Jump to content

Recommended Posts

About the Picture Palace Campaign

Gala have sold the bingo hall at 25 Church Road, SE19 to a large evangelical church despite an independent cinema operator also putting in an offer.


This art deco building is key to the regeneration of the Crystal Palace triangle. It was originally built in 1928 as a cinema and the beautiful interior was designed by the renowned cinema architect George Coles. The building is one of the most significant venues in the town centre and as a commercially viable cinema it would bring many benefits to the area and to all members of the existing community.


English Heritage has identified the triangle as an ?at risk? conservation area, as such, the sympathetic restoration of this building to its original community use would act as a catalyst for the rest of area, especially Church Road.


The building has a designated D2 planning use (cinema/bingo) and we are campaigning to retain that planning use for the benefit of the local community and to support the regeneration and economic growth of our much loved town and its local traders. We do not believe that the local population has any planning need for an eighth church to serve the triangle. The church is relocating its substantial congregation from Wimbledon and are currently preparing a planning application to change the use of 25 Church Road from community use to a place of worship for their followers. When the application has been submitted, Bromley council will be consulting the local community. It is imperative that we act at this time as a community so that our voices are heard.


The new church will not only strip us of a vital community building but it will also considerably increase traffic congestion and parking issues in the area several times a week by people with no other interest in the town centre. If you agree with us and want a cinema in Crystal Palace rather than another church then please sign the petition in local shops, spread the word amongst your friends and neighbours and contact your local councillors, MPs, GLA members and Bromley?s planning department.


Contact details for your representatives can be found in the resources for campaigners (including a facebook group and online petition) section of this website. Picture-Palace.org will be regularly updated with news and information relevant to the campaign ? please register so that we can send you updates of any significant developments.

Please support this campaign. The cinema group who are interested in returning the building to its former glory are City Screen the country's leading independent cinema operator, the owners of the Ritzy in Brixton and the Clapham Picturehouse. Simply put, no other single thing could make as big a difference to the regeneration of Crystal Palace and be of significant benefit to a much wider catchment area.


Follow the campaign via twitter


Join the Facebook group

So KICC wants to open another 'church'?


These people are bizarre. I watched the movie that Darryn de la Soul shot on her mobile

http://www.campaign.picture-palace.org/?page_id=88

http://shootingpeople.org/watch/film.php?film_id=51972


Investments, assets, territories, wealth... Waste bins for cheques. Selling timeshares...


It's the church of money, especially for the people who run it.


And these people get to be a charity, with all the benefits that confers (tax etc.)??

(Although investigated by the Charity Commission owing to management living a profligate life.)


This is something that Crystal Palace can really do *without*.

I've set up a pledge on Pledgebank, to get ten others to join me on sending in a planning objection when the time comes.


There are now more than 2,000 people who've signed the petition online (plus another 1,000-plus on the paper petition).



Corrected for Saturday-night arithmetic!

I agree totally, DM. How many churches (particularly ones selling time-shares: see the Shooting People movie footage) can a neighbourhood take? And the Picturehouse people really do want to open a cinema there.


This is cycling distance for anyone in East Dulwich, and really deserves our support.

dulwichmum Wrote:

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

> To have a terrific cinema at Crystal Palace in

> that lovely old building would be such an asset

> for Dulwich. We genuinely should not allow this

> to happen.


Clarification: 'This' meaning a church, not 'this' meaning a cinema, I reckon you meant DM.

The pledge for this campaign is now on the main page of Pledgebank pledges, as another kind soul has signed up.


http://www.pledgebank.com/list


and its own page:


http://www.pledgebank.com/saveourcinema


Please consider spending a few minutes objecting to the church's planning application (it'll probably be some time over the next few weeks) and sign up to the pledge. Let's see if we can get a proper cinema back in Crystal Palace!

Indeed it is. Hannah Montana, G-Force.


While it's great to have a cinema in Peckham, I believe Picturehouse (Ritzy, Duke of York's, Picturehouse etc.) would provide a different kind of programming, plus much more (e.g. in Brighton they show films by local film makers and so on).


We're also talking about the restoration of an old cinema to its former fine state.


And nothing wrong with two cinemas in local walking/cycling distance!

Hannah Montana? Geforce? :-S


::o Nothing wrong with the Peckham Multiplex. I agree that a cinema would be a useful addition to the area although objections against the proposed Church (traffic and the like) could apply to the Cinema...some of the objections on the petition are crass. Your pledge is a little personal - you may get more "kind souls" if you kept it factual ;-)


I'm certain this alternative cinema will have a certain audience - a cinema like the Multiplex would serve the local area in a broader way with films such as Hannah Montana and Geforce rather than Coco Channel (wrong spelling eh?).


The only valid objection the proposed Church has against it is the number of Churches in the area. So tell me, what is so wrong about having a Church on Church Road? :)

I like the Peckham Multiplex, and when I go it's a good evening involving the Montpelier, Bar Story and a film


And the prices are keen


But I wouldn't say there was nothing wrong with it. It could do with a refurb for a start. And I object to having religious leaflets thrust at me in the lobby either because a) they can or b) they object to the movie being shown


And having to buy tickets from the popcorn person is a bit pants too

Bizzy Wrote:

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

> Hannah Montana? Geforce? :-S


They're showing at the Multiplex at the moment. Nothing wrong with them, just not my cup of tea.


>

> ::o Nothing wrong with the Peckham Multiplex. I

> agree that a cinema would be a useful addition to

> the area although objections against the proposed

> Church (traffic and the like) could apply to the

> Cinema...some of the objections on the petition

> are crass. Your pledge is a little personal - you

> may get more "kind souls" if you kept it factual

> ;-)


I predict there will be many who file an objection regardless of the pledge. The pledge is just another way of bringing together a small number of objectors.


>

> I'm certain this alternative cinema will have a

> certain audience - a cinema like the Multiplex

> would serve the local area in a broader way with

> films such as Hannah Montana and Geforce rather

> than Coco Channel (wrong spelling eh?).


'Would'? The Multiplex is already there and offering exactly that.


>

> The only valid objection the proposed Church has

> against it is the number of Churches in the area.

> So tell me, what is so wrong about having a Church

> on Church Road? :)


There are many valid grounds for objection to a change of use. Take a look at the Bromley Local Plan. For example, the preservation of different kinds of 'community facilities' is very much part of the planning policies.


Absolutely nothing wrong with a church in a road of any particular name. Road names are historical artefacts reflecting past political or social trends or fashions. We have a Silver Street in thousands of old towns and villages, but the silversmiths are no more.

Take Church Road as a hint then. If you want a Cinema to impact the local community and economy, surely you would want a cinema that is open to the widest range of viewers? Is this your only alternative to stop another Church from opening? The Church has procured the building - did it occur to you that the independent cinema may not have had the finance to compete? What happens if the Church proposal is refused? Will they sit on the site (most probable)? Sell it to the independent cinema for a reduced sum (I don't think so)? Do you really care if it becomes an independent cinema (I don't think so!!)? The whole thing reeks of a quick fix to stop another Church from opening in the area because you don't like the look of them and what they stand for. For the record, I am in no way associated with this Church. Live and let live.


The last time I went to the Peckham Multiplex was when it was ?3 for the ticket. I didn't mind popcorn on the floor and on my seat for that money. It could do with a refurb. My comment was in reference to comment made by Dulwichmum about Peckham. I hope she was joking...

Bizzy Wrote:

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

> Take Church Road as a hint then. If you want a

> Cinema to impact the local community and economy,

> surely you would want a cinema that is open to the

> widest range of viewers?


Each neighbourhood should have a variety of community facilities. Taken together, the facilities across a wider area should address a wide range of possible interests. As others have already commented on this thread, there is already a Multiplex-style cinema within walking and cycling distance for many around here.


Or are you proposing that every food outlet should be a MacDonald's and every supermarket a Tesco?


Is this your only

> alternative to stop another Church from opening?


I think you misunderstand. I said, and I quote: "There are many valid grounds for objection to a change of use. Take a look at the Bromley Local Plan. For example, the preservation of different kinds of 'community facilities' is very much part of the planning policies."


In other words, all kinds of planning objections can be made that make absolutely *no" reference to church (specific), or churches (in general).


The mere 'change of use' is a planning issue in itself, never mind what the proposed change of use is. Take a look at the Local Plan. It's worth reading in detail, and reflects central government policy (through the Planning Policy Guidelines referenced) on communities and neighbourhoods etc.

Hello Bizzy, I can assure you that the great majority of residents in Crystal Palace and the surrounding area care very much that the building in question, a purpose built cinema, be returned to its original purpose. We would be objecting to the change of use regardless of who had bought it, although it is quite true that there are 8 churches in the area already.


Website Facebook

Twitter

Bizzy Wrote:

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


> The Church has procured the building - did it

> occur to you that the independent cinema may not

> have had the finance to compete?


Indeed the church concerned bought the building. It has around ?19.5millionn million quid income a year from donations and very few outgoings (overheads around a million in latest filed accounts). So its pockets are effectively bottomless. They could pay really silly money for the site (maybe they have???) We see that all the time in the world of commercial property (people paying silly money and then running up against planning).


> the Church proposal is refused? Will they sit on

> the site (most probable)? Sell it to the

> independent cinema for a reduced sum (I don't

> think so)? Do you really care if it becomes an

> independent cinema (I don't think so!!)?


Planning is not about 'my d**k* is bigger than yours'. There are plenty of examples of people throwing money around who have not succeeded, because their aims did not accord with local plans and neighbourhoods. I'm involved with another such 'renegotiation' of a property where the planners did not give way and the developer failed.


That is all.


The whole

> thing reeks of a quick fix to stop another Church

> from opening in the area because you don't like

> the look of them and what they stand for. For the

> record, I am in no way associated with this

> Church. Live and let live.

>


I supported the idea of returning the cinema to cinema use long before I knew anything about who might be involved. I've lived very near the Duke of York's and know that cinema group well, as well as being a regular at two other Picturehouse cinemas over the years, in different cities. This has also influenced me since I found our they were behind another bid.


I think you're wrong. I'm sure people objected at the time to the cinema becoming a bingo hall (and bingo, AFAIK, is not a religion!). In other words, for many people it's the cinema thing.

Louisiana, this may sound harsh but, you need a good clout.


I know all about planning - I've been on both sides of the fence for myself and a number of Clients. Please don't lecture me. From the other posters, I sense a legitimate reason for objection. You on the other hand, dig and delve deeply into this Church, almost as if you're looking for something which you can use against them. Who cares how much money they earn? Who cares if they are a Charity? What has this go to do with your objection? You make it personal and obvious. You don't need to do that to mount a bona fide objection.


"I'm involved with another such 'renegotiation' of a property where the planners did not give way and the developer failed." Let me guess - you gave your two pennies worth on the neighbour consultation sheet? There are many ways of satisfying conditions set out UDPs.

That does sound harsh Bizzy, particularly when I suspect you have your own agenda.


This is a thread publicising the campaign to support the cinema. It's not about being anti-church, that's just your perception, it's about restoring an original art deco building to it's former glory and purpose.

Bizzy Wrote:

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

> Louisiana, this may sound harsh but, you need a

> good clout.


And you're handing them out, eh?


>

> I know all about planning - I've been on both

> sides of the fence for myself and a number of

> Clients. Please don't lecture me. From the other

> posters, I sense a legitimate reason for

> objection. You on the other hand, dig and delve

> deeply into this Church, almost as if you're

> looking for something which you can use against

> them. Who cares how much money they earn?


You care: you raised the issue of their capacity for payment for the site. To me it's neither here no there how much money they have. (If people want to give them money, that's their business.)


This is about a *cinema building* that has got tired on the outside but that is still capable of reverting to its former function for this neighbourhood. Have you checked out the history on the interior?


Do you like movies? Do you like the 'cinema experience'? Do you know anything about what some 'cinemas' do these days?


Who

> cares if they are a Charity? What has this go to

> do with your objection? You make it personal and

> obvious. You don't need to do that to mount a bona

> fide objection.

>

> "I'm involved with another such 'renegotiation' of

> a property where the planners did not give way and

> the developer failed." Let me guess - you gave

> your two pennies worth on the neighbour

> consultation sheet?


Neighbour consultation sheet?? You've lost me there. (Something you've been promoting?)


A range of projects elsewhere, such as a ?3m project with umpteen buildings and *substantially* more land. Nothing to do with this part of town. Or this town indeed.


There are many ways of

> satisfying conditions set out UDPs.


Indeed. And there are many ways to fail too. As some developers have found out.

By the way Bizzy, it would be really nice to see you posting on EDF about something unrelated to: gods of any variety, religion, churches, the trouble with atheists, the Alpha Course.... There must be other things that interest you? There is a whole wide world out there.

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

    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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