Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Thanks for all these points. Yes indeed the importance of the cinema is an integral part of the campaign. Certainly we know the PeckhamPlex is not just any old cinema, but a special one that has tailored itself to Peckham?s special diversity in ages, ethnicity and social & economic groupings. So it has many devotees, and that has always been a key part of the campaign (going on now for over three years, but it's a hard job to interest people in the esoteric planning stuff). But for some the issue is also Frank?s, or Bold Tendencies, or the Multi Story Orchestra, or the spectacular view & liberating experience on the rooftop.


The key point here is that the importance of the building as a whole is that it is huge and has even more potential for fabulous relevant 21st century uses than even all these put together. The current uses are a great base from which to build and they are all relevant but not any one of them on their own could win the case. It was this overall potential that impressed the Inspector when we presented the case for a serious rethink.


If the interim contract to manage and develop the potential of the empty levels over the next five years works, Jeremy, no one will be trudging through unsalubrious levels to drink beer of varying quality?. The creative endeavours of the Bold Tendencies pioneers have however shown some of the remarkable potential of this big building. Now we have the chance to show the Council it has a much more useful future for Peckham in all its dimensions.


And remember we will be at the Peckham Rye Fete in front of the caf? tomorrow Sat 5th Sep from midday to 5pm. Do drop by and say hello and talk about it and see how we can improve the campaign.

Hi - did anyone following this thread get to the Fete? It was not such good weather as previous years though the rain stopped before we had to set up! It was so cold and as usual for that spot a bit breezy, but lots of visitors and great fun had by all from the looks of things. And we had non stop conversations all afternoon about Peckham town centre. Great to share information, understanding and ideas. It would be good to hear from you if you managed to get there about what you think of the Fete and our info.
  • 5 months later...
I think that's just for 5 years and then the whole thing will be demolished. The council have made it pretty clear this is just an interim proposition unfortunately. Hopefully, it will be successful enough that the council change their plans as I'd love to keep Peckhamplex.
Yes, the Pop Community lease is just for the next 5 years. But the Council decision, about the long term future of the building, will be within the next year, possibly as early as this coming summer during the next stage of the consultation on the New Southwark Plan; see for info: http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/Multi-Storey_Car_Park#Future_of_the_building

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Ironic.. People fighting to save a Multi-Storey

> Car Park...

> .... when everyone here hates cars...

> DulwichFox


Not quite! It's the Peckham Multi Storey building not the car park. It is already being transformed into the Peckham Levels temporarily. Maybe it might remain that if the campaign is successful. http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/Multi-Storey_Car_Park#Future_of_the_building

Next key action will be in the summer when the council consults on the future of the site along with all the other development sites in Peckham and the borough as a whole. That is when we need to keep alive the possibility that they will consider its long term future in maybe 3 years time when Peckham Levels has shown what the building can be.

Peckham (rye Lane)in the 50's was a major shopping centre..


A massive departmental store .. Jones and Higgings.. Marks & Spencers .. Walworths.. British Home Stores..


Littlewoods.. 2 C&A's.. 2 J Lyons Tea Houses, several big named Shoe shops.. The covered market (Arcade)


Many other clothes shops.. Boots.. Gas showrooms.. Electric LEB Showrooms..


Didn't need a multi storey car park though...


DulwichFox

I feel we need to vote with our feet, the last time I was in the plex we were surrounded by empty seats, I parked in the multi story car park on a Saturday I could close my eyes and find a space. It's hard to justify an argument to save a facility which is being under used. Please don't get get me wrong I love the plex and an happy that I can park my car in the heart of Peckham for a reasonable price. But with the increase demand for housing in the capital a facility such as the plex will need to become a well used asset to keep the developers at bay

No one is trying to save the car park for parking.


The idea is to make the change of use of the car park that will be in place for the next 5 years permanent.


The car park can't be taken down without destroying the cinema (which is not at risk of closing for financial reasons only because of the council's redevelopment plans).


So the goal is to preserve the cinema and use the car park for something more useful as Peckham Levels will be doing.

JoneM Wrote:

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

> I feel we need to vote with our feet, the last

> time I was in the plex we were surrounded by empty

> seats... It's hard to justify an argument to save a

> facility which is being under used.


You should have been there 6pm on a Saturday night for the Lego movie. Rammed (and deafening).

I think there is a problem with a campaign to save a building that was obviously purpose built as a car park and is ill-suited to anything else, for use primarily as something else. There is nothing of merit about the current structure - only the use. If there was a campaign to preserve the existing use (and similar uses of community benefit) in any future re-development I suspect it might be easier to support.

So sad reading All these posts, any public or private space which is used and adore by the community should not come under the developers wrecking ball. Those who hate it probably don't use it anyway and should stay out of the debate of the few whom have used and enjoyed it over the years . I've been in the area long enough to watch the many changes the space has undergone, each time causing public uproar at some level. With Every incarnations the space undergoes it brings pain and pleasure to the surrounding communities.


Now faced with yet another change where will it end, do we develop till there is nothing but a white box standing on stilts design by a overpriced well fead artist


If the public use the plex and car park then let's keep it and who knows fashion might change aNd it might becomes one of Britain heritage sites

jlee, the issue is that people DO use the cinema and the bar on top, but not the space in between. No point having a load of unused space, so the new "Peckham Levels" development sounds like good news to me. But it's a shame it's apparently only for five years.
  • 2 weeks later...
jeremy, what space in between are you referring to? there is only the plex and car park nothing else. it would seem that you have misinterpreted Jlee's point he/she appears to be highlighting the fact that what ever happens to the plex and car park some people will like it and some will not, but change for change sack is counterproductive, if the people of southwark and whoever else uses the space, want it, then it should stay as it is and the local authority should be listening more to its community

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> 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?


Jeremy don't you think it would be perfect for this type of thing?





Louisa and DF could recreate ED circa 1983 and never leave.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Hi Hillbilly, Your obviously correct that the committee members must consider the scheme in the context of planning laws, Southwark Policy documents. Those policy documents are clear the site should be considered suburban. As a Councillor when this was decided I can assure we considered this site and all others in the then East dulwich Ward and the Dulwich Community Council area. Ignoring that as the officer report does unconvincingly in my view would be a poor decision. The officer report states I believe highly inflated economic benefit of students to help justify the scheme. I have a student currently and they really don't have the sums being talked about and nor do their network for friends.  The council officers report states students will move in at the academic yea start over two weekends/4 days. 360 students will suggest worst case 360 cars. Unlikely to be perfectly balanced hence 50-100 vehicles per day.  The proposed building top 2-3 floors look like metal cladding and not the local vernacular of bricks and tiled roofs. The top two stories and roof enclosures will be invisible for some distance. I don't think it unreasonable to call that out of character for the area. I think it would be hard to argue it would be in keeping.  Yes, we have a housing crisis. But we have falling student numbers. The site could be used for more regular homes that the proposed 53. Southwark has the highest number of unoccupied homes for a borough. Southwark Council fixing that and they have plenty of powers to really dent those figures.  The development will have a huge negative impact on the neighbouring streets in dominance of the proposed structures parking pressures, etc. Your username suggests you wont be one of those affected. Nor will I directly. But I hate to see injustice from a poorly thought through scheme. If you feel strongly you could attend the Planning Committee Tonight as supporter.   Hi malibu, Far from. The homes completed on Bassano and Hindmans were sites I proposed to the council for them consider for new council homes. I have campaigned for the council to approve schemes with 35% social housing for many years. I dare not comment on people football team :-0 Hi the-permit, Southwark has zoning for density to protect the character of areas and to protect peoples confidence to move into, purchase and live and put down roots in areas. East Dulwich is under Southwark planning rules suburban. In the north of the borough the density rules are much higher. Yes they could. developers quite often get approval for a size of scheme. Sit on it and then come back for the same site but more. It might be a new feasibility study to say they can no longer afford that much social housing, etc. Classic developer gaming of the system. We don't yet know the pricing of the student accommodation but the Champion Hill student accommodation when open was priced around the £200 pw mark. Some is proposed to be discounted, but likely that will inflate the mainstream pricing. You have to be a rich student for such prices. It resulted in mostly foreign students affording that.  Any developer is likely to set their pricing close to this. For transparency I live on Champion Hill.
    • So you are against affordable rents and ownership for those on low incomes, key workers etc.  Who is going to clean our buildings, serve in our shops, and look after us when we are old or ill? Some state intervention, particularly social housing, extremely welcome.  Sorry if I have misquoted you. Meanwhile with the quality of football I'm surprised that DHFC aren't considering relocating to Peckham Town FC.  
    • https://ukfoundations.co/ They highlight the most important economic fact about modern Britain: that it is difficult to build almost anything, anywhere. This prevents investment, increases energy costs, and makes it harder for productive economic clusters to expand. This, in turn, lowers our productivity, incomes, and tax revenues. In many cases today, as many of 40 percent of a new development’s homes must be subsidised for ‘affordable’ renters instead of being made available at market rates. These requirements function as a tax on new housing (and so local objectors often support them), redistributing income from every other private tenant to a lucky few. Countries with expensive rental housing also see movements for rent controls, and punitive rental regulations, like giving every tenant the permanent right to live in the property they occupy.
    • We also havent been getting any letters, this happens so often and its so frustrating 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...