Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There is another Rye Lane development emerging - 190 Rye Lane. It is a medium large site. There is a pre planning application consultation on:

* Thursday 17th September, 12 noon- 2pm and

* Friday 18th September, 3 ? 5pm

at 190 Rye Lane, near Asda and opposite Barclays Bank.


It is very much worth dropping in if you are around then to get a good understanding of the proposals. If you go and have some views please post them as a comment here, as well as giving them to the developers! Here is a newsletter about the proposals - http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/images/1/1a/190_Rye_Lane_-_FINAL_Newsletter_Low-res_-_10092015.pdf


This is an important opportunity for local residents and businesses in the town centre to understand the proposals before the planning application is made, and how they may affect businesses and the area around this fairly large site which extends some way back from Rye Lane.


The developers say: Currently, the site is largely being used as a building salvage yard at the back of the site, with a hair salon with flats above at the front. The re-development plans include:

? 22 new apartments including a mixture of affordable and private housing across two four-storey buildings

? Communal gardens for new residents

? Refreshed ground floor retail space

? Potential opportunity for a restaurant located within a new basement

yes the salvage yard will go and two largish blocks including the infill will replace it. It turns out to be right up against Canavan's night club. The owner and users think it will mean the closure of the Club if it goes ahead so are objecting.

Some info I had emailed to me that people might find interesting. I think that this application should be challenged because it could result in residents of the proposed flats making nuisance claims against Canavans and forcing it's closure, despite the fact the club/snooker hall was there first:


Dear traders,

there are some drop-in consultations this coming week about the proposed redevelopment of 190 Rye Lane. These are on...


Thursday 17th September, 12 noon- 2pm and

Friday 18th September, 3 ? 5pm

at 190 Rye Lane


A newsletter about the proposals with a feedback form is attached and a summary of the information provided by the developers is copied below.


This is an important opportunity for businesses in the town centre to understand the proposals before the planning application is made, and to understand how the proposals might affect businesses and related activities in Rye Lane and the area surrounding the site.


It is very much worth dropping in if you can get away for 30 minutes.


Kind regards


Corinne Turner

Rye Lane Traders' Association

________________________________________________________


INFORMATION FROM DEVELOPERS


Currently, the site is largely being used as a building salvage yard at the back of the site, with a hair salon with flats above at the front. The re-development plans include:


* 22 new apartments including a mixture of affordable and private housing across two four-storey buildings

* Communal gardens for new residents

* Refreshed ground floor retail space

* Potential opportunity for a restaurant located within a new basement




I COULDN'T ATTACH THE NEWSLETTER BECAUSE THE FILE WAS TOO BIG, SO I'VE UPLOADED IT TO DROPBOX FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO READ IT:


https://www.dropbox.com/s/tvh1pntii0z9wk5/190%20Rye%20Lane%20-%20FINAL%20Newsletter%20Low-res%20-%2010092015.pdf?dl=0

Yep, the location next to Canavans is problematic. It wouldn't be at all fair if Canavans were booted out as a result.


If they're talking about developing the basement of the property, perhaps Canavan's could relocate down there? That might solve the noise issues!

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> Or is affordable housing more pressing a need than

> a dingy pool hall?


It's not just a pool hall, it's a night club venue too. Let's face it, the housing won't be affordable to anyone unless they're bankers! I am so fed up with this 'afforable housing' nonsense - in my experience the afforable means affordable to people on a higher wage bracket.

Jeremy - what do you mean by 'affordable housing programme'? Affordable housing means a category of housing unit in a development which can be let up to 80% of market rent. Even in Peckham now an awful lot of people on ordinary range incomes can't afford 80% of market rent.


In all housing development proposals in Peckham (or anywhere) we need to ask from the beginning what will the sale price and rent ranges be. Don't even use the word 'affordable' if you want honest clarity - as it is 1984 speak ie means the opposite of what it says, and seriously misleads.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Ermmm... I don't think bankers are usually

> eligible for the affordable housing programme.



Shared Ownership seems to be 60,000 min salary for some developments

(elephant for instance - if you include that in affordable housing)


Canavans is part of Peckham "history" is the issue with closing them.

Eileen Wrote:

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

> Jeremy - what do you mean by 'affordable housing

> programme'? Affordable housing means a category of

> housing unit in a development which can be let up

> to 80% of market rent. Even in Peckham now an

> awful lot of people on ordinary range incomes

> can't afford 80% of market rent.

>

> In all housing development proposals in Peckham

> (or anywhere) we need to ask from the beginning

> what will the sale price and rent ranges be. Don't

> even use the word 'affordable' if you want honest

> clarity - as it is 1984 speak ie means the

> opposite of what it says, and seriously misleads.


We seem to have a lot of 1984 speak in the UK today :)


I've really started noticing how people use words that

are the opposite of what they mean.

For the "First Steps" scheme, the upper salary threshold is 71K (household income) for one/two bedroom properties.


Of course I realise a lot of people don't get anywhere near this, neither is a 70K joint salary unusually high. Around the London average, I'd suggest. Certainly not something that's only realistic for bankers (ah, bankers again... good old EDF...)

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> For the "First Steps" scheme, the upper salary

> threshold is 71K (household income) for one/two

> bedroom properties.

>

> Of course I realise a lot of people don't get

> anywhere near this, neither is a 70K joint salary

> unusually high. Around the London average, I'd

> suggest. Certainly not something that's only

> realistic for bankers (ah, bankers again... good

> old EDF...)


Yes - being single I sometimes forget about household income :).


Still not sure if shared ownership (which I have) is social housing.

I needed 40K min to get mine - and payout quite a lot per month.


I think a review of shared ownership is happening this year.

Jeremy, why would two people live in a one bedroomed flat? Right away that joint salary is only going to work for couples with stable long term relationships. According to the Office for National Statistics, the median gross annual wage for people working in London is ?34,473. The median wage for the UK as a whole is ?22,044. So half the people in London earn less than than ?34.473 and half of your 71k is ?35,500, so more than half of Londoners are earning less than that. It's exactly why 52% of Londoners are forced to rent compared to 30% nationwide.

You seem to be looking for an argument, but I'm not sure why. It seems to me that the London affordable housing scheme is indeed aimed at couples with average-ish salaries. Not poor people. Probably not single people. And not "bankers" (assuming this is typical lazy shorthand for the rich), either.


Why would two people live in a one bedroomed flat? Is it not common for couples to share bedrooms? I didn't realise me and my wife were so unconventional.

Not looking for an argument at all. Just providing data that suggests it's actually above the average salary, so most people don't qualify.


The housing situation in London is just wrong. There is no upward social mobilty for most hard working people.


And the term 'affordable housing' is a joke.

Your logic is a bit off... the UPPER limit is just above the London average earnings for two people. So actually most couples DO qualify.


But of course whether or not they can afford the deposit/repayments is another matter, and I would broadly agree about the price of property in London.

The logic is spot on. If half of working people in London make the average wage, you then have to assume they are all in stable relationships as well. They won't be of course, so the number of actual couples with that income is going to be less than half the working population. What we don't know of course is how much less. We broadly agree though on the situation overall.

Here is more information about the difference between ?affordable rent? housing and ?social rent? housing which is genuinely affordable to lower income levels, unlike ?affordable rent?. http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=ec407214e6ff80d684df62bdf&id=fab9cdb7ee&e=8ce7d4ae37 A problem is that many housing developments are gaining public acceptance because of the lack of understanding of this difference. We must be vigilant in commenting on all housing developments and first discover how many ?social rent? units there are before welcoming the development because it is providing housing.


On examining the 190 Rye Lane proposals further we have discovered that the Peckham Area Action Plan indicated about 10 housing units would be appropriate. This proposal is for 22 new housing units. This is typical now of many housing developments - cram the maximum number of units on, irrespective of whether it is the best use of the land. In this case there is an alternative mixed use that has not been examined for imaginative new businesses which would fit better with the other businesses already there including Canavans, as well as being more in tune with what the Area Action Plan indicated for housing.

  • 2 weeks later...

"Here is more information about the difference between ?affordable rent? housing and ?social rent? housing which is genuinely affordable to lower income levels, unlike ?affordable rent?. [us7.campaign-archive1.com] A problem is that many housing developments are gaining public acceptance because of the lack of understanding of this difference. We must be vigilant in commenting on all housing developments and first discover how many ?social rent? units there are before welcoming the development because it is providing housing."


That depends on whether you have a very blinkered view of social rent= good and affordable rent = bad. In any event, as I understand it this development proposes housing where at the moment there is none - there is no competing proposal for social rented housing on the site - so the starting point is something or nothing. I don't have any view re Canavans but as I understand it the starting point is that the development has to fit with the existing site, so you would expect the plans to have to include soundproofing etc. to address noise from nearby existing businesses.

Regarding the prospects of a pre existing club premises being shut down by residents in a new build the Ministry of Sound had a similar situation over the last few years. The outcome was the flats were built (or are being built currently) but with a recognition that the Ministry was there first.


"The nightclub and the property developer also agreed a "deed of easement", which will allow the Ministry of Sound to continue with their current noise levels without fear of complaints from residents."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25642151

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

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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