Eileen

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > English Heritage missed it. > Here is an opportunity to put things right. > John K I look forward to seeing your application!

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's still not too late to save Station Arcade: > http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/pr > otection/process/online-application-form/ > John K Hi John The key doc is English Heritage assessment report on Peckham town centre: http://research.english-heritage.org.uk/report/?14789 I don?t recall anything in that which singled out the Arcade for attention. Maybe you could have a look and see if you can find the place where they cover it?

Girl82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Eileen, do you know when the proposed works to > Peckham Rye Station - creating the public square > etc - are due to begin? I can't seem to find any > information on it and am dying to know! Possibly 2015. There is a lot of work going on behind the scenes to plan and design it, as a number of buildings and businesses are affected. We had hoped that there would all this year be a public conversation about the design but we heard recently that the Council and Network Rail are aiming to go straight to planning application by October / November before the end of the year. So we are aiming to stimulate a public conversation about the design in these cyber forums before then. Please see here for the latest on that: Station development plans - http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/Peckham_Rye_Station_Gateway#Public_conversation_about_the_design_of_the_station_developments_August_2013 Peckham Rye Station background - http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/Peckham_Rye_Station The Council's plan has always been to get the works completed by 2016, so maybe there will be some signs of it before the end of 2014, but maybe 2015. In the meantime, do please read the info on the above weblinks and see if you can contribute to the public conversation about the design and plans. The Peckham Vision led work to restore the original staircase is proceeding and should be completed by Spring 2014 if we successfully raise another ?50k. see here for info on that: http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/Peckham_Rye_Station/station_forecourt

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I may have missed it, but I can't see anything > about the station garden in the Peckham Vision > documentation. > John K We have the photo of the front garden and it is up on our Peckham Rye Station facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=402539499816950&set=a.394475537290013.91389.319532484784319&type=1&theater I like the map you have linked to showing that and a back garden - can you get me a digital version I can use? Any more info about the whole garden set up then?

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was walking along Rye Lane this morning. The mix > of folk looked pretty representative to me. But > what do I know? > I did wonder how many of the shopkeepers and their > customers are members of Peckham Vision. > John K The mailing list has been growing since 2001 and is now about 2500, and more on and http://www.facebook.com/PeckhamVision. It includes 40-50 traders from Rye Lane & Peckham High St and we work with others who don't use email. Remembering people who have come to gatherings of various sorts over the years, lots of people of all ethnicities who shop there are on the list, but we have no capacity to collect such statistics. Some of the work with the traders can be seen here: http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/RLTA. To join the list: email [email protected]

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think they key thing is with the Peckham Vision > lot is that they love where they live, and want to > bring out the best in it. Not transform it into > something it isn't. thanks - not always easy to convey on websites and in these cyber forums, but yes definitely. Hope anyone who shares that vision will join us through the following links: http://www.peckhamvision.org http://www.facebook.com/PeckhamVision email list: [email protected]

If you haven't expressed your views there is still time to do so in this exercise until 12 April. See the first post in this topic for the details, and do post here as well so we can continue the collective public discussion. This is a brief report on what next. From local email exchanges as well as the posts on this topic here, there is now considerable evidence that the consultation on these traffic proposals has been deeply flawed. We propose to ask the Council to produce the further information we have always asked for about safety improvements with the one way system, and comparative costs between that and their two way proposals, and to have a well facilitated public event with that information. That would give time also to publicise it properly and ensure that those who are affected have a chance to take part in an informed discussion. The local police support this request for more information and further consultation, as they heard about it only from us. Maybe other important bodies have also missed out. If you want a copy of a recent local email with more details please send a 'Reply via Private Message (PM)'.

I am posting this at the request of a local resident who has no access to the web forum at the moment, but who wishes to contribute to the discussion. Eileen ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. The Southwark consultation on these changes has been extremely disappointing. Poorly publicised (not even to the Bellenden Residents' Group). And including maps with roads mis-named (Holly Grove mistaken for CHadwick Rd) This does not suggest the council have thought things through carefully. 2. I live on Highshore Rd and use these roads a lot (by car, on foot, and on bike). I do not think Southwark has understood sufficiently how these roads are used and by what traffic and when. I am therefore wanting to object to the proposed changes. A few specific reasons follow: ? I understand the reason for the proposed changes to be mainly about speed of traffic in London in places with single carriageway traffic. I do not believe there to be a major problem in speed of traffic either on the northern end of Bellenden Rd going north, or the more southerly bit going south (by entrance to Blenheim Grove) ? I believe the changes proposed will simply make the whole area an even bigger 'rat-run' from Peckham High St down Lyndhurst Way. The one-way system with single carriageway traffic acts as a deterrent to heavy traffic cutting through. ? Crucially, there is very significant traffic on Bellenden Rd (between Holly Grove and Highshore Rd) related to the Elim Daycare Centre (and to a lesser degree the St James' Catholic Church hall). Minibuses and cars arrive throughout the day to transport elderly users of the Centre, and these need to park next to the entrance due to disability needs. When there are large events at Elim House (these are frequent, sometimes during the day sometimes in the evening) there is very considerable traffic: sometimes there are 30-40 cars parked locally. If Bellenden Rd was blocked off at the north end, I do not see how on earth this daily and event-related traffic could be accomodated. The road is narrow, and when cars are parked down the side there is no way that cars could turn around so that they could drive off in a southerly direction. It would be horrendous. ? I think the corner of Chadwick Rd where it meets Bellenden Rd (a very tight corner) will be a major area of hold-up and congestion for vehicles under the new plan. There are also implications for pedestrians. Currently the traffic actually flows reasonably smoothly here, and although provision for pedestrians needs improving, as a pedestrian the direction of traffic is at least only in one direction and therefore easy to read and anticipate. If you want to slow traffic down Bellenden Rd (past entrance to Blenheim Grove) you could do so by putting provision for more car parking spaces. This would have the added benefit of contributing to economic regeneration of the area, which needs a lot more support in terms of thoughtful provision of spaces for those wanting to shop locally.

JDR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I might be being dim but can't find the changes > you mentioned to Highshore road. Is there a map of > this and which section? > > Thanks look at map on page 2 and one of the pictures on page 4 - *Junction of Bellenden Road with Highshore Road*. The Holly Grove to Highshore Rd stretch of Bellenden Rd would go two way instead of one way but there would be no exit or entrance at Highshore Rd junction.

to get almost straight to the consultation document click on http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3334/bellenden-chadwick_consultation_document That is from the [goo.gl] link above which is http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200308/current/2998/bellenden-holly_grove-lyndhurst_way-chadwick_turning_one-way_to_two-way_traffic, and then scroll down on that page and click on the 'consultation document' in **You can also send us feedback by downloading and returning our consultation document**. That takes you to the last link to click for the document: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3334/bellenden-chadwick_consultation_document Hope that gets you there.

The Council has been consulting over the last month on proposals to replace the one way traffic system around Bellenden Rd - Chadwick Rd - Lyndhurst Way - Holly Gv with a two way traffic system; the proposal includes closing the Highshore Rd exit from Holly Gv - Bellenden Rd. Please see the Council's consultation details here: * introduction & explanation: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200308/current/2998/bellenden-holly_grove-lyndhurst_way-chadwick_turning_one-way_to_two-way_traffic * consultation document with details: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3334/bellenden-chadwick_consultation_document The consultation has been flawed by being far too limited in its publicity, and too partial by presenting a two way traffic system as the only way to achieve improved safety. More info here: http://peckhamresidents.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/926/). As a result of our protest on these points, the deadline for comments has now been extended to 12th April. The poor publicity meant that most local residents knew nothing about the proposals or the public meeting held on 13 March. We are posting this topic here to enable a local discussion to share views about the proposals. Comments from all who walk, cycle or drive through the Bellenden area will be welcome. We will ensure the Council sees them, but please also make sure you put your comments in to the council direct through http://goo.gl/DwjY0 and / or email them to: [email protected] Bellenden Residents' Group - http://www.bellenden.net

A key part of the Council?s developing land use planning policy for Peckham town centre is a list of 33 development sites. Where they all are is shown on the map attached. What the Council wants them to be developed for, and how to consider these proposals, is in another pdf available via the information here: http://goo.gl/UaghW

WED 17th OCTOBER, Peckham Society meeting at Peckham Library, Peckham Town Square: 7.00pm: exhibition about the town centre; 7.30pm: illustrated talk by local architect and historian Benedict O?Looney on ?Central Peckham?s New Conservation Area - a bright, historically sensitive and positive future for our town centre.? Come and learn the latest news, and take part in the discussion to shape the ideas. Hope some comments will be posted here afterwards. For more info: http://goo.gl/pp7R0

A useful short summary report from the Council on the new version of the PNAAP is now available, see - http://peckhamresidents.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/pnaap_publication_submission_version_-_cabinet_report.pdf It gives a good overview of what the PNAAP contains and some useful summary explanations of some key parts. This is worth reading now as good preparation for reading the PNAAP when you can get your copy later in October. More info: http://goo.gl/xOD7H

Just a reminder this meeting is today Monday 24th September, 7pm at Peckham Academy, Peckham Road. Good opportunity to find out about the PNAAP, what other local residents think about the issues, and how to comment on the Plan. Hope we can have a discussion here during the consultation period (up to 4th December) about the issues.

This has reminded me of the earlier posts. I haven?t traced a fishy smell or source for it. But I have discovered that some residents in Blenheim Grove are attempting to activate the local councillors to try to get the council back on the case of the rubbish and waste, including loose hair pieces drifting around. If I hear anything I will post it up. In the meantime, if anyone else has experience of the issues, it would help if they email their ward councillors to ask what can be done about it. A pile of email requests might help galvanize something. How to find yr ward councillors: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgMemberIndex.aspx?bcr=1 Helpful if also you cc in The Lane ward councillors whose ward the station is in. They are [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] In the Rye Lane & Station Action Group, http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/Rye_Lane_and_Station_Action_Group_RLSAG, we spent so much time in the mid 2000s sorting out with the Council an effective cleaning system but it has deteriorated all over again. It just has to be done all over again.

The last and final stage of consultation has just started on the PNAAP. The new text was published on the web http://www.southwark.gov.uk/futurepeckham last week. The published copy will be available around 24th October. Consultation ends on 4th December. To start the consultation process there will be a Council presentation and workshops at the Community Council meeting on MONDAY 24th SEPTEMBER 7pm at Harris Academy, Peckham Road. See the detailed agenda and timings: http://goo.gl/nkEq0 This item is scheduled for 7.55pm ? 8.45pm. For further info on the PNAAP and meeting see http://goo.gl/dv1dt We can use this thread to discuss issues that come up during the consultation, and post relevant info about them.

>>ED2013 What are people thoughts on the renaming of Peckham Rye common, there have been so many lovley improvements and its now one of the best parks in London.>Ridgley Why? The Peckham residents might not want it to change.<< Hi Well said Ridgley. We are forever having to defend our Common and its protected status as an ancient unenclosed space. Now we have to defend its name! East Dulwich hands off our Common!

The Thameslink franchise consultation has been joined by the South Eastern franchise consultation: ? South Eastern - http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2012-29: deadline 13 Sep ? Thameslink - http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2012-23: deadline now 14 Sep Together these will result in new specifications for all our local rail services to Victoria, St Pancras and London Bridge up to 2018/20. What is needed right now is for as many users as possible of these services from East Dulwich, Nunhead, Peckham, Camberwell, Dulwich & Bermondsey (all share some of the same services) to email in their views on what they want the services to be from their own station(s). Further information and how to make comments see Southwark Rail Users Group pages here: http://www.bellenden.net/srug/news/rail-franchises-deadline-13-sep-victoria-well-now

a major factor was the buredensome costs of running very old buildings. There was a long established plan to swap the land and buildings for council land on Meeting House Lane and develop a more fit for purpose building. That didn't take place soon enough, maybe because they needed to raise a lot of funds to implement it. But the suddeness was probably because the running costs related to the buildings made the precarious cash flow just the wrong side of viable. A comparison is Cambridge House in Camberwell - same vintage -that has renovated its Georgian builidings and built a modern community centre really fit for purpose behind the facade. It cost near ?5m I think. I hope that hasn't left it with burdensome loans. It is a great place now. I have operated in one way or another with the Peckham Settlement since 1977, so it is very strange that it has suddenly disappeared, and terrible for those direclty affected. But other things will eventually grow in the space vacated.

Thanks to all who have responded to me on various points. I will leave it now till the PNAAP comes along and will do my best to get it into the right slot and probably make gross errors again from ignorance of some nuances.

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ted, could you just draw me a map, and maybe post > it here? Rosie I'm not pretending to be Ted? but here is a link to the Council's map http://www.bellenden.net/sites/default/files/PNAAP%20fig%2015%20p85%20character%20area%20boundaries.pdf showing the PNAAP boundary which is almost coterminous with the Peckham & Nunhead Community Council boundary. This gives ammunition to the boundary purists as it deliberately doesn?t include some western streets that are in the Peckham & Nunhead CC area bcause they are included in the ED planning policy area... However street coverage within an admin boundary is not my case for why it is relevant to the EDF and people who take part. It is that admin boundaries are not relevant to how one neighbourhood affects another, they are for very different purposes. The fact is that Peckham town centre, which is at the heart of the PNAAP in a variety of ways, is also ED's town centre as it is not a neighbourhood centre but has a much wider reach. A lot of ED residents are affected by some aspect of it or another,and vice versa. eg I live in Bellenden near East Duwlich Rd and my neighbourhood stretches from Peckham Rye station to North Cross Road... There are so many different ways Peckham town centre impacts on ED interests,and all seem good reasons for it being a highly relevant topic for the EDF, unless I am ignoring a technical purist rule which is devoid of common sense.

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Haha, don't cringe. I'm going to try to get down > to the fete tomorrow, to learn what I can, and > yes, I think a thread when the new PNAAP comes out > is a great idea. > look forward to meeting you! weather forecast is sunny at times, no rain. Should be a great day. Look for dark green gazebo and Peckham Residents Network stuck on the front. > Now then - evening versus night economy. Is that > what it sounds like it is? Pubs / restaurants as > opposed to late night bars and clubs? Is there > more to it than that? I rather suspect there > might be... an extract from one of my medium/longer posts - above ** http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264275106000448 From ?creative city? to ?no-go areas? ? The expansion of the night-time economy in British town and city centres Marion Roberts, Central Cities Institute, University of Westminster, 35 Marylebone Road, London NW15LS, UK : **In a time span of 10 years, many English town centres have been transformed from being relatively deserted at night to being filled with concentrations of young drunken people out on the streets until the early hours of the morning. This paper considers this transformation: its origins, process, impacts, policy responses and the lessons that may be derived from it...** and more, including some muddled language and fog at times.

H Rosie Thanks for explaining. I'm not surprised at the EDF focus on the off topic issue, and also the 'is it ED or not', as I have experienced it for years,and understand it. I did not want to argue about it as that is fruitless, but tried asking what people would find an acceptable home for such a discussion. The big expansion of the EDF topics and sections makes it more difficult without being a very active participant to work out what is acceptable enough. I just don?t have time now to do more than dip in now and again. Anyway we are I think in general agreement about the need for info to be packaged for short attention spans and that is a big influence on my work in other quarters. In this particular topic I was just trying to raise awareness of the night time economy v evening economy issue as it seemed very relevant to the nature of the Rye Lane revamp topic. From your comment it looks like links to major info is also a demotivating thing. One of the problems is that the Council?s info on all this is so indigestible and I have only limited time to make it digestible. Often all I can do is give the web blinks in case anyone does want to see for themselves. The time for focused digestible info, which I am working on, is when the new PNAAP comes out which is late September. I will probably post a new thread on it when I have got to grips with it myself. Then I hope that the topic doesn?t get derailed by arguments about off topic or is it ED or not. I did post such a PNAAP topic last time round in Feb and it got derailed by such points and I gave up. But maybe it was too taxing a subject for the EDF. But that gets back to which is the best discussion stream. Would this be permissible ? a very short post in the Issues section on a related topic like why should EDF care about Peckham town centre?, with the first post giving a link to a detailed discussion in the Drawing Room? Now I am cringing at the length of this post. So sorry, but can?t avoid it in trying to wrap up this interloper sub-thread.

Ted Max Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So, for example, in broad terms - what is proposed > in terms of planning changes of use and in which > areas? What are the likely impacts of that? It's > time-consuming, and perhaps not worth it but I > can't see people piling into the debate otherwise. > Most of us can barely concentrate through a full > episode of "Hole in the Wall". The time to give this kind of info will be when the new text is available - late September / early October. That is the final version for consultation and there will be until 4 December for comments. Which of these EDF sections will be appropriate for it do you think?