Aylesham Centre Redevelopment – join the discussion

[Eileen]

Berkeley Homes plans to construct 14 buildings up to 20 storeys on the Aylesham Centre, a small site in Peckham’s low rise Georgian/Victorian townscape, full of small independent traders. Community awareness remains low.

Please sign petition to help stimulate wide local discussion - https://change.org/RightForPeckham 

Here on the EDF we have the opportunity to take part in the local discussion about what would be the right development for that major site in Peckham town centre at the north end of Rye Lane. If you have ideas, suggestions or queries this is a good place to share them.

You can also come to the 3^rd community public meeting on Tuesday 23^rd April 6.30-8pm at Peckham Levels. See https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/events/event/437-aylesham-redevelopment-3rd-community-public-event/

[Spartacus]

Hello Eileen 

Over the years you have objected to many proposals  to improve Peclham town centre citing the romantic vision of Peckhams "low rise Georgian/Victorian townscape" as a reason to stop homes and improvements occurring. 

Let's be truthful here, Peckham Town Centre as it currently stands needs to improve, the proposal isn't out of keeping for london and we desperately need homes. 

Therefore what's your alternative proposal as objection without one is folly?

[TES]

This development looks fantastic - we have a housing crisis and this is building scores (hundreds?) of new homes on an under-used car park, in an area with significant existing facilities and a very short walk to one of South East London's best connected train stations (as well as many bus routes).  Southwark, like every borough in London, needs more homes. I can't think of any better place in the area to do so.

[Nigello]

Peckham Centre is neglected by council members, householders and business owners alike, to varying degrees. It needs attention and money and if this development helps it become cleaner, safer and more sustainable and welcoming I’m in favour. 

[malumbu]

I'm not going to be formally responding to any consultation but sharing a general view on recent high rise developments.  Subjective of course but heck parts of the elephant and even more Vauxhall Cross are ugly.  Hopefully this one will be more pleasant on the eye as well a better place to live. 

Getting the right mix of people in the community is a challenge, lessons were going to be learned from totally new developments around the 02 which are apparently quite sterile, as part of the legacy from the Olympics, but I understand that the underprivileged communities around Stratford did not benefit as expected.  I like how Surrey Quays and interior of Rotherhithe feels, but this is relatively low rise 

[Jules-and-Boo]

London's going high rise anyway - a number of super tall buildings approved.

If we need homes, it's preferable to build them on sites already developed rather than on green land.

We need homes - yet there is resistance when it's on your doorstep. Where would be good as an alternative?

[alice]

It’s not the number of high-rise units for me it’s the percentage of social housing agreed. It’s a great opportunity. 

[midge]

I agree with the posts that housing is an urgent need in Peckham and throughout Southwark. But as Alice says, it’s the percentage of social / affordable housing that matters. In October last year, there were over 4,200 households on the Council’s waiting list for housing in Peckham alone (over 17 thousand across Southwark). But the developer is only offering 35% affordable housing (which means that 65% will be unaffordable). Both Southwark Council and the GLA say that a big development like this should provide 50% affordable housing.  

Re-development of the site is a great opportunity to make the town centre “cleaner, safer and more sustainable and welcoming” (borrowing Nigello’s great words). Is this dense development going to do that, when it provides no real green and open space where people can spend time outside and nature can help us tackle the growing problems of climate change like absorbing flood water, cooling the air on baking summer days? Are 7-storey buildings along Rye Lane (where the average buildings are 2-3 storeys) going to be welcoming to users of the town centre? How will the development impact on Peckham’s economy? Currently there is busy daytime commercial activity of shops providing for different demographics and needs including a rich offering of international groceries and other products, alongside a thriving night-time economy. I can’t see anything in the proposal that suggests how it will enhance and empower the local economy.

Yes please, let’s have a great development on this site that enhances the town centre. This means not letting the developer get away with packing people into dense blocks that turn their back on the town centre and which will be a recipe for urban decay in the long run. Peckham deserves better than this!

[TES]

There are quite a few points made above that are worth trying to disaggregate:

 

• Want more affordable/subsidised homes in this development (i.e. those provided by the council or Housing Associations to tenants at a discount to market rates). This seems to be a fair enough point, but I would have thought this should lead to a desire for a bigger development as much as a rebalance of the proportions. It's worth also remembering that this is not a development that is taking housing stock out to put new stock back in, it is a net gain of housing stock, even the market-rate housing will help ease pressure on rents and prices in the area. This article provides a handy summary on the academic literature of how market-rate construction makes cities more affordable. 
• Buildings are too big. Clearly this is subjective, I happen to really like what is being done in places like Elephant and Castle and Hackney Wick, some posters above clearly do not. In my view, the only way we build a London that is fit for the future is by increasing density, especially at transport hubs. Where else would we build new homes if it is not on sites like this? (Be specific, show us which fields you want to build on, which facilities those residents would use and how they would get to their jobs.)
• No green space to spend time outside. The current plan has public access green space and kids play areas where there is currently just buildings and tarmac. It is a short walk from Peckham Rye, Cossall Park, Surrey Canal Walk etc. South London is pretty fantastic for parks, many of the best are a short bus ride away.
• Ability to cool air or absorb flood water. Likewise, there will be new trees and green space where there are currently just buildings and tarmac.
• Local economy. Currently local architects are designing the development. Short term there will be significant job creation and influx of construction workers who will spend money in the local economy. Long term there will be 850 new homes, so something like 2,400 new potential customers for all the businesses in Rye Lane. It is only a small stretch of Rye Lane shops that will be redeveloped - and they are mostly large brand name businesses like JD Sports, Poundland, EE, Holland and Barrett etc. Broadly speaking it is the least "independent" or "thriving night-time economy" part of Rye Lane. It's hard to think of any single action that could be more supportive of the local economy.
• Turning its back on the town centre. It's creating a modern supermarket, new shopping spaces, new public areas and new homes in the town centre. I don't see how it is turning it's back on Peckham - it is literally investing in the future of Peckham.

 

Given the intensity of the cost of living crisis and the fact that housing is a major driver for this, the onus has to be on people against projects like this to provide other solutions: what do you want to see happen that can ease rents and house prices? What services should governments and councils cut to fund subsidised social housing? As mentioned above, be specific. Until there are credible alternatives, I think targeted densification and development of brown-field sites is the least controversial option for London.