Berkeley Homes 27 Storey flats in centre of Peckham - sign the petition

[Sazzle30]

Hi

Please could I ask you to sign this petition, the proposed development would completely over shadow the surrounding area not to mention blocking the views from the the Bussey Building rooftop and Franks.

As we all know these developments will not benefit the locals, any social housing provisions will disappear over time.

It will totally change Peckham

https://www.change.org/p/we-say-no-to-berkeley-homes-plan-for-peckham?utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=custom_url&recruited_by_id=a7e84d80-6cf5-11ed-a824-8d0cc2141839

Many thanks

Edited February 10, 2023 by Sazzle30

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

blocking the views from the the Bussey Building rooftop and Franks.

Not the most compelling argument...

[NewWave]

There goes the neighbourhood.

I'm signing I dont want Peckham to become Shorditch

[first mate]

Awful. Look at Croydon. No thanks.

[alice]

Protect the view from a couple of bars? What?

[Nigello]

Yes - build up, build more. If you want your shops, cafes, delivery drivers, bars, schools, buses, health centres, etc. you’ll have to at the very least grudgingly accept the people who do these valuable jobs need places to live.

[Steve32]

I'm extremely in favour of this development and if I had an objection it's that it's not much bigger.

We have an *intense* housing crisis in this country, with house prices and rents having accelerated being reasonable levels. Some people (existing home owners and landlords in particularly) benefit from this, but the poor and young suffer the most.

This is near Peckham Rye Station with its excellent links into Central London.

Of course, the cost of flats will be very high - but that's partly a result of a catastrophic failure to build in recent decades, plus due to proximity to Central London.

Not building flats won't make them cheaper!!

We need to have a 100 of these developments taking place around different parts of Southwark.

[Steve32]

blocking the views from the the Bussey Building rooftop and Franks.

Not the most compelling argument...

 

Will somebody think of the rooftops?!??

[tiddles]

Thanks for the heads up - signed. It’s a massive development and not appropriate

[first mate]

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.

[DuncanW]

Overpriced... but also 'thrown up' and without architectural merit...?

The developer, Berkeley Homes has a reputation for high quality developments, so unlikely they will be shoddy. Overpriced is a point of view really... unlesss they price them at a point where they don't sell. But I don't think they're in the habit of doing that.

[first mate]

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!

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

the housing of vital workers will not be solved as they'll be priced out..., just give away swathes of prime land to fatten developer wallets.

"Concern trolling" about housing affordability to oppose dense housing construction is simply silly.

1) 35% of the development is reserved for affordable housing. The remaining 65% will be market rate (ie unaffordable) housing.

2) the developer has to maintain as much retail space as there already is. Any other development is in addition to that.

3) The land is already privately-owned. It has a crappy shopping centre, a massive car park, a bus interchange, and a petrol station. This is a terrible use of land. The quicker it can be better used, the better.

4) London desperately needs housing. We need to maximise density, especially when it's close to public transport. The site is constrained and there's only one way to go: up. Building low-rise would be silly. If not here, then where in London?

5) Right now, the site is housing precisely no-one. 35% of something is better than 100% of nothing. The developer will pay for it all. There is no money in local government for building housing and no interest at central government. This land is never, ever ever going to be compulsorily acquired by any level of government and see 100% affordable or social housing.

https://southwarknews.co.uk/news/regeneration/peckham-braces-for-the-next-chapter-in-aylesham-centre-redevelopment/

lol - https://www.change.org/p/we-say-yes-to-berkeley-homes-plan-for-peckham

https://www.ayleshamcommunityaction.co.uk/post/701927998906089472/online-community-public-meeting

[Spartacus]

As I understand it, the development has to provide 35% of the properties as affordable housing, as per the current guidance by the Mayor.

It's basically a supermarket and car park both in much need of serious redevelopment and privately owned so hardly "prime land given away to developers"

Peckham Town Centre is in need of renewal as ts currently covered in grafitti and has low level crime, this development is a step in the right direction and there was a recent consultation on the design that closed a week or so ago.

It is ironic to see the argument that the gentrified roof top car park bar favoured by people from ourside of the area will lose part of its view due to more gentrification 😅

This is a serious investment in a run down town centre and provides much needed homes and shopping improvements.

Hopefully one day it can be restored to its former heyday as a "golden mile" of shopping that it was before the council was paid to put up estates and house single patent families in the 60s and 70s which changed the demographics and offering in the town centre.

As with any area, the changes ebb and flow and currently the nighttime economy in Peckham is already making changes to the clientele of the area, even the old "yardie" clubs on the High Street have become trendy drinking establishments for non Peckham residents. 😀

[CPR Dave]

The art gallery and cafe in the car park will be far less attractive with thisbuiliding taking up the view. Expect they will close down and then the car park too will be turned into a luxury tower block.

And just lol at the idea that Berkely Himes are going to help poor or young people.

[Spartacus]

And just lol at the idea that Berkely Himes are going to help poor or young people.

 

Just out of curiosity Dave

Is that purely speculation or based on evidence of Berkeley Homes failing to provide the required percentage of affordable homes in other developments"

As DKH Billy points out 35% of a development is better then no new homes at all.

[first mate]

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".

[hpsaucey]

And just lol at the idea that Berkely Himes are going to help poor or young people.

 

Just out of curiosity Dave

Is that purely speculation or based on evidence of Berkeley Homes failing to provide the required percentage of affordable homes in other developments"

As DKH Billy points out 35% of a development is better then no new homes at all.

 

More on Berkeley here. They haven't got the best record in delivering on council affordable home targets:

First is from 2018

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/03/berkeley-calls-affordable-housing-targets-unviable-as-chairman-earns-174m

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/02/poorer-children-warned-off-playing-in-shared-spaces-in-london-development

[hpsaucey]

And Southwark Council's response last November outlining concerns:

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2022/nov/southwark-council-response-to-published-plans-for-the-aylesham-centre-in-peckham

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

The art gallery and cafe in the car park will be far less attractive

🤣🤣🤣

 

Expect they will close down and then the car park too will be turned into a luxury tower block.

And just lol at the idea that Berkely Himes are going to help poor or young people.

 

1) yes, any kind of housing ("luxury" or not) would be better than a multistorey car park.

2) no-one believes or suggests that Berkeley Homes has the slightest interest in helping poor people. They're not doing 35% affordable because they want to. They're doing it because otherwise they won't get permission for the project. That much is obvious - and fine.

[ianr]

How, generally or in this case, are "n% affordable" conditions enacted, regulated and enforced ? Is there scope for drift over time?

[hpsaucey]

How, generally or in this case, are "n% affordable" conditions enacted, regulated and enforced ? Is there scope for drift over time?

 

And therin lies the rub. There's drift .. with less affordable properties often delivered than in the original plan.

[Penguin68]

There is no measure for 'affordable' (local prices, and earnings will differ in different locales, as will expectations, and building costs and costs of borrowing may change) - it requires close scrutiny and liaison between builder and local authority - and, depending on the time taken to build, what is deemed 'affordable' now may well not be when the properties become available. Increase in interest rates means what was affordable in the past, based on the cost of borrowing a fixed amount, may not be now, for instance.

So a planned 35% affordable offer (however well intentioned, which they aren't always) may well, when the properties are completed, not pan out like that.

Ideally the local authority should keep a constant scrutiny on changes in costs and prices and keep negotiation and discussion 'live' with the developer throughout. Don't hold your breaths on that one!

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

There is no measure for 'affordable'

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/development-plan/supplementary-planning-documents-spd/spd-by-planning-topic?chapter=3

[hpsaucey]

And more on Elephant Park: Not Berkeley but showing how plans drift...

https://www.35percent.org/posts/2022-10-03-elephant-park-the-final-squeeze/

Sadly 'affordable' usually reduced and very little is social rent.