Jump to content

luxury flats in rye lane, no more bussey - sign the petition!


Recommended Posts

Peckham Vision has setup a meeting at the Bussey on 17th November.

Deadline apparently moved to 3rd December.


https://www.facebook.com/PeckhamVision/posts/1024442117578651


Edit: Owner is known (I saw it earlier on FB but might have been removed)- they purchased in early 2015.:)

ed_pete Wrote:

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

> What's the relevance of the owner/developer ?


I'd think they'd not want to be known (as might get harassed)


What I saw this morning is definitely gone (and I can't remember :) )

It's not an individual.

Applicant given on planning application form is Frame Property, information is in the public sphere. They have offices at 100 Clements Road, Bermondsey i.e. the old Peak Frean factory.


Having read the application, I think it shows great sensitivity to the culture that has evolved around the Bussey Building and wishes to maintain it.

Peckham Vision have named the company in the invitation anyway - not that it matters - it is a professional property developer and they seem to be open about it on their webpage


http://frameproperty.com/portfolio/electric/


(beaten to it :) )

The same line is coming out in all the reports - nothing really mainstream yet however (even the timeout quote was part of a blog). If it goes wrong Southwark will look very stupid down the line - whatever their decision.


another one today


http://www.residentadvisor.net/news.aspx?id=32180&comments=1

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> JohnL -- have you read the planning application?


Not in full - but enough that I can see it seems to be sympathetic to the traders. Maybe both sides will move closer as the developers have been invited to the meeting on Tuesday (assuming it's not an ambush).


Will read in full tomorrow (more time).


The worst outcome for me would be the traders all move out when building work starts (temporarily) and for various reasons never come back.

I agree. I won't be able to attend but do let me know how it goes. I'd be interested to know how the developers plan to carryout the work without disrupting the existing traders logistically. Its a positive sign that they've invited the developers to come along.


In the planning application, the developers said they are architects that decided to go into development and are a design led firm. Hopefully, their creative backgrounds will allow them to effectively communicate with other creatives and smooth over some of the misunderstandings.

Peckham Vision have now posted what I think they see as the issue - that future residents of the flats will complain and get venues shut - mentions Canavans who face the same issue too.


https://www.facebook.com/PeckhamVision/?fref=nf

That was what I meant when I said it's not the right location for flats - being right on the doorstep of the Bussey. I take the point about flats being elsewhere around the venue, but most of those are not right on the doorstep. Maybe soundproofing the flats will work, but what happens in summer when people want to have their windows open?

JohnL I think Jeremy spoke about that case yesterday. Have a look at the acoustics report. The insulation results are very good and exceed minimum standards for lab tested glazing and they are going above that glazing in total acoustic design. Lab testing isn't done by the acoustic consultant but is official lab tests widely known in the market.


Blah, Blah, also read the acoustic report. There is no natural ventilation via the windows- see the extract below.


6.5.2 Ventilation

The levels of noise at the site preclude the use of natural ventilation in any of the residences as

even acoustically attenuated trickle events will result in the internal noise criteria being

exceeded. Every dwelling will therefore be mechanically ventilated. The inherent sound

associated with mechanical ventilation should help to provide some beneficial masking of

noise ingress from outside.

Thanks for pointing that out LondonMix.


Mechanical ventilation is what exactly? It's just a fan isn't it? And what that seems to say is that the noise of a fan will mask external sound?


In the heat of summer, that won't be enough to ventilate I think.

Again, I'm not saying there is nothing to be concerned about (I've already listed my concerns elsewhere) but if you are really that worried about this application, I strongly recommend taking 1-2 hours and actually reading through the proposals and information (this isn't directed to anyone in particular). I know most people don't have the time but if you are going to spread information online about what you think is wrong, I think its important to at least invest that amount understanding what is going on.


If the community want a good outcome, engaging from an informed position is always necessary. That way you can actually influence the things that need to be changed rather than wasting community energy raising comments to Southwark and questions at the engagement event that can be easily dismissed by the council and the developer.


Make no mistake, it is very apparent Southwark back this application so objections need to be relevant and focused if you actually want to influence anything about the final outcome.

So now everybody's calmed down a bit, and actually considered the facts, some proper issues emerge that ought to be addressed during the planning process e.g. business continuity for existing traders, and soundproofing etc. to ensure future survival of the music venue. And the anti campaign as first launched and lauded here is exposed for the comedy spartist crap that (unfortunately) we've come to expect from everyone for whom gentrification is a dirty word. Ironically, largely those people who moved in to the neighbourhood during the first wave of gentrification i.e. when it was cheap, but now profess to hate the very thought, now it's expensive.
Good point Dave. I just think, given that Rye Lane is a retail business area, that buisness space throughout the building would be more appropriate. Instead of flats there could be affordable office rental space. I'll admit that I don't know anything about rents and space availability in Rye Lane from a business perspective, so don't know if it's a daft idea or not.

Blah Blah-- I don't know exactly what they have in mind for the mechanical ventilation. Probably a full HVAC system which is common in modern developments. Air handling units circulating fresh air into the building and removing stale are likely to be installed as part of the over all mechanical engineering plan system.


They aren't using the HVAC system for acoustic insulation though. They are saying the white noise these systems make (think about the quiet noise in an office building or NYC condo) as part of their mechanical action will help cover up some of the ambient noise from outside. Even without this though, the facade and glazing specification meet guidelines in terms of noise intrusion.


If someone made a noise complaint (let's say they are super extra sensitive), the council would have to come and measure the noise penetration. The requirements are not zero so as long as the systems work as designed the complaint wouldn't be actionable. The noise team actually bring very sophisticated noise measuring equipment with them. I've had to make a noise complaint in past!

Actually, most if not all of the properties have balconies so despite what the noise report states I suppose natural ventilation is possible. I'm not sure how the noise authorities would treat a noise complaint by someone who has the option for mechanical ventilation but chooses to open their balcony instead?


Anyone ever worked on an issue like this? That might be something to raise with the developer at the questions evening.

Yeah, the acoustic report said that on the facade facing Rye Lane the traffic noise is so load you it overwhelm the sound of the music even on a club night! In reality the noise pollution from the trains and traffic will be so loud I doubt anyone in that building will ever open their windows.

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...