Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, rjsmall said:

It is very easy to get to from here - Overground from Peckham Rye to Surrey Quays or P12 bus.

The rail connection is quite quick BUT Surrey Quays is not mobility accessible. It's an old station with a steep flight of stairs IIRC.

I've always gone one stop further to the redeveloped (or as some would have it "socially cleansed and gentrified") Canada Water station which has a lift, and then come back.

The last time I went to the Surrey Quays shops half of the units looked empty and two scrotes with an angle grinder were stealing a bike from the bike rack.

1 hour ago, rjsmall said:

I used to live up in that direction and quite a lot of locals (families and teenagers) used the bowling alley and cinema. It was reasonably inexpensive for London and certainly cheaper than going to the West End especially for eating out.

Exactly....perhaps some of those commenting on here never went to either the cinema or the bowling alley but they were always very busy whenever I went - so they were both very well used resources.


I am sorry to see them go but you know, good that they have been shut down because it gets rid of the car park.....#rollseyes

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

If your vision for London is more strip malls / huge car parks with warehouse style chains dropped around them, well I don't know what to say tbh 

No it's not but do we take it then that your vision of London then is huge swathes of over-priced loft-style apartments or luxury apartment blocks sold to the most wealthy, that come with a coffee shop, a 24-hour over-priced supermarket, an expensive gym and pool and a separate (discreet) entrance for those living in the (few) affordable houses that were built (for sale or often rent) to satiate planning requirements (that often start with a bold commitment but then gets significantly diluted throughout the process)?

I refer you to the Elephant and Castle Masterplan.......funny how the architects seemingly always refer to them as masterplans....

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/24/developers-ruining-cities-elephant-and-castle-london

Over a 1,000 affordable homes, a new park, jobs and businesses where there is currently a huge car park? I’ll take the former, yeh.

I know you’re obsessed with encouraging more cars everywhere, but we actually need housing and this is not a sustainable or desirable vision for London imo:

IMG_9615.jpeg

[Edited to add an image of a local 'strip mall', as apparently these only exist in the US']

image.thumb.png.88874eedf8e44b88e8f28f2e9ce486a2.png

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
  • Agree 2

Nope, this is not America - the picture you posted is and their use of cars, and retail space as a result, is massively different.


But your fixation on car park space, whilst ignoring the fact that the cinema and bowling alley were entertainment hubs for many, really shows how utterly blinkered you have become (but this is not at all surprising and was to be expected and I love how I mentioned the closure of the cinema and bowling alley and you went straight to "good, there's a car park").

 

Only time will tell if the developers hit the 35% of affordable homes - I think there is more than enough historical evidence to suggest that being seduced by claims made by developers is a fool's game and that the actual number may be far fewer. And when the developers start saying "could" in their documentation you can probably bet that "things change" may be trotted out as development work starts - especially given the involvement of some of the companies that were involved in Elephant and Castle Masterplan where "a lot changed" between plans and completion.

The Illustrative Masterplan could deliver around 3,000 new homes, helping to meet Southwark’s housing needs.

 

7 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Yup let's revive this thread in 2040 when it's all due to be finished and I will crow about how there's no cinema, no bowling alley and only a fraction of the affordable housing that was promised! 😉

2040? It's going to take 16 years???

Yup, it's 15 year project (I think some elements of it started a year or so ago). 

Imagine how annoyed Earl will be when they find out that the new Teaco superstore planned has underground parking for 530 cars....

Edited by Rockets
21 hours ago, Sue said:

Let's see what we all feel when the changes are complete, eh?

I imagine it's going to look and feel pretty similar to the mixed use development about 300m to the north, but bigger. 

https://maps.app.goo.gl/84WNyXLpvHmiLuHA7?g_st=ac

Yes I saw how they were proudly showing that they had built 70 odd affordable houses in the first batch. I really do hope they stick to their commitment but history tells us this is not what happens - that developers will often build the first batch fulfilling their affordable housing (to buy or rent) commitment but then u-turn.

 

If I was a betting person I would wager that once completed the affordable housing is nowhere near 35%. Look at the Dulwich Square development - none of that ended up being affordable housing despite what the original application and plans said. If councils do take cash in lieu of social housing you can see why developers may see that as an easy way to pay their way out - they probably cover that cost 10 times over in the margins on the luxury properties they build instead.

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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