first mate

Good news for this summer but bad news they intend to persist. Whatever way you slice it, losing use of part of the park for 25 days straight is not good.

It is a well known developer formula and cannot believe some on here are okay with that.

It is interesting what Labour objects to in other boroughs ://www.westminsterlabour.org.uk/issues/2021/12/18/refuse-the-berkeley-homes-scheme-for-paddington-green/ Wording from an online survey in favour of the Peckham development is interesting.... doesn't sound as though even 35% of social housing is a definite and available to those on low to medium incomes is an interesting idea...quite a big range in terms of income. Surely social housing would be for those on low incomes? "scheme is still being finalised but it is likely that at least 35% of the development will be affordable and social housing, available for rent or shared-ownership for those on low to medium incomes. 65% of the homes will be sold at market rate and the sale of these homes will fund the affordable housing".

No doubt they'll sell, even if as investment properties. But a central argument here is that they'll provide much needed affordable housing for low paid and key workers, necessary to keep our city running. I just don't believe that. Look at Heygate!

I so hope you are right. But, she'll be up against Cllr Rose who is very much in favour of all this and who some view as an expert in making consultations 'work' to seem to support (unpopular) proposals...see https://www.35percent.org/revolving-doors/ We should be aware of what is happening next door in Brockwell Park where large sections are now going to be fenced off for 49 days of summer. Events are being expanded to include things like wrestling. Residents feel they have been ignored and deceived by the Council.

Sazzle said: "As we all know these developments will not benefit the locals, any social housing provisions will disappear over time." This is the point. The flats will be overpriced and they'll be thrown up and of no architectural merit. So the housing of vital workers will not be solved as they'll be priced out. It is not an imaginative solution to lack of affordable housing. But go ahead, just give away swathes of prime land to fatten developer wallets.

Awful. Look at Croydon. No thanks.

We also need to be really clear it is not just two precious weekends at the height of summer; it is 25 days straight a large chunk of our local park is totally out of bounds and effectively becomes a building site.

Southwark News is quoting Cllr Catherine Rose and all the indications are the 25 day privatisation of a large section of Peckham Rye, this coming summer, is already a done deal. So another illusion of consultation by this Council. https://southwarknews.co.uk/news/community/gala-festival-set-to-hold-mammoth-six-day-event-on-peckham-rye-park/

Thanks for posting and I have started to watch. Already we learn that the ugly metal fencing all around the area will be much higher this year to prevent 'jumpers' getting in for free...giving some sense of where the real priorities lie. They keep calling it 6 days but it isn't, it's 25 days. Please object or we will lose parkland in the summer for good. I removed a section on licensing as I believe I had misunderstood the difference between an event licence and a premises licence. Gala have been granted a 3 day premises licence in perpetuity. They now wish to extend that. At the meeting Cllr Mills of Nunhead said she objected to the 25 days. However, Cllr Rose is driving all this and seems to have form in totally ignoring resident objections to her pet projects.

I'd imagine the issue will slowly get worse as the weather improves and folk start to cycle again.

But the assertion they are parking for free on the street is not strictly true.

Is this not slightly hypocritical? You want less cars to help the environment (which I agree but not the measures you're suggesting) however, you'd like a fast fashion shop on the Lane? It is hypocritical https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/fashion-industry-carbon-unsustainable-environment-pollution/ Plus, I am a cyclist and have never owned an SUV. Have you sold your car yet, Rahx3?

The study you cite is for across the EU and is from 2012. I am not sure how you can accurately extrapolate use of taxes in UK from this? But you are changing the goalposts. The assertion was that UK car users all expect and get free parking on the street. I was simply pointing out that this is not the case.

But it isn't free is it? Every year the vast majority of car owners pay a tax that goes into a central Govt consolidated fund. That money is used for myriad projects, including infrastructure, like roads. You must pay that tax even if your car is parked in the street and never driven. So I dispute the notion that car owners expect and get absolutely free parking. CPZ is primarily a mechanism for Councils to generate income and the car is an easy target. Parking pressure has been artificially constructed to a great degree. We all know this. We've witnessed it happening locally. I do wonder though when the council will start going after those who own wood burning stoves...? Far more damaging to the environment and health. I also wonder how on the one hand they can witter on about greening streets while on the other they actively seek to privatise and ungreen local parkland?

Please do not be fooled into thinking Southwark Council are prioritising eco-friendly solutions above everything. As you are discovering, generating income is the real motivation behind many of the measures.

Bic basher said: "In Peckham, I parked outside the Peckhamplex and was told it's now a "designated parking area" and there are designated parking areas on LL by the shops. You can still park on the side roads such as Ashbourne Grove and Chesterfield Grove though." You can park on those roads for now but as Cllr Rose continues to ramp up parking pressure (parking space for hire bikes being just the latest wheeze) you can guarantee that those streets will be CPZ, before long. Let's face it, that is what these allegedly environmentally moves are really all about, making sure everywhere is wall to wall CPZ...kerching. Consider again what environmentally friendly council does all the above but simultaneously offers to turn swathes of local parkland into a private nightclub in the height of summer.

Just goes to show how fairly and objectively information from certain groups is treated.

Rah, and once the area is fully pedestrianised those who really do need to use cars should sell up and move out...yes? In our topsy turvy Southwark world, we push for greening up the streets with planters and 'parklets' and advocate for children gambolling in the streets, while we rent out the real parks for private child-free use, chock full of generators, ugly giant fencing and various forms of pollution. Go figure.

To clarify, that is for the Gala festival. They want to mount another event, with a different name, immediately afterwards, hence needing a rather large section of the park for a month. Last year there were moves by the organisers to secure a permanent licence for part of the park for a chunk of the summer- or to put it another way, to own part of the park for the summer. I believe even Cllr Hamvas was not keen. If they get a whole month this time then that will be just the beginning. I really hope people object to this.

Penguin, You are correct, at recent council meetings, kindly posted by legal alien, it was stated school rolls in Southwark are falling (for this reason cutting school nurse provision is one saving now on the table). So, like you, I reckon more pupils are coming from further afield. If they don't schools may close. ..making for more developer fodder ( hello Lord Harris and his schools,nearly always on the edge of a park!)

Won't someone think of the children? Most of all the parents that brought them into this world? Clearly many of these car-using-school-running parents are hypocritical, lazy, petrol heads. Why oh why can't they simply jog or cargo bike their kids across Southwark, twice a day? Honestly, I bet Councillor Catherine Rose does exactly that. We need an urgent study, why are modern parents so inherently lazy? We all know they just drop their kids off using cars so they can more quickly enjoy a frothy latte afterwards. Seriously, stop this now. What we need are more LTNs, more school streets and if you cannot walk or bike your children to and from school every day then for goodness sake either change your job or buy a new house closer to the school. Simpulz.

No. Post still missing.

Malumbu wrote "So gone are the days where we should drive how we want, where we want, when we want, want we want, how we want. The latter being exemplified by falling vehicle occupancies ie cars that are on average only 2/5ths full." Unless you are needing a car to transport a door to your other home in France!

Well said.