Petition to save low rise Peckham views and prevent high-rise despoliation

[Loz]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Still, if you believe the simplistic 'supply and demand' argument, then selling off the Heygate

> Estate to developers in this way will significantly reduce house prices in Southwark

> right? Ha!

You don't believe in supply and demand?

But, no, one development is not going to solve the problem, because demand is much, much bigger than that. We need lots more home building in London. Ideas like Heygate are, in theory, fine. It's just that it seems to have FUBAR stamped all over the way Southwark has gone about it.

[LondonMix]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Building more 1 and 2 bedroom 'luxury flats' in

> the private sector for investors to speculate on,

> will not have a noticeable effect on prices. We

> need a significant increase in social housing.

Any housing developed as long as its occupied (even if its rented out) helps reduce pricing pressures.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I believe in supply and demand generally, but think that the London housing problem is far more complex than simply increasing supply as it's not just a domestic market. There are also very different types of supply. More investment properties for overseas speculators isn't going to help as much as new council owned properties for example.

If you're talking private developments -there would have to be a huge number of new properties in London before it made any dent in prices and I think it's highly unlikely that such an increase is going to happen (for one thing there is little incentive). Also when they are being used purely for speculation and promoted into new overseas markets they could conceivably add to the problem.

I do support a huge investment in social housing specifically.

Additionally we need to encourage growth in regional cities rather than concentrating everything in London and the Southeast.

[LondonMix]

Otta, that article is really shocking. The deal from Southwark?s perspective was clearly non-sense. The borough has gained nothing out of the deal except they no longer house the same number of poor people. I know Southwark has the highest proportion of social housing in London and maybe they were looking to balance that out but this really does just seem like social cleansing.

Personally, I don?t think large estates are good for London and prefer models where social housing tenants are mixed in the private owners without any clear differences. If the Heygate had been redeveloped along those lines I would have supported it but this seems just terrible. Surely they could have allocated at least 20% of the units to social housing.

The worst bit is where the developers suggest that the mere existence of poor people in the scheme will reduce the value to the private buyers. Do people think poverty is contagious? My neighbour?s home is owned by a housing association and they have lived there for 30 years. He works for the police and she is a semi-retired teacher now. Social housing tenants, especially in London, are just people.

[LondonMix]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I believe in supply and demand generally, but

> think that the London housing problem is far more

> complex than simply increasing supply as it's not

> just a domestic market. There are also very

> different types of supply. More investment

> properties for overseas speculators isn't going to

> help as much as new council owned properties for

> example.

>

> If you're talking private developments -there

> would have to be a huge number of new properties

> in London before it made any dent in prices and I

> think it's highly unlikely that such an increase

> is going to happen (for one thing there is little

> incentive). Also when they are being used purely

> for speculation and promoted into new overseas

> markets they could conceivably add to the

> problem.

>

> I do support a huge investment in social housing

> specifically.

>

> Additionally we need to encourage growth in

> regional cities rather than concentrating

> everything in London and the Southeast.

That?s not quite right. Even if the flats are being sold to overseas investors, as long as those investors intend to rent them out (which most do), it increases the supply of rental properties. This increased supply reduces pressure on rents. As anticipated rental growth tempers, buy-to-let pricing levels off / reduces which impacts the overall buying market.

This isn?t theoretical. In prime central London prices have started to fall in a response to over supply of luxury flats.

[Earl Aelfheah]

That's true, but the relationship is not entirely straight forward. I think the answer to London's housing crisis is unlikely to be found in more luxury flats.

[LondonMix]

Yes, I can agree with that. I don't actually know anything about what is planned. Does anyone have any links to the developers project?

[Otta]

This was written just over a year ago, and even then unbuilt heygate homes were being offered to investors in Singapore and China.

[PokerTime]

London's housing crisis is not in the shortage of luxury flats, it's in the shortage of affordable accomodation, be that rental OR purchase. The only way to address that through property building is to build according to need. Given that property developers are only interested in maximised profit, they can't be relied upon to fill that need and that's why you get public/ private partnership schemes to incentivise. The problem is that the ratio of affordable property to top end market isn't reflective of true need. The Heygate is a perfect example of that. The original deal which included 1000+ affordable rents has ended with just 79 affordable rents. Housing Associations are the only true builders of affordable housing. And government likes HAs over local authorities because tenants have less rights and protections under HAs, but they are not able to build enough.

[Mattsoper]

The campaign to protect the view that in recent summers it?s been possible to see from Bold Tendencies, Frank?s and the Bussey Building isn?t about opposing new housing - and it certainly isn?t in defence of the Aylesham Centre. Nor is it even about saving the multi-storey car park, which may yet be demolished, though that hasn?t been decided yet.

What it?s really about is ensuring that the regeneration of Peckham is considered as a whole so that what gives the place its identity isn?t lost in the process. It?s also about increasing awareness of the huge changes that will be taking place in Peckham over the next few years.

Improvement is necessary and more social and affordable housing should of course be a priority but the new towers being built all around London don?t tend to offer significant amounts of homes that fit into either of these categories. You can be sure that the upper levels of any tower built on the Aylesham Centre/Morrison?s site will be sold at a premium precisely because of the views on offer - which actually means that the view becomes the privilege of the few, rather than the many thousands of people (local residents as well as visitors) who visit Bold Tendencies, Frank?s and the Bussey Building in the space of around three months each summer.

Those of us involved in setting up the petition were very conscious of the NIMBY accusations that might be directed at the campaign. It?s an inevitable criticism as a view does seem incredibly superficial when London?s housing crisis shows no signs of letting up. As mentioned above, this isn?t an objection to a complete redevelopment of the Aylesham Centre/Morisson?s site and the building of a large number of new homes.

What I would say is that this is more about the area?s economy than simply about aesthetics. I?ve been researching press coverage of Peckham as a place to go out and it?s been featured in publications including Vogue, Conde Nast Traveller, Time Out, The Mail, The Evening Standard, The Guardian, The Times, British Airways in-flight magazine High Life and most recently in the September issue of Virgin Australia?s in-flight magazine Voyeur, and the one thing consistently mentioned is the view over London.

Whether Frank?s continues indefinitely or the car park site is redeveloped, the view is now an important part of Peckham?s appeal for visitors, and very careful consideration should be given before selling it off. Peckham as a tourist destination even five years ago would have been hard to imagine - but that?s what it?s increasingly becoming, thanks in no small part to its rooftop venues and that view.

That?s an incredible turnaround for the area?s reputation, though what we need to ensure is that the balance is right between bringing in newcomers (or ?blow-ins?) and meeting the needs of the existing communities. Not an easy thing to achieve, and only really possible if everybody knows what?s going on and has had their say. With that in mind, the clock is ticking on the Peckham CoDesign process so if you haven?t done so already then please give the team running it your opinions on what you?d like from the area in future.

http://peckhamcodesign.org/

If you wish to sign the petition to protect Peckham's rooftop view then you can find it here.

https://www.change.org/p/protect-peckham-s-rooftop-view

[Earl Aelfheah]

Good post Mattsoper