Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Dear All


Please can local residents comment on the latest proposal by owner of the shops where Roy Brooks Estate Agent is on BArry Parade/Peckham Rye corner. He is once again proposing an insanley high building, with underground basement parking which I wthink will have a negative impact on the the locality (I live next door to the site) It would be helpful if people could give there views. While I support in general the development of the site, the owner keeps putting in planning for buildings that are just not viable, and some would argue is doing so in order to be seen to be interested in developing the plot, while not actually having any real intent to do so with a sensible and considered proposal.


All comments would be appreciated to insure the area is developed with sensitivity and consideration to local residents, rather than with an eye on profits!


here is the link to the council page, if it doesnt work the application ref is 18/AP/2238


https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9579030


Many thanks in advance

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> and the height seems to be pretty much the same as

> what is there now:

>

> http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDo

> cument=%7b%7b%7b!uaHXqRBXz2eWMwfaVjFA2Q%3d%3d!%7d%

> 7d%7d


Bit higher p'haps. Perhaps the original poster could be more specific about what they are objecting to?

The proposed building is four story's high, with an underground car park, for residents of flats, and commercial use. I live next door, the building will block light to my bedroom windows, and the underground parking is at risk of damaging the foundations of my house. Prior planning proposal have been based on the commercial units being leased to a supermarket which would involve delivery lorries parking and delivering on what is already a very busy corner which is frequently backed up with traffic. Just a couple of weeks ago I witnessed an accident where a young boy was knocked off his bike by a car turning into Barry Road from Pekham Rye, the impact of causing further obstructions and heavyweight traffic to this corner is going to have a further negative effect, and in all likley hood the commercial units would be leased to yet another supermarket chain, which will also have further impact on local stores like Barry's who have managed to stay in business by some sort of miracle! The owner of the land repeatedly puts in for crazy planning which will be rejected on various grounds. There is a consensus among those of us living close by that he does so in order to be seen to be doing something with the building, as otherwise the council have grounds to claim the land. So the owner (A multi billionaire by the way) is paying lip service to a system in order to keep hold of land he has no intention of developing. This is just one, and I admit anecdotal thought. As I said in my comments to the council I am in favour of development, trust me I lived next door while it was full of junkies and squatters, and was the only local resident to play an active role in getting them removed. I am just asking that local residents understand the full picture and review the proposal thats all.

There was a derlict house in Peckham next to a family member which Southwark after decades did claim and auction off ,but this was because they could not find an owner and the action was to recoup unpaid council tax .


But that's not the scenario here is it ?

It actually appears to be five storeys high at its highest point, with the rooftop penthouse. It doesn't look too bad on the plans, but if you visualize the actual size and width it will have a huge, and in my view negative, impact on what's currently a very pleasant vista from the Common. What's there now needs replacing but surely something more in keeping with its environment could be designed.

Please do comment online at the council planning website. The proposal reference is 18/AP/2238 , web link below


[planning.southwark.gov.uk]


While I absolutley want it developed, having recieved a letter this morning highlighting that there will be two retail units, and I know one is intended for another co-op, do we really need another siupermarket in the area, it will most certainly put BArry's out of business, and Shauns barbers as well. Not to mention the increase in traffic with deliveries etc, please please comment against.

Barry's is a really great local newsagents. It would be really sad to see another supermarket go in (will have two Sainsbury's, two M and Ss, and two co-ops in ED...). An entirely residential unit (more in keeping with what's there) would make a lot more sense. Will write to Southwark!
  • 2 weeks later...

moni69 Wrote:

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

> The proposed building is four story's high, with

> an underground car park, for residents of flats,

> and commercial use. I live next door, the building

> will block light to my bedroom windows, and the

> underground parking is at risk of damaging the

> foundations of my house. Prior planning proposal

> have been based on the commercial units being

> leased to a supermarket which would involve

> delivery lorries parking and delivering on what is

> already a very busy corner which is frequently

> backed up with traffic. Just a couple of weeks ago

> I witnessed an accident where a young boy was

> knocked off his bike by a car turning into Barry

> Road from Pekham Rye, the impact of causing

> further obstructions and heavyweight traffic to

> this corner is going to have a further negative

> effect, and in all likley hood the commercial

> units would be leased to yet another supermarket

> chain, which will also have further impact on

> local stores like Barry's who have managed to stay

> in business by some sort of miracle! The owner of

> the land repeatedly puts in for crazy planning

> which will be rejected on various grounds. There

> is a consensus among those of us living close by

> that he does so in order to be seen to be doing

> something with the building, as otherwise the

> council have grounds to claim the land. So the

> owner (A multi billionaire by the way) is paying

> lip service to a system in order to keep hold of

> land he has no intention of developing. This is

> just one, and I admit anecdotal thought. As I said

> in my comments to the council I am in favour of

> development, trust me I lived next door while it

> was full of junkies and squatters, and was the

> only local resident to play an active role in

> getting them removed. I am just asking that local

> residents understand the full picture and review

> the proposal thats all.


Gotta agree about the danger on that corner. They are proposing using the parking bay nearest the junction for deliveries between 7 and 10 a.m. Sightlines for anyone crossing at that corner already bad with mainly short-term cars parking there. Can2't imagine a taller, wider delivery truck doing anything but making it MORE dangerous as well as adding to congestion during rush hour. Proposal also says all their refuse will be collected from there which means refuse trucks also using the bay. Apparently store refuse/ deliveries won't be out on the pavements, but given Co-op and Tesco behaviour locally in this regard pigs might fly!


And its higher than surrounding buildings... as has already been said. And I love Barrys! Wouldn't want to see them outed by another chain store.


HP

Hi all


I would definitely agree with posters above that if you do not want the application to go ahead then it's best to submit an objection through the Southwark website.


Rules around planning mean that decisions can only be based on what are called 'material conditions' which include:

Overlooking/loss of privacy

Loss of light or overshadowing

Parking

Highway safety

Traffic

Noise

Effect on listed building and conservation area

Layout and density of building

Design, appearance and materials

Government policy

Disabled persons' access

Proposals in the Development Plan

Previous planning decisions (including appeal decisions)

Nature conservation


So if you emphasise these areas then the objection will be given more weight.


Best wishes

James

Hi, I've just written my objection to the proposed development on Southwark's planning pages.

The right sort of development would be a welcome addition to this site. But I agree with many others that this proposal is not appropriate for the area. More affordable homes would be wonderful. More shops would not...

Slight deviation on less than sites. I was waiting at the bus stop opposite ED Station earlier and had time to look at the site there. Looks pretty tacky and they've just taped up the damage to the corner that was knocked into recently. That mock brick cladding looks as though it's superglued on - not sure I would be buying. Not sure what Southwark's role in the finished article might be but surely new buildings must pass some sort of standards test?

Thanks all for your comments, and to all who have commented on the council planning page. I too living next door to it for a number of years really want it developed, however I guessthe only thing you have to ask yourself is would you be happy living next door to it, and while whats there is awful, at least there is still potential for something half decent to be put up, if they get it wrong it's there forever and an unsightly cheap building put up purely to make profit for unscrupulous property developers is not desirible or ethical!


Anyhoo, we will see, but thank you for all responses

Hi mini69,

you can also ask the local councillors - both of the ward and it is across the road for Goose Green Councillors whether they think it should be 'called0-in' to be decided by a committee of councillors IF council planning officers plan to grant planning permission under delegated powers.

When this happens it means you get a chance and others to speak for and against any scheme - at worst it often sees a few tighter conditions for a scheme and sometimes councillors refused planning permission when council officers would have granted permission.

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

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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