Eileen

Grok Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are women allowed in? > Women are allowed into all mosques. Women Muslims usually have their own prayer spaces and entrances. But for all the mosques I have visited women visitors can go into the main prayer halls at all times. There may be some very fundamentalist mosques where women are totally segregated but I haven't come across them.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well the mosque on an open day is as good a place > as any to chat surely. Sure this is the main point of the open day. Get to know other people in the neighbourhood. With the increasing number of people in our neighbourhoods who follow Islam, the more important it is to get to know what it is about and get to know more of our neighbours for whom that is important. I am active in multi faith and inter faith work so visiting other religious places is not new to me. But today I went for half an hour to my local mosque and met some new people and strengthened my relationship with people I already know. It is just a new practise to open the mosques annually to visitors. This year there were three times the number as last year. So hopefully it will spread and become the norm everywhere.

George Orwell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?FHR has a handful of Doctors (highly skilled > professionals, but customer service amateurs) and > admin staff, struggling to keep their heads above > water and probably with no experience in improving > processes, etc ? the government expects you to be > a GP and simultaneously run a business with a > considerable turnover when you've never so much as > run a market stall in the past. > I still have some slight sympathy for the > predicament of the partners in FHR but it's been > shown that they need help and they should spend > some of their not inconsiderable income on > bringing it in. Isn't the role of the Practice Manager supposed to cover all this? See https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/advice/planning/jobprofiles/Pages/gppracticemanager.aspx Maybe they have someone in the job who is not able to deliver, or the job/role description is inadequate. What do patients there think of the Patients Forum? Does that work OK? I have been once so don't have enough experience. Wouldn't that be a useful place to raise these points?

This year some 80 mosques and counting will be participating in the Visit My Mosque day. This is more than triple the number of mosques that took part last year. So this is a young and growing movement. People who live near a mosque that hasn't opened this year could see if they can visit it and say hello at some time when it is open, and make friends. They may open next year. You can also see if you have a local interfaith or multifaith forum, and ask them how to make contact with your local mosque. #VisitMyMosque Day is a national initiative facilitated by the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). The MCB is the UK's largest Muslim umbrella body with over 500 affiliated national, regional and local organisations, mosques, charities and schools.

On Sunday 7th February over 80 mosques across the country are open to visitors for tea and refreshments and to find out what happens in their local mosque. We have three in Southwark taking part, so here is a great chance to visit. Just drop in: * Peckham Islamic Centre, Choumert Road SE15 (1pm-3pm). * Manuk Old Kent Road Mosque, 365 Old Kent Road, London, SE1 5JH * Baitul Aziz, 1 Dickens Square, off Harper Road, London SE1 4JL (12pm- 5.30pm) More info here: http://www.mcb.org.uk/visitmymosque It would be good to share some thoughts if anyone does manage to visit.

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...

DeLick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The multi-story car park is an ideal location for > affordable work spaces in Southwark. I'd rather > worked locally as my aspiration is to set-up a > garment manufacturing company in Peckham to train > and employ people in the community. I can remember > twenty years ago you could find work at garment > companies in Peckham. The new project to get the empty levels into good local use is starting up. Here is a new website we have discovered (didn?t see any announcement) http://www.peckhamlevels.org/#!share-your-ideas/s7ao6. This is what it says: "Share your Ideas:- Peckham Levels is a project for the whole community. So if you have ideas for events, activities or uses for the space, we want to hear them." It asks for your details and then for your suggestions. So if you have any ideas or aspirations for the building, here is your chance to put them in. It?s an opportunity Peckham Vision has been working towards for several years. So we are glad and hope that lots of local suggestions are made and that the new managers of the empty levels can select what works well to show the wonderful potential of the space for the long term: Current position: http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/Multi-Storey_Car_Park#Future_of_the_building Some background: http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/Multi-Storey_Car_Park#Model_of_cinema_.26_car_park_building

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.

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.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > intexasatthe moment Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Catching a train yesterday I was looking at the > > old C&A ( opened in 1930's and now Mc Donalds ) > > building and thinking how pristine it looked > ,how > > well it's structure had weathered and stood the > > test of time . > > Yes, There were two C&A's One which is now > McDonalds and the other opposite the station > entrance between > the two railway bridges.. > > https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:AN > d9GcSTd337F6AG8X0Rq-I7jAsuVenze0NMdx9PtjRNnEdNZrl1 > BmYy02-1hGJZQQ > > DulwichFox This building, owned by Network Rail, is on the list to be restored in the THI (Townscape Heritage Initiative) so it will be able to show all its glory. It is part of Peckham Vision's series of images for the art deco cluster in that part of Rye Lane, see attached (how do you embed these images as you have doen DulwichFox?):

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm still hopeful a big retailer will take on and > renovate the existing Art Deco building which > would be directly in front of the proposed station > square on Rye Lane (former C&A years ago). H&M or > a similar retail franchise would work well and be > able to invest the money and time into restoring > the building. > Louisa. This building is owned by Network Rail. It is on the list to be fully restored as part of the Townscape Historic Initiative (THI) which Peckham Vision initiated and which resulted in a ?1.6m Heritage Lottery grant for the Council run scheme. It will be launched in the next few months and is a 4 year programme. see http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200562/peckham_townscape_heritage_initiative/3874/peckham_thi_background_and_funding

spanglysteve Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How about an M&S or Waitrose? ;-) > > seriously though, I think I read somewhere on this > forum years ago that when it was thought HS1 was > going to route through Peckham years ago, British > Rail compulsory purchased all the retail units so > that they could knock them down. However when the > route changed, they sold them back to the existing > tenants. Therefore it's not easy to evict them. > They mostly all own their property and so can run > their businesses very cheaply. There is little > incentive for them to spend money improving their > property. Network Rail own all the freehold on the station site including the commercial buildings on Holly Grove and Blenheim Grove. They sold the leases in the 1980s for over 100 years so the leases still have 80 years on them. Any CPOs from the council for this development wil be buying the leases and the freehold remains with Network Rail. It is Network Rail who have allowed their properties to deteriorate and been repsonsible as a major landowner in the degradation of this core part of the town centre. Peckham Vision created a map to explain the different parts of the site called the Peckham Rye Station Gateway, which you can see here in the panel explaining the development: http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/images/0/0c/A1_PV_Panel_05_-_Gateway_-_map_v.13_-_flat_1024.jpg All the land within the black line around the station is Network Rail's freehold. You can see the original plan presented by Network Rail two years ago in the picture towards the bottom of the panel. All the land let to commercial uses would have been demolished and significantly large new buildings put in their place.

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.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This applies to Station Arcade too. I think you mistake the Article 4 direction. It applies only to attempts to change from retail to professional services like estate agents. In future they will have to apply for a change of use, and go through the consultation process. That procedure had been removed last April by central Government. The Article 4 Direction restored the Council's power to refuse permission for such changes. In the station case there had to be a change of use application anyway, which is happening right now, as it isn't retail to professional services and is a multiple use case as well as a major development.

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

The last info is that a new planning application would have to be submitted after the Article 4 direction was issued. This Direction withdraws the permitted development rights for changes of use from of A1 (shops) to A2 (financial and professional services). See: * http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/856/planning_policy/3289/article_4_directions and * http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/4320/article_4_direction_2015_-_use_class_a1_to_a2_permitted_development For the moment change of use to allow retail to be taken over by estate agents - ie change of use from of A1 (shops) to A2 (financial and professional services) which is what the Foxton's plan was - can't be allowed without a planning application for change of use. This means that local people have regained the chance to object to such a change, and the Council has regained the power to refuse the application. This will be confirmed after the consultation period on the Article 4 Direction is over in December.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does anyone have any updates on this please? Why > does it take the council so bloody long to decide > on things? > Louisa. The last info is that a new planning application would have to be submitted after the Article 4 direction was issued. This Direction withdraws the permitted development rights for changes of use from of A1 (shops) to A2 (financial and professional services). See: * http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/856/planning_policy/3289/article_4_directions and * http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/4320/article_4_direction_2015_-_use_class_a1_to_a2_permitted_development For the moment change of use to allow retail to be taken over by estate agents - ie change of use from of A1 (shops) to A2 (financial and professional services) which is what the Foxton's plan was - can't be allowed without a planning application for change of use. This means that local people have regained the chance to object to such a change, and the Council has regained the power to refuse the application. This will be confirmed after the consultation period on the Article 4 Direction is over in December.

nxjen Wrote:> > I think the boundaries Google Maps displays are > for East Dulwich ward rather than the larger East > Dulwich locality. Yes it seems so. Similar confusion for Peckham where most stats quoted for the demographics etc are for the Peckham ward and not for Peckham SE15. Then the erroneous figs repeated by not only journalists and report writers but also Southwark Council officers...

Here is more information about the difference between ?affordable rent? housing and ?social rent? housing which is genuinely affordable to lower income levels, unlike ?affordable rent?. http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=ec407214e6ff80d684df62bdf&id=fab9cdb7ee&e=8ce7d4ae37 A problem is that many housing developments are gaining public acceptance because of the lack of understanding of this difference. We must be vigilant in commenting on all housing developments and first discover how many ?social rent? units there are before welcoming the development because it is providing housing. On examining the 190 Rye Lane proposals further we have discovered that the Peckham Area Action Plan indicated about 10 housing units would be appropriate. This proposal is for 22 new housing units. This is typical now of many housing developments - cram the maximum number of units on, irrespective of whether it is the best use of the land. In this case there is an alternative mixed use that has not been examined for imaginative new businesses which would fit better with the other businesses already there including Canavans, as well as being more in tune with what the Area Action Plan indicated for housing.

The local community is tackling Peckham town centre waste problems and how to utilise recycling opportunities. This is a joint initiative by Copeland Park http://copelandpark.com, Peckham Vision http://www.peckhamvision.org and the Rye Lane Traders? Association (RLTA) http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/RLTA, supported by a small grant from the Council?s High Street Challenge scheme. We are looking for a social researcher to work with us on the project: more info here: https://www.facebook.com/PeckhamVision/posts/1000823223273874 Further information and the detailed project brief are available from [email protected]. The deadline for proposals is 16th October. Please pass this information on to others who may be interested. If you have suggestions about improvements in waste management and recycling in the town centre you can email [email protected] and / or post comments here.

traps

It is real double speak and has misled us all. See here for a useful explanation: http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2014/feb/03/affordable-housing-meaning-rent-social-housing

Jeremy - what do you mean by 'affordable housing programme'? Affordable housing means a category of housing unit in a development which can be let up to 80% of market rent. Even in Peckham now an awful lot of people on ordinary range incomes can't afford 80% of market rent. In all housing development proposals in Peckham (or anywhere) we need to ask from the beginning what will the sale price and rent ranges be. Don't even use the word 'affordable' if you want honest clarity - as it is 1984 speak ie means the opposite of what it says, and seriously misleads.

yes the salvage yard will go and two largish blocks including the infill will replace it. It turns out to be right up against Canavan's night club. The owner and users think it will mean the closure of the Club if it goes ahead so are objecting.

strap