clockworkorange

Sounds like somebody was bullied by a 15 year old with a skateboard...

Ok thanks, will see if I can get one. Would have been lovely today. If no joy I'll happily borrow yours smashing.

Yep, sorry for the typo, it's a family show I assure you... HMB - I'm not aware of being a grainger resident so am probably not. but as I say, I live in the gardens (home owner), opposite the square. if you know who I need to contact can you PM the details so I can see if I can get a key please? thanks

As a resident of the gardens i was hoping to have my lunch in the communal garden square. Its been unlocked and open for at least a year, now today, locked shut. Anybody know why? always assumed it was communal for people of the gardens (not as in gnomes or the poddington peas) any Intel appreciated and if\where i can get a key!

Woh there Steve- planning is a system put together by civil servants and politicians. Looks a bit closer. There's people have no interest in lowering prices. I have no issue whatsoever of releasing green belt land around London Oxford Cambridge etc. put its such an unpopular thought it won't happen until those who a vested interest in keeping it are either out of power or more likely dead. Another issue of course is in the northern cities there isn't the demand for homes- demand is London focussed. In my view much much more needs to be done to drive demand up north. That means infrastructure, incentivising businesses to go there and working on ensuring the skilled workforce which businesses want is there in plentiful supply. It may have unnoticed but govt is proposing/supporting the idea of new garden cities around Home Counties. Maybe that would work?

Word to the wise, the moment you accuse planning officers and planning committee members of being in league with the big bad developes, they stop listening to you. These things take time. Clearly there's a lot to be discussed in this case and perhaps you should be thankful that your officers are taking their time to reach a decision. The iceland is a food store. what is proposed to replace it is a food store. it is acceptable in principle. it's only a matter of time.

The is an increasingly supply of very high qaulity residneital development coming forwards in London known as PRS (Private Rented Sector). If it works it is likely to be rolled out accross the major cities in the uk, then other locations. Effectively the idea is secure tenancy, market rent, no 6 monthly increae! you have to sign up for minimum 2 years contract I think. The concept is that the tenant gets a very high quality home, all maintainance, consierge service etc included in the rent. the idea is that people stay in the properties to make a community. the buildings have communal rooftop gardens or libraries or games rooms or whatever. Often they have gyms and pools too. The buildings are owned by financial institutions (pension funds etc - there's a lot from Germany and the US cicling at present). They make a garunteed return year on year which is attractive due to its stability and safety. It is in the landlord's interest to keep everybody happy to ensure continued return and 100% occupancy. These are currently being built close to transport hubs in London, notably at Swiss Cottage and I think in East Croydon. It's reaosnably new concept (in its current form) and I think offers a very attractive propsect (particularly to young Londoners) who perhaps cannot afford to buy, don't want to take th erisk with th normal landlord sharks and want to be in prime locations. the GLA is keen to promote this concept and has been for the past few years.

Can you re post the report please? The GLA is seeking to release more land but this appears a slow process and not sufficinetly to keep up with the GLA's forecast demand. So what's stopping them... At recent events including with the Mayor, industry leaders asked the process of land release to be sped up, the Mayor could not respond.

The discussion re provision of addiitonal supply is very interesting. The point on the green belt release (for me) even more so as this would require a cultural shift in the minds of the population and MPs. Sadly, I doubt this will happen in the medium - long term as those "in power" would never rock the boat and lose their votes over the release of Green Belt. That is not to mention the level of opposition such an idea would face from groups like CPRE and Natural England. Let's assume for a moment that the substantial release of GB is allowed and housebuilders have the green light to develop. Why would they do that? Housebuilders have no interest in flooding the market with new homes. They do this gradually, building out in phases. this is for both practal and financial reasons. Crudely speaking (as I'm not an economist) sudden release of 1,000s homes would drive down prices - good for buyers but not for housebuilders. Taking account of the resi land value they would have paid for the site in the first place, there is no incentive for housebuilders to do this. One solution (very simplistic) is that the Govt. builds the houses and sells off - meeting it's own affordable housing requirements. There's a lot of talk of infrastructure projects being pafunded by Govt. Why doesn't it do more on housing delivery? There's a very synical answer to this. I'd be very interested to hear blacurrant and Londonmix thoughts on these thoughts? Do you have any practal solutions to the issues you've both raised?

@james Barbour - in the case of this shop, I suspect its closure has as a lot to do with lack of customers. Putting rents up is a fact of life/business. Perhaps you should try harder to get a review of rates which Govt refuses to do ahead of the next election. Retailers are not chairties they are businesses. To survive, they must be better than their competitors and adapt to their financial environments and their customers' needs. They do not deserve undue protection because of some romantic vision of the 1950s high st. Your ideas on what a high street is appear outdated. A1 uses are not the only thing a high street needs. I hope you'd agree there needs to be a mixture of uses to make a prosperous high street. The reasons high streets/town centres struggle is because policies like the one you suggest undully restricts their progression to meet what the masses want. Why the arbitrary 50% A1? Would the high street fail if only 48% of units were A1 - of course not. Another business would seek to locate and would either be successful, or fail and be replaced - that is the natural churn. The country has too much retail space. High streets expanded too far (not specifically ED) and now, thanks to changes in how we shop (internet) where we shop (preference for malls/out of town retail and supermarkets)and what we buy, we need to think again. There are plenty of other uses which would be good on a high street which are considered town centre uses - including community, education and business. KK - Estate Agents, I would agree are over represented in ED. However, the market will decide how long these last and I suspect not too long for some of them! As for curry, if it's a good one, then brilliant let's have it. If it's not, again, the business will close. On this point, I've seen a number of posts about poor service at chanderlier - perhaps some healthy competition in the shape of a new artisan coffee shop would enable people to vote with their feet. On the loop hole point, it isn't a loop hole. I'm not looking at the specifics of this case, but if they've been refused PP already, the best they could hope for is a temporary 2 year use. In reality, that's quite a risk - to setup a coffee SHOP knowing that in 2 years you may have to close it. I assume they're going once again for PP as they'll want certainty. The whole point in the temporary flexible change of use under PD Rights is to encourage pop up shops, cafes etc to ensure no vacant units, maintaining footfall and keeping a centre busy. This can also help new businesses get established when in other circumstances they cannot get a property. They add to the vitality of a high street and create interest. I'm afraid KK that is entirley the point - the planning system is there to manage the use of space for the good of all, not just retailers. Can I ask, what shop are you hoping to open instead of haus of wood? What do we not have that we need? What is so much more preferrable to a artisan coffee shop? Be careful what you wish for because Pret a Manger (yes know to you and me as a cafe - A3) could seek to open up in any of the vacant A1 units - as that is how they operate. Now that's a loop hole!

To clarify some of the posters here: * A1-A3 is permitted development if the unit is less than 150 sq m (which this shop probably is) The change is permitted for a period of 2 years, after which the unit must revert back to its original use (there is nothing to stop a planning aplication being permitted at that point in time for th euse to become permanent. Any external alterations will need planing pemrission in their own right. KalamityKel - the point of this provision is to keep high street vibrant and occupied. A use is better than no use. IMO a vacant shop is an eyesore, employs nobody and can serve to have a negative impact on the perception of an area and potentially scare off other investment. I look forward to the coffee shop opening. healthy competition is good for business. I agree with tfwsoll . I also look forward to Franco Manca, the new cinema, the upgrade of Peckham Rye Station, the redevelopment of the POlice Station - very exciting times for ED/Peckham Rye

have a look at the land registry. go to the website, you can do a search which i think costs ?1 a go.

how is it racist to want the fruit and veg shops to stop leaving their rubbish, boxes, rotten produce etc all over the pavement? how is it racist to want the weave shops to stop the weaves drifting around on blenheim grove? what a very strnge world some of these posters live in. Suggest you get a dictionary and some common sense. just focus on the actual thread - redeveloping peckham rye station. upgrading it for the people that use it. as the world and society in this area changes, are you really suggesting that the station should stay as is? is it really worth preserving in its current state? surely you'd agree that improvements are needed? without wanting to get in to a philosophical debate on capitalis v communisim as some of you have written, in a capitalist world which we all benefit from in the most part, there will be developers wanting to make things better (for a profit). that is how the world works in 2014. The planning system is there to manage sustainable economic development. if you don't like the proposals, engage in the planning process with rational arguments (suggest design, mix of uses, loss of shops, parking, densiity of development) and seek to influence things that way. you will be ignored if your comments harp back to "the good old days". Think how you can change the design for the better (perhaps providing retail space for the existing businesses?) and put those thoughts forward.

seem to have moved off track here. The redevelopment of peckham rye station is a very good thing. it will vastly improve this part of the ry lane. this station is getting ever busier and there is a need to move with the times. there are more than enough grocers and weave shops so there's no harm done in losing a few. if they're that bothered, the owners of the businesses can take the compensation and occupy one of the many vacant shops on rye lane. as for the weaves all over the road, has anybody tried speaking with environmental health? stop whining about it and take some action.