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

    • OOOOooooOOOooohhhHHHHHH 👜 👜 👜 
    • That's actually why the Sherlock Holmes stories were so popular. There was so little crime people found it exciting to imagine robberies and murders happening in London.
    • Yes, because of course there were no violent robberies in the olden days. Pretty much no crime happened at all I believe through the entire Victorian era.
    • Hi all, Im a Southwark council leaseholder and live downstairs in a ground floor flat, there is one flat above me, it's a house with individual front doors leading from the street into the shared pathway. My neighbour told me he has had a ring doorbell installed, no discussion as to how I would feel being on camera everytime I go in and out or in my front garden. I was told it's only for deliveries and doesn't record and only activates when pressed, however I don't know this and I feel really uncomfortable everytime I'm out in garden or on doorstep talking to people. Everytime I walk in/out, it lights up and in the eve it has a  infra red  light. Now I've read up that as he said its only for deliveries, he could set it so it only activates when pressed, however it activates with its motion sensor. Had he said to me about getting it installed, I could have had the opportunity to ask about it recording etc but nothing except it's being installed and when I arrived home it was there. I don't like being horrible to people however I feel I have not been considered in his decision and I feel very uncomfortable as, some times I have to stand on doorstep to get signal for my mobile and I really don't like the idea of being watched and listened to. Has anyone got any advice as I'm beginning to get angry as I've asked about it once and was told it only activates when pressed. I believe this is not true. I know southwark council say you need to ask permission to make sure the neighbours are OK with it, I don't really want to go down that road but I don't know how to approach the subject again. They also put a shed approx 3 foot from my back room window, these places are built so my window faces their rear garden and there upstairs window  faces mine. They said it's there temporarily, that was over a year ago and it does affect the light, plus I'm hoping to sell up soon and the view from window is mainly a dark brown shed. When I've mentioned this, I was told they have no where else to put it, whereas originally they said its only temporary, Also the floorboards above are bare and I get woke early morning and at night, the thudding is so bad my light shakes and window rattles, so I mentioned this and asked if they have rugs, I was told when they get the boards re sanded they will get rugs, I should have asked if they could get rugs and just take them up when boards being done, which I would have done had it been me living above someone, their attitude was I can just put up with it until they are ready. so they had the floor boards done, and the workmen was hammering screws, yes screws, in the floorboards, I spoke to workmen to ask how much longer and they said yes, are using screws to make less noise! I could hear the cordless screwdriver, not an issue but for every screw there were at least 8 whacks, the owners had gone out to avoid the noise  so I  spoke to workmen as the noise was unbearable, the sanding, not an issue at all, people need to get things done to their home and I'm fine that on occasions there will be temporary noise. now I have a nice crack on my bedroom ceiling, I mentioned this to owner but no response, he said there were alot of loose floorboards and it will be much better now, not so noisy, as though I don't know the difference between squeaking floor boards and thudding, and nothing was mentioned re the crack or that they now have rugs, which if it were me, I'd be trying to resolve the issue so we can get on with feeling happy in our homes. so I'm feeling it's a total lack of consideration. these places are old and Edwardian and I've lived here over 40 years, had 4 different neighbours and it's only now the noise of thudding is really bad and the people before had floorboards but nothing like this. As you can probably tell I'm really wound up and I don't want to end up exploding at them, I've always got on with neighbours and always said if there's a problem with my dog, pls let me know, always tell me, however I feel it's got to the point where I say something and I'm fobbed off. I know I should tell them but I'm angry, perhaps I should write them a letter. Any suggestions greatly appreciated and thank you for reading my rant. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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