Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

edhistory Wrote:

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

> Here's an extract from one of the Protected

> Frontages maps.

>


...

>

> 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


The planning application makes mention of an "easement" between Rye Lane and the Bussey Building. Is this the same as a right of way? Would this predate any elevations that fall within a Protected Frontage designation?

Seriously ? Do you really imagine that the developers have spent what I cannot believe would be less than a couple of million quid on a building and all the associated development plans without having gone through the legal fine print? Good luck to you John but I think you just wasted ?3.


In any event, the developers seem more than happy to maintain (and enhance) the passageway between Rye Lane and Bussey/Copeland and that passageway looks to be integral to the building, so I would suggest that it has always been there.

It happens. And yes, developers' lawyers do read the small print. Some are chancers too, but there is no evidence of this here.


You should not jump to conclusions. I did not spend ?3, but I might be tempted to do so for 135 Rye Lane.


Does anyone know what happened to the putative Grade II listing application for the Khan's building?


You can suggest something about the "passageway" or you could obtain the evidence from the Title Plan for ?3. I prefer evidence to unfounded suggestions. Did you read how the "passageway" is classified by the Valuation Office Agency?


John L


Whoops. That should read John K

Why do you think this would involve gerrymandering? The passage to the Bussey Building (Bussey Alley) is a covered arcade. What exactly would you expect to see on the red outline to indicate its existence within the frontage?


Looking at that extract quickly none of the arches or arcades in the area are delineated any differently than solid buildings so why do you think this treatment is unusual as it concerns 133 Rye Lane?


The map doesn't immediately indicate anything about the legitimacy of the arcade one way or another. That's why I'm finding this conversation a bit hard to follow. Apologies if I'm being thick! I'm just snatching quick looks at work.


ETA: The post I was responding to seems to have disappeared... I should have quoted it :)

ed_pete Wrote:

> In any event, the developers seem more than happy

> to maintain (and enhance) the passageway between

> Rye Lane and Bussey/Copeland and that passageway

> looks to be integral to the building, so I would

> suggest that it has always been there.


Yes it has been there since it was built in 1908, and there are rights of way through the passageway to the Copeland Park site which includes the Bussey Building, and 133 Rye Lane has rights of way through Copeland Park. Copeland Park including the Bussey Building is in one private ownership, and 133 Rye Lane building is in another private ownership. Khan's Bargain store and Holdron's Arcade are also part of Copeland Park.


We know this because Peckham Vision grew out of the campaign in 2005-2009 to save, from demolition for a tram depot, the large 5-6 acre site which included all the Rye Lane frontage from the railway bridge to Bournemouth Road and then all of Copeland Park, including the Bussey Building, and everything beyond to Brayards Road and Consort Road. Peckham Vision has worked with the Copeland Park owners, and the CLF Art Caf?, for the last 10 years - a constructive working relationship between a local community action group and a major property owner, and also with the CLF a key part of the evolving cultural hub.


Peckham Vision's shop in Holdron's Arcade 135a Rye Lane is the property owner's acknowledgment of the work the community through Peckham Vision has contributed to enabling Copeland Park as a cultural quarter to evolve. The shop is open on Tuesday and Saturday afternoons between 2-4pm, and at other times ad hoc (we are dependent on volunteers - if you would like to help let us know!). You can always see the information displays every day. Please drop in to find out more about 133 Rye Lane, and also the other major developments and other changes in the town centre.


Some relevant links:

PV Facebook news about 133 Rye Lane ?

* https://www.facebook.com/PeckhamVision/photos/a.373677405988462.83282.373651479324388/1024459707576892/?type=3&theater

* https://www.facebook.com/PeckhamVision/posts/1026680607354802

* https://www.facebook.com/PeckhamVision/posts/1028086137214249

Peckham Vision - http://www.peckhamvision.org

Cross River Tram - http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/Cross-River_Tram

Tram Depot concerns - http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/Cross-River_Tram#Concerns_about_Tram_Depot_plans

Tram depot plans - http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/Tram_depot_proposals

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Why do you think this would involve gerrymandering?


Probably Using the same meaning as in Florida.


Adjusting boundaries for political or financial advantage.


Someone from Peckham Vision may be able to explain the "adjustment" to the Holly Grove Conservation Area that happened a few years ago.


John K

Eileen Wrote:

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

>

> Yes it has been there since it was built in 1908,

> and there are rights of way through the passageway

> to the Copeland Park site which includes the

> Bussey Building, and 133 Rye Lane has rights of

> way through Copeland Park.


From 1970 to 1992 (and perhaps later) the "Bussey Building" staff used the drive-way under 1-15 Bournemouth Road to go to and from work.


John K

edhistory Wrote:

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

> Eileen,

> Three things:

> Is there any evidence about the "right of way"?

>

yes the owners have all the documentation.


> Does the plan for 133 include a flying freehold

> over 135?

>

I have heard that expression but don't know any details.


> Who owns 135a Rye Lane?

>

Copeland Park are the owners as they are also of the building at 135 Rye Lane.

Thanks Eileen.


I guess we will not get to see whether there is a "right of way", or "easement", or an informal arrangement. Do you know anyone who has seen the documents or are the Peckham Vision People taking the existence of a "right of way" on trust?


Flying freeholds are not common in our area. Maybe the best known near you is the part of the East Dulwich Tavern over "Ralon".


Ownnership details as presented of the buildings do not seem to make sense. Only a "person" can own a property. Is "Copeland Park" a "legal person". If so, at least minimal details should be in the public domain.


Flying freeholds are not common in our area. Maybe the best known near you is the part of the East Dulwich Tavern over "Ralon".


There is a fair amount of misrepresentation going on. The most recent shown to me is the 17-13 November Time Out article written by Tristan Parker who interviewed Mickey Smith, here credited as "CLF creative director".


I hope your arm is now fully recovered.


Regards.


John K

edhistory Wrote:

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

> 135 Rye Lane is "owned" by RJK PROPERTIES LIMITED.


yes who trade as Copeland Park. Apologies for not being specific on this. For our current purposes they are all the same.

edhistory Wrote:

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

> Thanks Eileen.

>

> I guess we will not get to see whether there is a

> "right of way", or "easement", or an informal

> arrangement. Do you know anyone who has seen the

> documents or are the Peckham Vision People taking

> the existence of a "right of way" on trust?

>

Yes we know the owners, have worked with them for 10 years, they have the papers and we have had no need to check them. Life is too short John. Why is it important in this case when no one is querying the ownership and rights of way?

>

> Ownnership details as presented of the buildings

> do not seem to make sense. Only a "person" can own

> a property. Is "Copeland Park" a "legal person".

> If so, at least minimal details should be in the

> public domain.

>

This is the trading name. You have identified the company name in yr other post.

>

> There is a fair amount of misrepresentation going

> on. The most recent shown to me is the 17-13

> November Time Out article written by Tristan

> Parker who interviewed Mickey Smith, here credited

> as "CLF creative director".

>

What do you see as misrepresentation?


> I hope your arm is now fully recovered.

>

Partially, thank you. It is a long haul.

  • 2 weeks later...

Response came last night. Developers dropped their proposals for residential and extension of the building upwards and downwards, withdrew the planning application and declared they want to work with local businesses and community for the longer term non-residential future of the building. See here for more info: https://www.facebook.com/PeckhamVision/posts/1033755866647276


Vindication of community working together. Welcome to collaborative property developers...

  • 3 years later...

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

    • So top of Lane. Local Sainsbury, middle Co Op and M and S and bottom Tesco Express…..now everyone should be happy except those that want a Waitrose as well…0h and  don’t forget M and S near ED Station….
    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
    • Most countries charge for entry to museums and galleries, often a different rate for locals (tax payers) and foreign nationals. The National Gallery could do this, also places like the Museums in South Kensington, the British Library and other tax-funded institutions. Many cities abroad add a tourist tax to hotel bills. It means tourists help pay for public services.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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