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

[El Presidente]

It's great that people want to build luxury flats in Peckham. Good luck to them.

[LondonMix]

Why don't you think its the right location for housing Blah Blah? As I thought (and is confirmed in the application) almost all of the surrounding buildings have residential units above the retail units. Also, there is a large residential directly behind it and across from the Bussey Building already.

Nigello- I won't miss the dirt and traffic but I'll miss some of the more elements that made it fun and unique. Areas in East London are all the very same bland idea of cool (and everything is very expensive). Peckham right now, has interesting things to do but without all the slick polish that homogenizes almost everything in London these days. Also, there were still charming affordable things about like Peckham plex, which despite being run down,in my view is a gem.

I'm almost done review the docs. Will be back with my thoughts shortly.

[LondonMix]

By the way, as far as I can see-- the developer isn't calling the luxury flats. That's the spin machine out of Peckham trying to get people's blood up! They will undoubtedly be eye-wateringly expensive though!

[JohnL]

Over 100 anti comments on the application and 1500 almost on the petition.

Whatever the merits/spin it's taken off.

[El Presidente]

The thing with housing is that people always support it being built in principle, but when in practice a proposal is put forward they these principles are easily abandoned.

You don't get the hundreds of thousands of homes this city needs by objecting because of some middle class sentimentalism about Peckham's gritty allure.

[Blah Blah]

Because unlike other residential units LondonM these are right on the doorstep of the Bussey and Railway.

[Blah Blah]

El Presidente Wrote:

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

> The thing with housing is that people always

> support it being built in principle, but when in

> practice a proposal is put forward they these

> principles are easily abandoned.

This is not true. What is to be found though are plenty of objections of the type of housing being built. London needs a mix of tenure, from social to luxury and it needs strong communities too. These are being destroyed by the rush to profit from the boom, the result being a social cleansing of whole areas of the capital.

[El Presidente]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> El Presidente Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The thing with housing is that people always

> > support it being built in principle, but when

> in

> > practice a proposal is put forward they these

> > principles are easily abandoned.

>

> This is not true. What is to be found though are

> plenty of objections of the type of housing being

> built. London needs a mix of tenure, from social

> to luxury and it needs strong communities too.

> These are being destroyed by the rush to profit

> from the boom, the result being a social cleansing

> of whole areas of the capital.

This a classic example of muddled, leftist trope. If London 'needs a mix of tenure' why are you opposing it? Peckham has lots of social housing and virtually no 'luxury' housing.

[Charles Notice]

JohnL Wrote:

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

> Over 100 anti comments on the application and 1500

> almost on the petition.

>

> Whatever the merits/spin it's taken off.

Not to difficult to get these figures most of the people doing it sit on their computers most of the day and follow the herd instinct.

Doubt if many of them live in the area.

On things like this it should be a proper written object with a name and address that can be checked.

[LondonMix]

That is factually inaccurate. There is residential just as close to Bussey already and just as close to the railway. Its detailed in the application. If you don't want it that's fine but the reason needs to be based in actual fact.

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> Because unlike other residential units LondonM

> these are right on the doorstep of the Bussey and

> Railway.

[LondonMix]

How many of those signing do you think have bothered to read through the publicly available information to figure out their position? My guess- less than 5% and that's being very generous. Its probably closer to zero and there are genuine things to be concerned about.

JohnL Wrote:

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

> Over 100 anti comments on the application and 1500

> almost on the petition.

>

> Whatever the merits/spin it's taken off.

[LondonMix]

Any how, before I post what I've learned, I'll state what I would like to see amended as part of the application and some of its acknowledged weaknesses. Overall though its a very strong application.

1. There is no social housing provision. I believe at least a portion of the residential units should be affordable in some way (social / key workers etc) and I believe 11 units hits the threshold for this requirement though hopefully someone else can come along and confirm

2. The D1 /D2 use. They have 4 interested parties through off market efforts but acknowledge they have been informed that there is strong demand for a place of worship (specifically a black church). They have not been in touch with any such groups they say. I like hipster Peckham but it would be nice if old traditional black Peckham was genuinely seen as part of the community too and actively courted to take up the community space making it truly inclusive project.

3. The site occupational density is above guidelines. They've justified this working in light of good transport links etc. I have no specific concern but its one of the few areas in which there is actual scope to challenge the application

4. There is no parking provision. Again, I have no specific objection to this and ultimately I don't think it will be viable ground for an objection as they had this cleared as part of their pre-planning application

5. I think that they should detail what steps will be taken to reduce / eliminate the impact of the works on surrounding businesses. They intend to widen the alley for instance but how on earth will this be achieved without severely (even if temporarily) reducing access? They might do this in a part of the applications supporting docs that I haven't had a chance to review yet-- I am at work and haven't had time to read everything. If anyone sees anything please let me know.

ETA that I just remembered there is already a church in the building. That the developers haven't even spoken to them about staying on shows what their idea of community is. As far as I can tell the only group truly negatively impacted by this project is the existing church tenant. Surprised no one mentions them in all of the outraged press articles...

[LondonMix]

Much longer post summarizing what is going on based on my brief review of the main supporting documents for those interested:

This application is almost certainly going to be approved. It was prepared in detailed consultation with Southwark, various heritage and conservation authorities, and includes Bream environmental certification of excellent, no reduction in D1 / D2 use currently in the building, detailed noise studies, accessibility studies etc. Senior planning officer Neil Loubser was heavily involved with the design development and some of the weaknesses (i.e. no parking) have already been officially signed off in the pre-planning application process. The firm claim to be founded by architects and design driven (the designs themselves are good) but what?s clear is these guys are hyper professional. You can?t even begin to compare this application with some of the ones we?ve seen in the local area.

The stated aim of the developer is to take advantage of the heavy footfall to the Bussey Building and Copeland, which is consistent with the firm?s retail strategy of units facing the alley and courtyard. They are in fact planning to widen the alley as part of the overall works to increase accessibility and on numerous occasions they have specifically stated they have designed the facilities to work with the nighttime economy of the local area, and specifically the night club scene. As already stated, the acoustic design of the project reflects this. Also, the proposed operating hours of the new retail units are requested to be in line with the Bussey Building as they want to service that clientele.

The firm also has the sated aim of not overly sanitizing the building as part of the renovation and intend to keep the street art etc that is currently on it from ROA.

They have subdivided the currently large retail unit into 5 smaller units at ground floor level. They say the smaller units (some very small ?at just 10 sqm which is basically a kiosk) are designed to appeal to small local independent businesses. They have done this to keep the local character of the area, rather than maintaining one large retail unit that would better appeal to a large chain (their words, not mine). This claim is fairly credible?the largest unit on the ground floor will be 98 sqm, the second largest will be 70sqm and the rest are tiny. By way of context, Iceland is currently in 450 sqm and M&S are enlarging that for their minimum footprint to circa 600sqm. A coffee shop like Starbucks typically has 170 sqm for their minimum unit size. Pizza express is circa 250 sqm based on what I can quickly find on line. Some retail will potentially be in the basement as well.

The D1/ D2 community space is likely to be either a gym or a cinema in the two basement levels (though there is some flexibility). They have 4 offers in total for the space to date without any marketing. The two strongest are both from gyms and there are ongoing discussions with another gym and a cinema for the D1 / D2 community spaces.

The flats are huge and a pretty even mixture of 1, 2 and 3 bed units with one ultra large 4 bed unit in the roof extension. The acoustics have been designed to reflect the resi is situated next to a night club. One of the more innovative elements being wintergarden conservatories on the Eastern facade.

Overall, the restoration work is attractive and very sympathetic-- in part due to heavy input for planning and conservation teams.

[JohnL]

Surprised that the people running CLF Art Cafe etc weren't consulted and "brought onside" if it is no threat to them - as they have heavily attacked this on multiple social media platforms - I've had emails, twitter, facebook today. They claim they only heard about this yesterday.

They'll probably set-up an anti dance night too I suppose.

[LondonMix]

I think these developers are ultra experienced and wanted to deal with the demands of the authorities fully instead of making it a tripartite negotiation. They say they listened in on other consultations for other schemes to get a sense of the community ethos rather than consuiting directly.

I think the backlash to that strategy is normal as not being brought on board causes ill will and distrust. Either way though the developers look very likely to get their approval so I suppose it's worked for them.

[Charles Notice]

Just shows what a professional approach can achieve instead of asking Uncle Tom Cobbly and all what they want.

Peckham Station ring any bells.

As London Mix has pointed out read the application before stating a media frenzy

[JohnL]

Time Out article just out - quote ?Once the flats go in, you can forget about the Bussey Building?.

http://www.timeout.com/london/blog/it-would-kill-us-the-bussey-building-tell-us-why-theyre-suddenly-under-threat-111215

[bloonoo]

Hello - afraid I have nothing to do with the petition or application other than I saw it on the CLF webpage and wanted to share - Peckham's fast becoming a highly gentrified area to (in my personal opinion) its detriment. All the blurb I posted was from the CLF website

[LondonMix]

I totally understand if people currently operating the CLF etc are concerned about access issues during the actual construction period. Its not clear to me at all how that's supposed to work.

However, the claim that the new shops existence is going to prevent people queuing for entrance to the Bussey is patently absurd. The shops are only being oriented there to serve the people queuing and going to the Copeland Park etc. They are even widening the alley to help accommodate this in the plans. A large part of the retail strategy is designed to capitalise off of Bussey's success aligning opening hours etc.

Now the church that's unceremoniously being kicked out, them I feel bad for...

All that said, I'm not saying the developers are good guys. Steam rolling over people isn't nice. But they appear to know how to get things done.

[JohnL]

I do see it possibly becoming more like Cardiff's "Brewery Quarter" if this goes ahead which is a nice place but way more commercialised - and that won't go down well with the people there now.

And of course there's a Starbucks.

[LondonMix]

I have no doubt the character of the place will change with this development. Even if all the retail is comprised of local independent shops as they are intending, it still won't be Meat & Fish! As far as gentrification goes though, at least this development is striving to retain some of its indie character. I just hope there is someplace left we can buy ingredients for curry goat!

Any, what I find most depressing is the state of journalism in the era of social media. There used to be a time when you had to check facts before publishing something. You also had to at least contact the other side for comment and publish any quotes they gave you. Nowadays, articles read like higlyh spun press releases. I mean, that's fine for a blog I guess but I?d expect better from TimeOut.

[richard tudor]

Why did these developers not take a look at the railway square development?

They certainly seem to know what they are doing but would it have produced to many problems from all and not worth the hassle.

[se22cat]

Signed, though seeing how all the top people in Southwark council appear to be bung taking, money leeching, corrupt bastards anything with the potential to line their filthy hands is going to get steamrolled into existence sadly.

[richard tudor]

Why don't you prove it by showing us the evidence

[edhistory]

Has the raft of documentation exposed the beneficial owner?