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

[Blah Blah]

Interesting ed_pete. I wonder how people manage the noise in those flats?

I take your point about the ventilation Londonmix. I still think people like fresh air though. Maybe they will appeal to young people who won't mind the noise.

[PohSuan]

Just seen this article.

http://peckhampeculiar.tumblr.com/post/133393191384/plan-to-build-flats-next-to-bussey-on-pause

[edhistory]

That's a really funny article.

Next someone will claim this will badly affect Peckham Woods.

The comments on Southwark's web-site are good for a laugh too.

Who is the beneficial owner of the Bussey Building?

John K

[LondonMix]

I imagine by now those running the Bussey Building have read the planning application so a lot of what they are spreading in social media is very cynical.

The last two paragraphs really nail it though. They simply don't want the vibe of Peckham Rye to change. They want the entrance to the Bussey to be hidden and feel underground because it's next to a butcher in a crumbling building.

Anyway, none of that will actually prevent the application going through. It's appropriate the developer speak to them at this community event before continuing on with the application but in light of the views expressed in the article I doubt there will be any meeting of the minds. The CLF oppose the application as a matter of principal rather than because it poses access issues or noise concerns (which have been addressed in the application).

I hope someone on the forum can attend the event this week and report back.

[Help-Ma-Boab]

On hold....apparently

http://peckhampeculiar.tumblr.com/post/133393191384/plan-to-build-flats-next-to-bussey-on-pause

[Blah Blah]

I think it would be good if the developers met with the Bussey people and perhaps the council too. Maybe there's a solution in there somewhere for all concerned.

[LondonMix]

They are meeting with thetas from the Bussey Building tonight.

[BrandNewGuy]

And with hilariously crass comments like this one (admittedly it's on that forum of reason, Twitter), no wonder many people feel that the bIow-ins show no respect or perspective about a place that's been there for generations before them and will be there long after they've blown out to somewhere else. FWIW I'm more sympathetic to artists' studios than 'luxury' flats, but with friends like these...

 

[Blah Blah]

I suppose the arrogance of youth is at play there.

Looking at the plans, I think the two levels bolted on to the top could be more sympathetic to the architecture of the rest of the building and I wonder how retail units in the passageway will work, as the Bussey use this as their entry point to club night with security at the end of it. I think those might be issues for them as well.

Still, at least the two sides are talking now.

[edhistory]

The extra two floors are out of street sight-line.

More interesting is the Khan's overhang. One "person" owns both buildings?

The Rye Lane street-level frontage is "protected" and should not be used for Bussey Building access.

John K

[Blah Blah]

I'm not sure they are out of sight-line ED. If you are waking towards the building from the side street opposite they are clearly visible from the artists impressions. That's what drew me to it. Not that I ever look up there having said that :) Agree about the overhang. Are the same company restoring the Khan's frontage?

Do you mean the passageway is protected? Can't see how that is the case if it leads only to the Bussey courtyard, unless it's meant to serve only as access to the back of 133 Rye Lane?

So many questions :)

[Jeremy]

I quite like the proposed roof extension... yes of course out of keeping with the original architecture but that doesn't automatically turn me off.

The issue of access - maybe the security shouldn't be where it is, with people queueing in the street? Perhaps the queue should be contained within Copeland park.

[LondonMix]

Blah, Blah-- the retail units in the alley are only 10 sqm so they are kiosks (i.e. customers won't be entering the premises just buying things from a counter type set up according the planning application. The larger retail units have their entrances on Rye Lane and the courtyard.

Also, the plans include widening the alley itself so that movement is more free in general.

I don't know how they plan to widen the alley or carry out the works though without at least temporarily restricting access. Did anyone actually attend the meeting and hear what the developers had to say on that point? I can see that justifiably being of real concern to those in Copeland Park and Bussey.

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> I suppose the arrogance of youth is at play there.

>

>

> Looking at the plans, I think the two levels

> bolted on to the top could be more sympathetic to

> the architecture of the rest of the building and I

> wonder how retail units in the passageway will

> work, as the Bussey use this as their entry point

> to club night with security at the end of it. I

> think those might be issues for them as well.

>

> Still, at least the two sides are talking now.

[ed_pete]

I find the "overhang" curious and think it a feature of the elevation drawing and the fact the building is not square. I really do not think there is any intention to build over the top of Khans.

As regards the passage, I don't think it can be widened that much - proposed ground floor plans show the removal of the right hand wall (from Rye Lane) and presumably glass frontages into the ground floor units. Interesting to know the developers would retain access to Bussey/Copeland whilst the work is undertaken.

[edhistory]

Here's an extract from one of the Protected Frontages maps.

The document itself is interesting in its own right. It is the only Southwark Council document I have seen that bears the official Corporation Seal.

This may be because it is a legal de-rogation of an Act of Parliament.

Is there any lawyer here who can clarify this?

133 Rye Lane is fully a "Protected Frontage" (as is Station Arcade). I don't think the red line can be gerrymandered to provide a Bussey Building passage.

John K

[richard tudor]

Does that mean we are stuck with those ugly block buildings facing the station.

This refers to the station arcade entrance to the station.

[edhistory]

The elegant art deco buildings which have no concrete blocks (go take a look) will be demolished despite being protected frontages.

[richard tudor]

You may think they are elegant I don't.

[edhistory]

They are not block buildings (go look).

They are an important part of England's architectural heritage.

They may even be a sole survivor.

You will have read the Historic England contribution which is even dumber than that written for Railway Rise.

John K

[richard tudor]

Wrong thread

[LondonMix]

EDHistory, are you saying you don't think the passage can be widened? The passage itself already exists.

[edhistory]

No, I'm saying, although I may be wrong, that on any refurbishment/rebuild, the entire ground floor, as bounded by the red line, can only be used for A1 Retail.

John K

[edhistory]

The Valuation Office Agency entry doesn't help very much.

http://www.2010.voa.gov.uk/rli/en/basic/find/valuation/2010/9632247000/7680229000

http://www.2010.voa.gov.uk/rli/en/basic/find/valuation/2010/9287344000/8112075000

[LondonMix]

Oh, that's fine. They aren't planning to change the use to anything other than A1 retail on the ground floor as far as I'm aware. They are just splitting the retail into smaller units.

[????]

100