190 Rye Lane development consultation

[Eileen]

There is another Rye Lane development emerging - 190 Rye Lane. It is a medium large site. There is a pre planning application consultation on:

* Thursday 17th September, 12 noon- 2pm and

* Friday 18th September, 3 ? 5pm

at 190 Rye Lane, near Asda and opposite Barclays Bank.

It is very much worth dropping in if you are around then to get a good understanding of the proposals. If you go and have some views please post them as a comment here, as well as giving them to the developers! Here is a newsletter about the proposals - http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/images/1/1a/190_Rye_Lane_-_FINAL_Newsletter_Low-res_-_10092015.pdf

This is an important opportunity for local residents and businesses in the town centre to understand the proposals before the planning application is made, and how they may affect businesses and the area around this fairly large site which extends some way back from Rye Lane.

The developers say: Currently, the site is largely being used as a building salvage yard at the back of the site, with a hair salon with flats above at the front. The re-development plans include:

? 22 new apartments including a mixture of affordable and private housing across two four-storey buildings

? Communal gardens for new residents

? Refreshed ground floor retail space

? Potential opportunity for a restaurant located within a new basement

[JohnL]

Close to opposite me :)

Looks like infilling (the height of the building will be the same as the rest) .

I suppose the salvage yard will go ?

[Eileen]

yes the salvage yard will go and two largish blocks including the infill will replace it. It turns out to be right up against Canavan's night club. The owner and users think it will mean the closure of the Club if it goes ahead so are objecting.

[JohnL]

You're right it is next door and 4AM closing usually.

That won't go down well with a few people/

[LadyDeliah]

Some info I had emailed to me that people might find interesting. I think that this application should be challenged because it could result in residents of the proposed flats making nuisance claims against Canavans and forcing it's closure, despite the fact the club/snooker hall was there first:

Dear traders,

there are some drop-in consultations this coming week about the proposed redevelopment of 190 Rye Lane. These are on...

Thursday 17th September, 12 noon- 2pm and

Friday 18th September, 3 ? 5pm

at 190 Rye Lane

A newsletter about the proposals with a feedback form is attached and a summary of the information provided by the developers is copied below.

This is an important opportunity for businesses in the town centre to understand the proposals before the planning application is made, and to understand how the proposals might affect businesses and related activities in Rye Lane and the area surrounding the site.

It is very much worth dropping in if you can get away for 30 minutes.

Kind regards

Corinne Turner

Rye Lane Traders' Association

________________________________________________________

INFORMATION FROM DEVELOPERS

Currently, the site is largely being used as a building salvage yard at the back of the site, with a hair salon with flats above at the front. The re-development plans include:

* 22 new apartments including a mixture of affordable and private housing across two four-storey buildings

* Communal gardens for new residents

* Refreshed ground floor retail space

* Potential opportunity for a restaurant located within a new basement

I COULDN'T ATTACH THE NEWSLETTER BECAUSE THE FILE WAS TOO BIG, SO I'VE UPLOADED IT TO DROPBOX FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO READ IT:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tvh1pntii0z9wk5/190%20Rye%20Lane%20-%20FINAL%20Newsletter%20Low-res%20-%2010092015.pdf?dl=0

[Jeremy]

Yep, the location next to Canavans is problematic. It wouldn't be at all fair if Canavans were booted out as a result.

If they're talking about developing the basement of the property, perhaps Canavan's could relocate down there? That might solve the noise issues!

[david_carnell]

Or is affordable housing more pressing a need than a dingy pool hall?

[bloonoo]

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> Or is affordable housing more pressing a need than

> a dingy pool hall?

It's not just a pool hall, it's a night club venue too. Let's face it, the housing won't be affordable to anyone unless they're bankers! I am so fed up with this 'afforable housing' nonsense - in my experience the afforable means affordable to people on a higher wage bracket.

[Jeremy]

Ermmm... I don't think bankers are usually eligible for the affordable housing programme.

[Eileen]

Jeremy - what do you mean by 'affordable housing programme'? Affordable housing means a category of housing unit in a development which can be let up to 80% of market rent. Even in Peckham now an awful lot of people on ordinary range incomes can't afford 80% of market rent.

In all housing development proposals in Peckham (or anywhere) we need to ask from the beginning what will the sale price and rent ranges be. Don't even use the word 'affordable' if you want honest clarity - as it is 1984 speak ie means the opposite of what it says, and seriously misleads.

[Jeremy]

I assumed eligibility for affordable homes was means tested, hence my comment. Apologies if this is not the case.

[Eileen]

It is real double speak and has misled us all. See here for a useful explanation: http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2014/feb/03/affordable-housing-meaning-rent-social-housing

[JohnL]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Ermmm... I don't think bankers are usually

> eligible for the affordable housing programme.

Shared Ownership seems to be 60,000 min salary for some developments

(elephant for instance - if you include that in affordable housing)

Canavans is part of Peckham "history" is the issue with closing them.

[JohnL]

Eileen Wrote:

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

> Jeremy - what do you mean by 'affordable housing

> programme'? Affordable housing means a category of

> housing unit in a development which can be let up

> to 80% of market rent. Even in Peckham now an

> awful lot of people on ordinary range incomes

> can't afford 80% of market rent.

>

> In all housing development proposals in Peckham

> (or anywhere) we need to ask from the beginning

> what will the sale price and rent ranges be. Don't

> even use the word 'affordable' if you want honest

> clarity - as it is 1984 speak ie means the

> opposite of what it says, and seriously misleads.

We seem to have a lot of 1984 speak in the UK today :)

I've really started noticing how people use words that

are the opposite of what they mean.

[Jeremy]

For the "First Steps" scheme, the upper salary threshold is 71K (household income) for one/two bedroom properties.

Of course I realise a lot of people don't get anywhere near this, neither is a 70K joint salary unusually high. Around the London average, I'd suggest. Certainly not something that's only realistic for bankers (ah, bankers again... good old EDF...)

[JohnL]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> For the "First Steps" scheme, the upper salary

> threshold is 71K (household income) for one/two

> bedroom properties.

>

> Of course I realise a lot of people don't get

> anywhere near this, neither is a 70K joint salary

> unusually high. Around the London average, I'd

> suggest. Certainly not something that's only

> realistic for bankers (ah, bankers again... good

> old EDF...)

Yes - being single I sometimes forget about household income :).

Still not sure if shared ownership (which I have) is social housing.

I needed 40K min to get mine - and payout quite a lot per month.

I think a review of shared ownership is happening this year.

[Blah Blah]

Jeremy, why would two people live in a one bedroomed flat? Right away that joint salary is only going to work for couples with stable long term relationships. According to the Office for National Statistics, the median gross annual wage for people working in London is ?34,473. The median wage for the UK as a whole is ?22,044. So half the people in London earn less than than ?34.473 and half of your 71k is ?35,500, so more than half of Londoners are earning less than that. It's exactly why 52% of Londoners are forced to rent compared to 30% nationwide.

[Jeremy]

You seem to be looking for an argument, but I'm not sure why. It seems to me that the London affordable housing scheme is indeed aimed at couples with average-ish salaries. Not poor people. Probably not single people. And not "bankers" (assuming this is typical lazy shorthand for the rich), either.

Why would two people live in a one bedroomed flat? Is it not common for couples to share bedrooms? I didn't realise me and my wife were so unconventional.

[Blah Blah]

Not looking for an argument at all. Just providing data that suggests it's actually above the average salary, so most people don't qualify.

The housing situation in London is just wrong. There is no upward social mobilty for most hard working people.

And the term 'affordable housing' is a joke.

[Jeremy]

Your logic is a bit off... the UPPER limit is just above the London average earnings for two people. So actually most couples DO qualify.

But of course whether or not they can afford the deposit/repayments is another matter, and I would broadly agree about the price of property in London.

[Blah Blah]

The logic is spot on. If half of working people in London make the average wage, you then have to assume they are all in stable relationships as well. They won't be of course, so the number of actual couples with that income is going to be less than half the working population. What we don't know of course is how much less. We broadly agree though on the situation overall.

[Eileen]

Here is more information about the difference between ?affordable rent? housing and ?social rent? housing which is genuinely affordable to lower income levels, unlike ?affordable rent?. http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=ec407214e6ff80d684df62bdf&id=fab9cdb7ee&e=8ce7d4ae37 A problem is that many housing developments are gaining public acceptance because of the lack of understanding of this difference. We must be vigilant in commenting on all housing developments and first discover how many ?social rent? units there are before welcoming the development because it is providing housing.

On examining the 190 Rye Lane proposals further we have discovered that the Peckham Area Action Plan indicated about 10 housing units would be appropriate. This proposal is for 22 new housing units. This is typical now of many housing developments - cram the maximum number of units on, irrespective of whether it is the best use of the land. In this case there is an alternative mixed use that has not been examined for imaginative new businesses which would fit better with the other businesses already there including Canavans, as well as being more in tune with what the Area Action Plan indicated for housing.

[Lefeurve]

The affordable housing is outside London

[DaveR]

"Here is more information about the difference between ?affordable rent? housing and ?social rent? housing which is genuinely affordable to lower income levels, unlike ?affordable rent?. [us7.campaign-archive1.com] A problem is that many housing developments are gaining public acceptance because of the lack of understanding of this difference. We must be vigilant in commenting on all housing developments and first discover how many ?social rent? units there are before welcoming the development because it is providing housing."

That depends on whether you have a very blinkered view of social rent= good and affordable rent = bad. In any event, as I understand it this development proposes housing where at the moment there is none - there is no competing proposal for social rented housing on the site - so the starting point is something or nothing. I don't have any view re Canavans but as I understand it the starting point is that the development has to fit with the existing site, so you would expect the plans to have to include soundproofing etc. to address noise from nearby existing businesses.

[ruffers]

Regarding the prospects of a pre existing club premises being shut down by residents in a new build the Ministry of Sound had a similar situation over the last few years. The outcome was the flats were built (or are being built currently) but with a recognition that the Ministry was there first.

"The nightclub and the property developer also agreed a "deed of easement", which will allow the Ministry of Sound to continue with their current noise levels without fear of complaints from residents."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25642151