Melon Road/Peckham Pulse

[ed_pete]

Anyone know what's going on Melon Road around the entrance to Peckham Pulse - there are a load of hoardings in place which seems to have sprung up now that the testing centre has been removed from the PP car park. I tried to cycle through there to Sumner Road but it's now all blocked by the new hoardings.

[peckhamside]

Agree this is a nuisance, at first they blocked the dropped kerb and left a gap further on, then they opened up a gap at the dropped kerb and now they have closed the whole road, going across the square is a bit of an accident waiting to happen!!!

[heartblock]

If it is where I think it is..it is part of the process of Southwark building on a park and one of the last green spaces in the most polluted part of Peckham I believe. Another Southwark Council planning disaster. Plane trees cut down and many very upset residents.

[ed_pete]

Ahh - found it.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/housing/new-council-homes/where-we-re-building/peckham/flaxyard-site

Seems like a real shame that the Council are building on green space. Isn't there also a huge new set of flats being built where the old timber yard (Whittens) was ?

[heartblock]

Apparently poor people who live in garden-less flats in Peckham don?t deserve a park and it?s their fault if people are homeless because they selfishly want a green space to breathe in (the LBC interview with a Southwark councillor was shocking).

But it is ok for people in Dulwich Village with gardens bigger than Peckham Green to have a new ?square of shame? and Dulwich Park.

Southwark Council is so wrong-headed.

[Spartacus]

Is there a link to the LBC interview ?

[Metallic]

Another Southwark Council debacle where they claim they asked for local opinion, didn't hear anything so went ahead. A friend of mine sent me the film of the trees being cut down. Heartbreaking. It is a load of tosh that they are building there.

[Nigello]

Where to build much needed, much demanded social housing?

[alice]

First sort out the 5000 empty council properties.

[Nigello]

Alice, please point to your sources so that all can be better informed. Thanks

[heartblock]

The council admits to around 900 empty, but there are a few other estate properties that they have snowballed. Here is the 900 they admit to. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/659979/response/1617201/attach/html/5/Empty%20properties.pdf.html

[Nigello]

Thanks, heartlblock. Perhaps now alice could fill in the gaps so we are even more aware of the facts.

[heartblock]

I think the 5000 are across South London if I remember correctly so Lambeth, Southwark, Bromley etc. this doesn?t include the council property that Southwark has sold off, which is also a significant amount, I will try and find the FOI when I?m less busy with work.

[Sally Eva]

The council cannot ignore the Right to Buy. Tenants can buy property at a significant discount after three years residence with a public landlord. https://www.gov.uk/right-to-buy-buying-your-council-home

A homeless person in priority need ie with learning or physical difficulties or children MUST be housed by the council if they are homeless. The prime generator of homelessness is private tenancies coming to an end. The landlord does not need a reason to end it though there is a process.

Result: lots of people in expensive temporary accommodation while they wait for a public sector home (council or housing association).

[heartblock]

The latest report, so not through a FOI and outlined in Southwark News in an excellent article by Katherine Johnstone

https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/the-great-infilling-debate-in-southwark-every-estate-where-new-developments-are-proposed-or-already-underway/

Last year the charity Action on Empty Homes compiled new statistics it described as ?extremely worrying? showing that the number of empty homes in Southwark had rocketed during lockdown, with one in 24 having ?no one living there?.

More than 3,600 homes in Southwark in 2020 were no longer listed as primary residences, up by almost 600 per cent from 523 in 2019 ? the highest recorded rise in any London borough.

There are also a further 2,358 homes listed as long-term empty properties in Southwark, up from 1,469 this time last year. While properties can be listed as temporarily empty in snapshot data during renovations, house sales or in between lets, any rise in the number that are empty long-term is particularly concerning.

So Alice is correct in saying 5000 empty homes, although possibly these are not all social housing

[heartblock]

And it isn't the right to buy that is an issue, it is Southwark selling housing stock that is in 'nice' areas to private investors, then concentrating social housing in certain areas...and then taking away their green spaces. They could have transformed Heygate rather than sell off and cause many older residents with no choice but to move due to the stock being offered at 3-4 times the rent.

[alex_b]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> The latest report, so not through a FOI and

> outlined in Southwark News in an excellent article

> by Katherine Johnstone

> https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/the-great-inf

> illing-debate-in-southwark-every-estate-where-new-

> developments-are-proposed-or-already-underway/

>

> Last year the charity Action on Empty Homes

> compiled new statistics it described as ?extremely

> worrying? showing that the number of empty homes

> in Southwark had rocketed during lockdown, with

> one in 24 having ?no one living there?.

> More than 3,600 homes in Southwark in 2020 were no

> longer listed as primary residences, up by almost

> 600 per cent from 523 in 2019 ? the highest

> recorded rise in any London borough.

> There are also a further 2,358 homes listed as

> long-term empty properties in Southwark, up from

> 1,469 this time last year. While properties can be

> listed as temporarily empty in snapshot data

> during renovations, house sales or in between

> lets, any rise in the number that are empty

> long-term is particularly concerning.

> So Alice is correct in saying 5000 empty homes,

> although possibly these are not all social housing

There?s no indication that more than a small proportion are social housing. I expect a large number of the ?not primary residence? category are holiday or investment properties. Long term empty is probably for similar reasons especially with overseas owners unable to travel for the last 18-months.

[heartblock]

Yes that is entirely true, although nearly 900 empty council houses as shown in the FOI and documented by Southwark Council themselves is nothing to be proud of. The number on the park does not equal 900 and this is an area with hardly any green space and one of the most polluted roads in London.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

> First sort out the 5000 empty council properties.

Not true.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Yes that is entirely true, although nearly 900

> empty council houses as shown in the FOI and

> documented by Southwark Council themselves is

> nothing to be proud of.

Most of those "empty" council properties are actually being redeveloped. It's just not true that the council is sitting around with huge parts of its estate empty for no good reason.

https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/southwark-council-plan-to-bring-almost-4000-empty-homes-back-into-use/

The right to buy is madness. Second homes should be more heavily taxed.

[heartblock]

Yep the right to buy is madness. Taxing second homes would not go down well in Gilkes and Calton, but yes bring it on and use the proceeds to build more social housing......but not on parks.

[peckhamside]

To be fair this land was never really a park and has always been designated for development. I used to work on Sumner Road and never saw anyone using this land as a park. Local residents do have the canal path, Burgess Park at the end of the road, Lettsom gardens not far away etc.

[northernmonkey]

In terms of the original comments - this is a really annoying development, coming on top of the reopening of Rye Lane to traffic. There doesn't really seem to be a good cycling route. The Spine doesn't have a safe crossing at the end of Lyndhurst, the top of Rye Lane is horrible as the lane mixes with pedestrians so this route down the side of Lidl used to be useful to get to the canal path as there were lights to cross Peckham Road. It would be great if the hoardings could be moved back to allow a route through for cyling.

Separately, whilst the headline figures on empty homes in Southwark aren't great, the large majority are not within Southwark's control. It would be good to see greater penalties on private investors who leave property unoccupied long term. For example, I'd like to see large multiples of council tax levied on properties that are empty and not actively being renovated for letting.

[Penguin68]

For example, I'd like to see large multiples of council tax levied on properties that are empty and not actively being renovated for letting.

Where houses have been inherited, possibly by a number of siblings, agreeing how and whether they are disposed can be a long-run event - this can leave them empty for some time, as can finalising an estate and then finding funds for e.g. renovation to lettable standards. Some properties clearly are simply being held empty, but for many closure following death can be a long-run (and quite traumatic) event. Forcing properties into the market against the will, desire or capabilities of those who own them sounds somewhat draconian. There will already be being estates duty on them (if appropriate, as it often is on locally over-values properties) as well as normal council taxes etc. - when the public costs associated with empty private property (no call on water, sewage, rubbish collection, education, health, road use etc.) will be minimal.

[alice]

It would be easy to waive penalties for homes going through probate. A year should be enough. It?s massive empty properties eg: the old Harvester that is ideal for social housing but no will from Southwark.

[northernmonkey]

The number of houses you mention Penguin are miniscule in comparison to those held by overseas investors - especially in new developments. I'm particularly thinking of investors who want brand new properties that have never been lived in and who keep them that way. These aren't insignificant in number.

It could be possible to have an exemption for houses going through probate for a set amount of time, but there really does need to be some measure in place to deter holding property without having anyone living in it - we have a finite amount of land and allowing people to hold properties empty is unacceptable.