Peckham Rye Station

[Louisa]

PokerTime, some would suggest regardless of the outcome of planning decisions, Rye Lane has had some detrimental decisions made from local government which has contributed to its demise. Talk of the channel tunnel rail link, a tram hub, none of which happened but just by the mention of them they managed to force business diversity away from the area leaving us with a one dimensional high street.

Louisa.

[anonymous_third_part]

My main point is that "consultation" in most cases slows down change, leaving areas undeveloped.

Louisa makes a good point regarding Peckham and th eRye Lane area - so many different plans have come and gone. Decisions should be made and then the plans implemented.

[LadyDeliah]

Yes, democracy and community involvement are such a nuisance when you want to get yuor investment plans through quickly.

[PokerTime]

Give examples particular to Rye Lane Louisa. From a previous post had no idea what some of the groups you were dismissing do and I gave three good examples of how Rye Lane has been saved from major development (that would have destroyed it). You so far have given none, and didn't actually reply to my exposure of your lack of knowledge about Peckham Vision for example.

Please do reveal how the local council were involved of cancellation of Ken Livingstone's non funded tram development. I can give you lot's of information on how the Lib Dem council at the time tried to give over a huge area, surrounded by residential property, and what would have meant the loss of 400 existing jobs, to TFL for a 24hr maintenance and marshalling yard. I can also tell you how exposure of the planning process by local people, and consultation was crucial in forcing a rethink, and correcting the misinformation of the report supplied regarding jobs and suitability. And that those same groups argued for plans to be ammended (putting the yard in a more suitable location), not cancelled.

It's because of consultation written into planning law that councils can be challenged before signing away land and businness and anything else.

I agree anonymous, that bureaucrasy can slow the process, but that isn't a reason for bypassing consultation. Plans will always come and go because funding isn't ever in place before they come. It's easy to have ideas, not so easy to find the money to make them happen. And Peckham has had active local groups for a long time so ideas are plentiful.

But local councils, no more than planners, are not the reason that department stores have left Rye Lane. Basic economics are the reason. A shift away from smaller high streets to larger central malls and shopping centres. This is a change that can be seen all over the country over the last 20 years. Things change that local councils have little power to stop.

[Nigello]

George.Paints asks "what can we do" about hairdressers littering the streets with discarded hair. It's very easy: ask them to stop, ideally yourself or, if you have stylistophobia, by writing to them or phoning them.

[PokerTime]

Agreed LadyD. The point missing from my post was that private enterprise pursues profit as the end goal. Local people don't matter in that equation. The proposed plans by network Rail for redevelopment of the land around and behind the station are a perfect example of that. The challenge coming from local groups is to protect exisitng businesses over a fast profit in property sought by TFLs planners.

So consultation works to find a balance. Neither side will get exactly what they want, but both sides should get something out of it. And that seems perfectly sensible to me.

[PokerTime]

On the haitdresser thing. I would suggest raising it at a community council meeting (I think Rye Lane comes under Lane ward) where a minuted motion can be presented to councillors. I agree it should be possible to make businesses aware of their responsibility to make sure hair is not swept onto the street.

[Penguin68]

Yes, democracy and community involvement are such a nuisance when you want to get yuor investment plans through quickly.

It is an unfortunate paradox that all the elements (necessary) of a democratic and fair approach to planning, which inevitably involve (particularly with major developments) substantial amounts of time, inevitably also lead to, and exacerbate, 'planning blight'

I can see no obvious way of squaring this circle - but some areas are almost constantly the focus of different plans, (if one fails, like buses, another one will there shortly) which can sequentially blight an area for a substantial period. Perhaps there should be a 5 year rule - no new plan for an area can be put forward within 5 years of the last being abandoned, unless a significant majority of those living in the area declare differently).

[LadyDeliah]

Failing to do anything about the hair and other rubbish might benefit any councillors who are pushing for change on behalf of the development companies, because they are more likely to get public opinion on their side.

Oldest trick in the book, let something get run down or grubby, offer a poisoned chalice solution and hey presto, we are thankful for being bum rushed by the saviours in power.

[miga]

.

[PokerTime]

Those are interesting points.

I agree Penguin, that planning can lead to blight, and an element of that happened over the Tram scheme. Redevelopment of the building cornering Rye lane and Bournemouth Road was held up for years. It's completed now with some new shop space and I think looks tasteful (they kept part of the original facade of the building).

And I think your point LadyD about hidden political agendas in underdevelopment also has many examples in the history books. Not sure that the current Labour council can be accused of that though. Wider London authorities though, certainly can.

[Jeremy]

anonymous_third_part Wrote:

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

> I think it's very selfish of businesses (even if

> they are trendy) of taking advantage of cheap rent

> in old buildings and then campaigning for them not

> to be redeveloped. Places like the refreshment

> rooms and the Sunday Painter could easily

> relocate.

These are people who have invested money in their businesses, taken a punt in an area which is a bit rough round the edges, and helped make Peckham a more desirable and interesting place to live. Now they've done their job, they should be kicked out? To be replaced by Network rail's plans for "artisan studios"? No... could hardly disagree with your opinion more.

[cle]

miga Wrote:

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

> Zebedee Tring Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > And I'm not getting into the old boring working

> > class/ middle class argument that is so

> prevalent

> > on this MB. Bad, inconsiderate behaviour is

> > unacceptable, regardless of race, colour,

> creed,

> > class, sexual orientation etc.

>

> Some posters seem to think there are immovable

> definitions of good and bad behaviour - but social

> interactions and "manners" are deeply influenced

> by culture. What's happening on Rye Lane is that

> one subsection of society is interacting with

> others who by the looks of it have been there

> longer. Interesting to see gentrification in

> action.

This is very carefully worded. Applaudably so.

Let's be frank now:

Do you think some people believe it racist to criticise the practices of the afro hairdressers in regards to weaves and hair on the streets?

Or are those practices excusable/vindicated on a cultural basis somehow?

Does Peckham Rye being (culturally) majority African mean that African cultural norms have hitherot trumped British ones?

I'm curious on your thought process with this as it's crossed my mind too - it is the elephant in the room, as it were...

[PokerTime]

Interesting PDF on the current demographics of Peckham.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/750/peckham

What I think cle is that people basically want the same things in life in general. But we are all products of our culture, environment etc. The world has evolved because of the exchange of culture and ideas - there's plenty of historical evidence for that. So I think a discussion about what hairdressers do with hair is just that. It has nothing to do with ethnicity, culture etc. It's simply a pattern of human behaviour, copied, because there are no firms rules in place or enforced, or so it would seem. And I think in most cases it would just require the LA having a word.

So is the issue really one of how does anyone get an official to have a word?

But it then gets clouded by undertones of us and them. And that sadly opens the door to a questioning of motive, in the way an opinion is expressed.

I can only speak for myself, but I will always challenge an assumption presented as fact, when there is clear evidence to the contrary. I think most people would do that. I also find those with the biggest assumptions are often the most poorly informed, the most entrenched, and the most insular in their views of anything. That's fine if you live on an island, but most of us don't. So we have to learn to get along, and find better ways of communicating with those we perceive to be different to ourselves. Diverse communities are here to stay. It's better we find ways to make them work, than wish for something already long gone.

[anonymous_third_part]

I think everyone knew that the station was due to be redeveloped though. The decision to redevelop the station is no surprise to anyone.

[dan b]

anonymous_third_part Wrote:

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

> I think everyone knew that the station was due to

> be redeveloped though. The decision to redevelop

> the station is no surprise to anyone.

True. However Network Rail's decision to propose 6/7 storey blocks of flats alongside the station, to knock down the 30s art deco buildings on Blenheim Grove and to build "artisan" studios along all the arch frontages was a surprise to everyone, as they had not included all of that in their plans before and only snuck it in at the last minute. That's why it was helpful to have public consultation about it.

[Robert Poste's Child]

> That's fine if

> you live on an island, but most of us don't.

Erm...

[EDLove]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

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

> > That's fine if

> > you live on an island, but most of us don't.

>

> Erm...

Ha! I noticed this too. I'm certainly living on an island!

[EDLove]

Saw this article and thought of some of the earlier comments in this thread...

http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/mind-the-bap-since-when-did-chowing-a-chinese-on-the-tube-become-acceptable-9201613.html

[Louisa]

Good article. Glad it's at least been recognised by the media. No other city in the world puts up with the consumption of food on public transport like we seem to do, even New Yorkers aren't so socially inept, and American fast food is where it all began. These fried chicken shops popping up everywhere are not helping, what kind of people eat from these dumps on a regular basis?

Louisa.

[KidKruger]

people who like fried chicken i expect. me for one (though not as often as I'd prefer).

[PokerTime]

Aren't there rules about food on public transport? Why are they not being enforced?

It's like litter louts. I once challenged a guy who dropped rubbish and yet was only two feet away from a bin. I got a mouthful. But worse, he only lived a few doors away! But what can be done about it?

[Nigello]

Just returned from Japan where, despite the high number of vending machines and low number of rubbish bins, the trains and stastions - not to mention the streets - were litter-free. Noone needs to eat on a train or bus, unless they are diabetic perhaps, so ban it henceforth. The number of people who think it is A-OK to eat smelly food and then - sometimes - drop their litter afterwards on the bus is staggering and makes me angry and upset about society.

[Louisa]

It's a recent phenomena. I've noticed it in other British towns and cities too. This notion after a night out that you can dispose of a kebab or box of smelly garlic mayo covered chips in the street or up against a car or shop window. It tends to be younger drunken people but not exclusively. I've been to Tokyo twice and I agree few litter bins around compared to London and absolutely spotless. We have no excuse here other than ignorance and utter laziness. There are rules about alcohol on public transport but certainly none enforced I bet, as for food are there any rules? KK if you want chicken why not do it at home yourself? Far more fresh and healthy, and not served from under some heat lamp. No city needs the number of chicken shops we now have. They're overtaking our traditional healthier take away meals. The chicken shop thing seems very much London based.

Louisa.

[Jeremy]

Louisa Wrote:

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

> They're overtaking our

> traditional healthier take away meals.

The only traditional takeaway I can think of is fish and chips, which is surely no better than fried chicken. It might even be worse as the portions are always enormous.

I don't mind a bit of fried chicken now and again.