Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm 100% with Louisa on this one. Can't believe it even needs to be discussed, the station building is fantastic and hidden by a horrid, dank arcade. There's plenty of space on the lane for everything: station sqre, chains, independents and artists included. In a time of such awful cuts to public spending we should be cheering at the opportunity for regeneration that this scheme offers. Plus, everyone using the station or living/working locally will enjoy an improved environment.

I think there's pretty much universal agreement that opening up the station at the front and demolishing what are pretty universally thought of as dark, unapproachable, potentially unsafe, buildings and passage ways into what could be a nice square.


On the arches towards the rear, I think the point Peckham Vision made to the council is that it shouldn't be a wholesale clearout. They should work with existing businesses to see if it's appropriate for them to stay. Would agree that many of the arches are under utilised and some are not well kept - eg the first arch, formerly another evangelical 'church', or the second arch which is part of the Tara fabrication yard and full of junk (not salvage). Would obviously be good to encourage the artists, who have helped the area flourish to stay, but also Bar Storey. Would also be worthwhile having a mix of businesses that serve the whole community - so not just more cafes and galleries (and I say that as someone who likes both of those things - there is a limit though).

Well, again, only to you.


Those betting shops wouldn't proliferate if people weren't using them. They wouldn't make money and they'd close. Likewise, for the churches, if no parishioners attended they would cease to be.


Horses for courses.


Whilst I'd love to see elements of Peckham change, it has a very different demographic to East Dulwich and should continue to serve those groups.

Quite a free market approach. I don't think you can use that as the only reasoning behind what should be sites in the town centre.


Personal view. I'm also a Peckham resident and having my view too. Fully accept I don't represent everyone who lives in the area though

You can't just start saying "get rid of the scruffy dentists/betting shops/hairdressers", etc. The customers, employees, and owners are part of the local community too.


I am in completely in favour of restoring the station, but it needs to be done with sensitivity. Will existing businesses be given any assistance with relocation?

You are affording rights to owners who are not worthy of them, Jeremy. Why should we pussy-foot around with those who break the law (littering, illegally parking etc) just because they are providing a service (AKA 'making money') and are part of - that old chestnut - 'the local community' ? The Lane is ill-policed and it should no be so.

I do shop there from time to time - at Argos, one of the pound shops, Holland and Barrett but don't spend too much time there as it is often congested and, well, down-at-heel. Hearing ear-splitting sounds being pumped out of shops is a major turn-off, too.

Install best practise, fine those who don't do so, and the place would improve markedly even before megabucks are spent.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> You can't just start saying "get rid of the

> scruffy dentists/betting shops/hairdressers", etc.

> The customers, employees, and owners are part of

> the local community too.

>

> I am in completely in favour of restoring the

> station, but it needs to be done with sensitivity.

> Will existing businesses be given any assistance

> with relocation?



Perhaps the residents of Ed with the perhaps backing of Cllr Barber could extend the hand of friendship and and put in place a relocation plan that makes sure all those displaced would be offered any empty shops on LL at affordable rents


Why should Peckham have all these wonderful businesses


LL does lack Nailshops. hair extension shops opened fronted meat and fish shops and masses of rubbish.


This could turn LL in a shopping destination


Peckham residents need better.

grumpyoldman Wrote:

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

> This is what it used to look like.



Wow - that is very sad. I so hope the council will be able to restore it to that level with the public square at the front. Yes the scary dentist and the jerk chicken shop might serve some members of the community, but I personally think they are a minority, compared to the number of people who would benefit from and enjoy a lovely new public square.

JohnL Wrote:

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

> The council will probably wash it's hands of

> everything now it hasn't got it's way completely.

>

> Hope not.



Agreed - that's what I'm worried about. I just hope the folks at Peckham Vision haven't squandered a very valuable opportunity here.

One of our own posters articles here .. note the phrase "Under present regulations, bookies are allowed only four machines per shop. They simply open more stores to sidestep the rules."


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103218/When-bookies-common-post-offices-Britain-major-problem-High-Street-campaigner-Rowenna-Davis.html


david_carnell Wrote:

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

> Well, again, only to you.

>

> Those betting shops wouldn't proliferate if people

> weren't using them. They wouldn't make money and

> they'd close. Likewise, for the churches, if no

> parishioners attended they would cease to be.

>

> Horses for courses.

>

> Whilst I'd love to see elements of Peckham change,

> it has a very different demographic to East

> Dulwich and should continue to serve those groups.

I had to use that dentist when I had complications that set in from a dental abscess. My GP said I needed emergency treatment and it was the only place open on a Saturday. I was apprehensive because it looked so scruffy outside but the dentist was very good. Don't judge their competence by what the building looks like.

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

    • Hey Sue, I was wrong - I don't think it would just be for foreign tourists. So yeah I assume that, if someone lives in Lewisham and wants to say the night in southwark, they'd pay a levy.  The hotels wouldn't need to vet anyone's address or passports - the levy is automatically added on top of the bill by every hotel / BnB / hostel and passed on to Southwark. So basically, you're paying an extra two quid a night, or whatever, to stay in this borough.  It's a great way to drive footfall... to the other London boroughs.  https://www.ukpropertyaccountants.co.uk/uk-tourist-tax-exploring-the-rise-of-visitor-levies-and-foreign-property-charges/
    • Pretty much, Sue, yeah. It's the perennial, knotty problem of imposing a tax and balancing that with the cost of collecting it.  The famous one was the dog licence - I think it was 37 1/2 pence when it was abolished, but the revenue didn't' come close to covering the administration costs. As much I'd love to have a Stasi patrolling the South Bank, looking for mullet haircuts, unshaven armpits, overly expressive hand movements and red Kicker shoes, I'm afraid your modern Continental is almost indistinguishable from your modern Londoner. That's Schengen for you. So you couldn't justify it from an ROI point of view, really. This scheme seems a pretty good idea, overall. It's not perfect, but it's cheap to implement and takes some tax burden off Southwark residents.   'The Man' has got wise to this. It's got bad juju now. If you're looking to rinse medium to large amounts of small denomination notes, there are far better ways. Please drop me a direct message if you'd like to discuss this matter further.   Kind Regards  Dave
    • "What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???" Why is it perceived, Reeves is responsible for doubling the "black hole" to £20b through the public sector pay increases. You can't live beyond your means and when you try you go bankrupt pdq. In 4 yrs time if this Govt survives that long and the country doesn't go bust before then, in 2029 I dread to think the state the country will be in.  At least Sunak and co had inflation back to 2% with unemployment being stable and not rising.   
    • He seemed to me to be fully immersed in the Jeremy Corbyn ethos of the Labour Party. I dint think that (and self describing as a Marxist) would have helped much when Labour was changed under Starmer. There was a purge of people as far left as him that he was lucky to survive once in my opinion.   Stuff like this heavy endorsement of Momentum and Corbyn. It doesn't wash with a party that is in actual government.   https://labourlist.org/2020/04/forward-momentum-weve-launched-to-change-it-from-the-bottom-up/
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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