious ramifications on already creaking networks ? 
    • SDCAS is doing important work and needs our help - please consider supporting them at this difficult time. 
    • Cheers for that. Surprising to see it's over 25 years since it closed.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...