Saving the Peckham Multi Storey

[Eileen]

Each year on the first Saturday of September (5th) one of the last open air community events of the season is the community Peckham Rye Fete. It is a great fun day with lots of interesting local village-type activities and interesting food, and old friends and new friends to meet. Peckham Vision - http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/Main_Page - has had a stall there for several years with up to date news of town centre developments. It is a lovely day of conversations about Peckham - its future and its past and its current state of being.

This year our focus is on saving the Peckham Multi Storey from the Council?s plan for demolition and redevelopment, to ensure that its viable future as a cultural activities centre is properly tested as the Planning Inspector said it should be. This has to be settled in the development of the Council?s planning policy for the borough. So it has a number of stages.

Please come and learn what is at stake and how local people can contribute to the development of a sensible policy for that building and other big issues for the development of Peckham. For some background info see

http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/Multi-Storey_Car_Park#Planning_status_of_the_Peckham_Multi_Storey

[Eileen]

Not a lot of people know that there is a big difference between Peckham Rye Park and Peckham Rye Common. The Common has been common open land since land enclosures centuries ago and is protected by the Comman Land law from development and buildings that are not ancillary to its use as common land. The park was a farm and was bought over a hundred years ago by the then local authority for public use as a park. The dividing line you can see roughly where the railing is just behind the Caf?.

The Peckham Rye Fete is held on the Common in the area in front of the Caf?. It opens to the public next Saturday 5th September at midday to 5pm. There are the usual favourites of children?s fancy dress at 1.30pm, dog show at 2.30pm, and much else. See https://twitter.com/PeckhamRyePark/status/632496724230205441.

We will be there at Peckham Vision?s stall keen to discuss with you the latest news about town centre. Come and tell us what you think about the Peckham Multi Storey, and about its future uses. Hope to see many of you there!

[Otta]

Can I ask why specifically you want to preserve the multi storey? I'm not saying you're wrong, just wondering what your reasons are?

And is the cinema included in plans to demolish?

[Eileen]

Otta Wrote:

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

> Can I ask why specifically you want to preserve

> the multi storey? I'm not saying you're wrong,

> just wondering what your reasons are?

> And is the cinema included in plans to demolish?

Thank you very much for asking! Yes indeed there are very good reasons for wanting to save the Peckham Multi Storey building. It is the building as a whole, including the cinema. The Council wants to sell for redevelopment. The case for saving it is set out in summary with illustrations in our current display panels which you can see here: http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/Multi-Storey_Car_Park#Planning_status_of_the_Peckham_Multi_Storey There is further detailed background also on that webpage for those who would like more.

The panels will also be displayed at the Peckham Rye Fete on Saturday at the Peckham Vision stall because it is important to discuss this widely in the community. We will have additional information there and some of us who have been involved in the winding issue now for some time will be there to discuss it. The issues were first raised several years ago, and local residents who had worked on this managed to convince the Planning Inspector at the Peckham Planning Hearing that the potential for reusing the building must be fully explored before the Council took final decisions.

The Council was not keen to do this, but the delay caused by the Inspector's decision has created a breathing space of a few years. We suggested that in the meantime the empty levels in the car park could be used as a good way to explore the potential, while Bold Tendencies and Frank?s Caf? still had their lease for the upper floors. Consequently, the Council has just asked for bids for a contract to run the empty levels for the next five years. See here: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/2009/peckham_s_famous_multi-storey_car_park_set_to_be_cultural_hot_spot

But they have reiterated that their plan is to sell for redevelopment after that. We need now to ensure that there is a full and effective appraisal of the former car park levels, as well as the building and site as a whole, so that sound decisions can be taken. The context for this is the designation of the site for planning purposes in the draft New Southwark Plan. This is coming out again for its next consultation in October. We hope many people locally will be willing to learn about the issues, think about them and be able to support the campaign for an effective plan for the future.

We are very glad to answer any more questions either on the EDF, at the Fete on Saturday or at the Peckham Vision shop in the Holdron?s Arcade at 135a Rye Lane on Saturday afternoons from 2pm (ie after next Saturday when we will all be at the Peckham Rye Fete!).

[Otta]

I can understand them wanting to use the whole building, but I can't believe they would want to demolish a thriving cinema.

They've probably decided that now there is a "more respectable" cinema in middle class East Dulwich they don't want to encourage those that can't afford ?12 a ticket.

In the last couple of years, and for various reasons, I've really come to the conclusion that Southwark council are a bunch of wronguns.

[alice]

The cinema is one of the only independents - that needs to stay.

[Blah Blah]

Redevelopment can include a new cinema though. BUT that's why Southwark Council have to be challenged at every stage, to make sure that redevelopment is the right kind of redevelopment.

[Eileen]

You might find it helpful to see what the Planning Inspector said about the cinema; see extract below. This is from pages 28-29, paragraphs 127-134, of the report which can be found here: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/10443/final_inspectors_report

FROM THE PLANNING INSPECTOR?S REPORT: The cinema/multi-storey car park

127. The existing Council-owned building on this site, which is subject to Proposal PNAAP2 in Appendix C, is home to a six-screen cinema, a sculpture gallery and an open-air caf? on the roof providing views over much of London. Although only on short-term leases and viewed by the Council as temporary interim uses, it is clear from the evidence before me that all three are very popular local attractions that have far exceeded the potential as a focus for cultural and artistic enterprise that might reasonably have been attributed to them when first established. The Council adheres to the view that this proposal is sufficiently flexible to allow for a range of uses and different options for the development of the site and does not therefore render the AAP unsound.

However, I find it to have significant shortcomings.

128. The proposal stipulates that ?the cinema should be retained on the site unless appropriate facilities can be provided elsewhere in the AAP area?. The supporting text indicates that ?retained? in this context is interpreted broadly so as to encompass the provision of a replacement cinema within any redevelopment. However, in the absence of cogent evidence to the contrary it appears likely that all three enterprises would permanently cease operations in the locality should redevelopment of this site take place. This would be inconsistent with the AAP?s acknowledgement of Peckham?s reputation as a creative ?hotspot? upon which it wishes to build, as expressed in the supporting text to Policy 2 at paragraphs 4.2.11 and 4.2.12.

[clockworkorange]

Difficult one. It is a cracking site for mixed use development. That along with the station would give rye lane the boost it needs. In an overpopulated world city, where there is a shortage of home (social rent, affordable\intermediate and market) and managed afforbale workspace this site is a wasted opportunity.

For artist studios, I know numerous schemes that have included studio space successfully. The artists snapped them up, so including this in a scheme is straightforward.

As for franks, short term lease for essentially a bar. No protection for that In my view. Those looking for a view and a pint (mostly visitors to the area) can go to bussey. A bar is not a cultural or community facility despite public misconception and outcry, its a business. There are also literally doezens of alternatives within 100m (sorry franks)

The plex is a tough call. I doubt it can be retained in a new build (thinking structural issues) and reprovision, well, unless under public subsidy, ?7 tickets wont last. Simply unviable, they cost a fortune to build. Again though, it is just a cinema,albeit a cheap one so why the outcry really.

As local id be sad to see these things go, and id push for artists and cinema to be reproooovided for. As somebody that works in property, a scheme here is a great opportunity. Its progress. There is so much wasted space in that building its hard to justify given mounting pressures for other uses. The wider regeneration benefit to rye lane would be worth it.

I will come to the stand on the rye and look forward to discussing more.

[Nigello]

I think clockworkorange has my vote.

[katyon]

The cinema is a community asset for all ages, abilities and incomes. It's sited in the best location - near the station, buses and on Rye Lane. It also provides screenings of films for interest groups within the local community- you can't just reproduce that on Eagle Wharf which is the site most favoured by Southwark Council.

The rest of the multi storey has produced a lot of positive publicity for Peckham and visitors - something Southwark Council has never been able to do, arguably not their job but very short sighted not to include it in the equation of the value of keeping the Multi-storey

[Eileen]

Thanks clockworkorange. We look forward to meeting you and discussing these matters. In the meantime the extract below is what the Inspector had to say on this site?s potential for housing. The Inspector decided, after thinking hard about the overall contribution from Peckham needed to make its contribution to meeting the housing shortage, that this site taken out of housing provision would not impede Peckham?s housing contribution.

The planning procedural technicalities have now given a little breathing space to discuss it all and make sure the Council has as the Inspector said examined it all thoroughly before decisions are made. So fortunately Nigello no votes are needed just now one way or the other! The Council has just asked for bids to manage the empty levels for productive use for the next five years. This is an opportunity to get additional and different kinds of uses explored and demonstrated. It will show it isn?t just about saving a particular caf? or sculpture park or cinema, but the kind of functions that building and that site can have if it is reused instead of demolished, and how it all fits together on the site. So far in its temporary use it has brought in many more than half a million visitors to the town centre. We also need to think about how the site in the longer term fits with the changes on the way between the railway viaducts next to it and the opening up of the pathways from the Copeland Park. We can explain those potentials with our maps on Saturday and look forward to meeting all who come to discuss it.

EXTRACT FROM INSPECTOR?S REPORT http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/10443/final_inspectors_report

131. I have considered the fact that the site is intended to accommodate an indicative 160 dwellings and 1050 square metres of non-residential floorspace. I recognise that this would contribute to the realisation of the AAP?s wider objectives and note that the residential allocation has fed into its housing trajectory. However, it is pertinent that these figures account for a relatively small proportion of the overall housing, retail and business provision envisaged for the AA, that the said overall provision is not derived directly from specific allocations for Peckham and Nunhead in the CS or LP and that, in the context of the borough as a whole, the allocations attributed to PNAAP2 are less significant still.

132. I do not therefore find the housing, retail and business provision attributed to this site to justify redevelopment as opposed to conversion such that the proposal should be modified to provide only for the former or, indeed, to categorise PNAAP2 as an essential component of the AAP. This being so, I am not satisfied that the proposal has been adequately justified by the evidence base. I conclude that the AAP is unsound in this regard and that the Council has much work to do in order to finalise a properly substantiated proposal for this site. The pending preparation of the borough-wide New Southwark Plan (NSP) provides an opportunity for this to be tackled.

[Blah Blah]

Clockworkorange, edevelopment isn't solely about giving space over to private commercial interests. It can also be about council subsidised ammenities. The cinema may just be a cinema but it's affordable tickets open up a cultural avenue to people who would be priced out otherwise. There's a real discussion to be had about redevelopment and plenty of examples even within Southwark where ordinary people have been bulldozed over in favour of corporate profiteering. I think Eileen makes that point eloquently.

As for housing, 'affordable' is not the same as social rent. When Southwark stops giving land to companies like Lendlease and handing over properties to housing assiciations that behave more like corporate property developers then we might see a housing strategy that address need.

[Jeremy]

What sort of uses could the empty levels be put to? I'd be interested to know. Is it feasible to convert some of it to "conventional" buildings/units? Workshop/studio space?

Karting track, anybody? Alternative theatre space? Real-life "escape the room" games? Urban minigolf? Five-a-side pitches?

It's a big chunk of land, and it clearly needs to be used for more than just the cinema and a seasonal bar.

Also... am I the only one who thinks the art installations are crap? Or am I just uncultured and ignorant?

[Eileen]

Hi Jeremy - Experience with re-using car parks in other places suggests a variety of potential new uses including workspaces for craft, makers and recycling, food growing, film and location studios, retail shops, small business and community pop-ups, and accommodation units. Certainly possible to build units within the levels as an interim use. That is in fact what Bold Tendencies and Frank's Caf? have done to very good effect, though it has been just the summer 4 months season and what we are all looking for are great ideas to enable 12 months' use for the levels below.

That is a challenge as running water, heat, and weather protection are needed. But an exciting thing is that local people working hard together over a long time persuaded first the Planning Inspector this all needed to be examined before final decisions taken about its future, and second convinced the Council it was worth asking for bids to do exactly this for the next five years. Let's hope whoever gets that contract makes a really good job of it and gives it a good fair test. Bold Tendencies have the top three levels in a firm lease for the next five years so this new contract is for the empty levels below that. See here: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/2009/peckham_s_famous_multi-storey_car_park_set_to_be_cultural_hot_spot And this is the prospectus for the bid: http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/images/7/71/20150803_Peckham_Town_Centre_Car_Park_Brief_FINAL.pdf

[edhistory]

What is the legal status of "Bold Tenedncies" that enabled "it" to sign a lease?

John K

[Eileen]

Bold Tendencies is a summertime non-profit art organisation, and a Community Interest Company. see: http://boldtendencies.com/#support-and-donate

[edhistory]

Thanks, Eileen.

That is a pretty anonymous web-site.

With your help I was able to get the information via Companies House.

Have a good time at the fete.

John

[Eileen]

John - the info I posted was on their website though on different pages. Did you get more from Companies House?

[edhistory]

The limited free information on the Companies House web-site gave me sufficient pointers to go elsewhere and find out exactly what I wanted.

John

[DaveR]

It's pretty obvious that there's no architectural merit in the car park building itself, and that using empty floors for other activities is a stretch - as recognised above, "That is a challenge as running water, heat, and weather protection are needed".

In those circumstances, "Saving the Peckham Multi-Storey" seems to me the wrong aim (and with increased chance of total failure). It would be better to focus on the intended use of the site and specific re-development proposals. There also needs to be a recognition that there is not going to be public money available to support the kinds of community stuff people want (none of the current occupants are publicly funded AFAIK).

[Blah Blah]

This is true but opposition is the way to establish a big enough involvement to have an impact on what does end up there, rather than only getting involved down the line when the process is much further along and more difficult to affect.

[DaveR]

"This is true but opposition is the way to establish a big enough involvement to have an impact on what does end up there, rather than only getting involved down the line when the process is much further along and more difficult to affect."

I disagree. If your tag line is 'Save the Peckham Multi Storey' I suspect a lot of people will be immediately turned off - what's so great about a car park building?. "Save the cinema" would be better - it's more accurate, has wider appeal and has more chance of success IMHO.

[Jeremy]

DaveR Wrote:

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

> "Save the cinema" would be better

Yep the cinema is the main thing I'm concerned about - would be awful for Peckham if we lost that. Franks... it has grown on me over time, but eventually the novelty of trudging through a piss-drenched multi-storey to drink crap beer will wear off. If we had some firm proposals for using the rest of the space in ways which are interesting/creative (and with financial backing) then I'd be more sympathetic.

[Blah Blah]

That's a good point and good suggestion DaveR. Maybe Eileen can make use of that?