Toilet building on Peckham Rye Common

[Gavin Edwards]

Hi,

Some of you might already know about the saga surrounding the toilet building on Peckham Rye Common (East Dulwich Road). To cut a long story short, Southwark council has been attempting to rent the building out as a commercial property despite the fact that it is situated on common land. If you'd like more background you can find it here and here.

Anyway, at the last meeting of the Nunhead and Peckham Rye Community Council the consensus view was strongly opposed to the council's policy of allocating a building on common land for commercial purposes. Councillor Gordon Nardell (Nunhead Ward) offered to set up a sub-group which would propose alternatives to the council on how the building might be used. I'm going to be a member of this group and I think membership is open to anyone who is interested in this issue.

I'd be interested to know what local people think the building could be used for. Should it be returned to it former use as public toilets, or could it be used for something else? I'll take any ideas posted here and feed them into the sub-group meeting.

Gavin Edwards

Peckham Rye Labour

[email protected]

[karter]

Some folk wanted to use this as a cafe' at one point.

[TUFFIE]

Although I think there is a real need for more public toilets generally not sure if I, as a female, would be keen to use that particular one if it were to be returned to use. That part of the rye is like an island, always feels cut off and a bit remote, although the grounds that surround the toilet block could be lovely as the planting is great.

My feeling is that that area needs "humanising", its a bit bleak standing there waiting for a 484 bus!, and a commercial let that maybe combined a proviso that public toilet facilites should be provided and maintained would be really useful.

After all isn't the Peckham Rye Cafe a commercial enterprise?

Maybe the cycle shop if it provided facilities plus cycle hire for use on the rye, like the set up in Dulwich park, would have been the thing to join up the two sections of the common.

[Gavin Edwards]

Hi Tuffie,

I should have mentioned that we recieved a verbal update at the Community Council meeting advising us that the cycle shop owner had pulled out. The council is now offering the property to other potential commercial tenants.

On the general issue of whether or not this should be opened as a commercial venture, I think the fact that we're talking about common land (as opposed to park land) is relevant. The lack of clarity over the legality of renting this building out as a commercial venture is an issue. I don't really understand why council officers didn't clarify this before trying to rent it out, but months after this process started I think there is still a big question mark over whether or not the council is actually allowed to do this.

Personally, I think that using this existing building for a community enterprise/facility might be more appropriate for this location. However, I take your point and I'm open to any ideas/suggestions people have.

Gavin Edwards

Peckham Rye Labour

[email protected]

[boosboss]

I'd like to see it demolished and returned to green space. This should help compensate for the loss of green space that will happen if and when the proposed changing facilities near the carpark are built. It'd probably save a load of money on consultant fees and having to update the building to a usable standard.

[alice]

There is a precedent for commercial ventures on common land....huge house in the park on the corner of forest hill road/ colyton road....sold several years ago for the price of a victorian semi ..resold several times since ...now worth close to ?2m...originally community use only ..so loopholes somewhere..or how is this different

[Gavin Edwards]

Thanks bossboss and Alice.

Alice - I think you're right, there are loopholes and there are examples of commercial ventures on common land. However, it can clearly get very complicated. The council officers report (page 25) shows the number of grounds on which the current plans could run into trouble. Is the building you're referring to a business or shop? Or is it a private house?

[alice]

Its now a private house - owned not rented

[boomerang]

Hi Gavin

We're trying to get more residents to use the Nunhead forum and as Peckham Rye (common) also covers that area could you possibly post this thread on that forum too?

Many thanks

FWIW I think it should revert back to a Public convenience.

[Gavin Edwards]

Thanks Boomerang. Will do.

Alice - I'm pretty sure that building is on the Park rather than the common. But I think your point stands anyway because of the cafe Peckham Rye Common. That shows that there is no hard and fast rule that businesses can't operate on common land.

I just think in the case of an existing public builiding on common land (albeit a closed one) should preferably be maintained as a community facility. . . or at least local people should be consulted on how its use might change. That's one reason why I think this new sub-group is a welcome development.

[PeckhamRose]

I think it should be demolished and returned to common land - so agree with BoosBoss.

I also note the public toilets that are underground at the corner of Grange Road and Tower Bridge Road are smiliarly for sale. Does this council have a plan to give the money it would normally use to maintain its public toilets, to local businesses (cafes pubs restaurants etc) as an expense to allow the public to use their facilities instead?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Revert to a lido.

[SteveT]

I second Peckhamgatecrasher's suggestion.

There is no lido in this part of the borough, so why not?

With all this global warming it should be used for a minimum six months out of the year, and with solar panels to lengthen its season, may be longer than that.

[PeckhamRose]

There did of course use to be a lido in the 1980s.

They are expensive to maintain.

Southwark can't even afford to maintain its own public toilets; yathink they can afford to rebuild and then maintain their lido? No. They can't.

It ain't gonna happen.

Meanwhile, either demolish the building, or lease it to Wetherspoons or the cafe people "Peckham Rye Park Cafe North"!

[Gavin Edwards]

Thanks for all the suggestions. Keep them coming.

Peckham Rose - yes, I think a council funded scheme which paid money to local businesses to open up their toilet facilities to non-customers has been running in Greenwich (I think). Depending on the outcome of this process, this sounds like a sensible policy. Clearly there is a need for public toilets in some form and if clearly signed pubs and cafes can provide a this, why not?

[Eileen]

alice Wrote:

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

> There is a precedent for commercial ventures on

> common land....huge house in the park on the

> corner of forest hill road/ colyton road....sold

> several years ago for the price of a victorian

> semi ..resold several times since ...now worth

> close to ?2m...originally community use only ..so

> loopholes somewhere..or how is this different

Hi Alice & all ? this is very definitely not a precedent as the house is on Peckham Rye Park land which can be bought and sold like any other property the Council has. This is not so with Peckham Rye Common, which was transferred to the Council under Common Land legislation from the old LCC in the 1960s.

[jimmy two times]

Demolish the toilets ! That's taking the p*ss.

[boosboss]

jimmy two times Wrote:

Demolish the toilets ! That's taking the p*ss.

Something those toilets haven't done for years! ;-)

[alice]

Hi Eileen do you mean that there arent any rules preventing councils selling off bits of parks? i always thought they had some protection

[Eileen]

alice Wrote:

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

> Hi Eileen do you mean that there arent any rules

> preventing councils selling off bits of parks? i

> always thought they had some protection

Hi Alice ? what I meant was that Peckham Rye Common can?t be sold as it is not normal Council property and has protections not available to non-Common land. I am no expert on the status of land that is designated as park land. But as I understand the situation for Peckham Rye Park it was created out of farm land that the then Council bought on the open market. I assume it then has only special additional protections that it has accumulated since then and I don?t know how permanent they can be. They would for example include the fact that it is designated in the borough overall Land Use Plan (UDP) as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), but that can be changed by the Council. Parts of it may also have some moral and political protection from its status as a Victorian Park that has been substantially restored with the help of State English Heritage Funds. But that wouldn?t apply to all the land designated as MOL. Maybe others in the EDF who are part of Friends for Peckham Rye Park could comment on this?

[cdonline]

Can we have another Tescos metro? Just in case, I can't be arsed to walk to East Dulwich Road or top of Rye Lane.

The area's crying out for it.

[Colonel Blimp]

I think it ought to be offered to TfL as a secure emergency nature rest stop for their bus personnel.

I have previously read about the woeful facilities available, especially for drivers on routes 12, 63, 78, and I'm sure that having this emergency option would enhance the quality, and comfort, of the drivers' work-life.

[Tarot]

I suggest we could have a combined pharmacy ,toilet, tea room, and dare I say Post Office.

[Gavin Edwards]

An important development.

It seems we may have had some success in convincing the council that this shouldn't be a commercial enterprise. We've just received an e-mail from "Peckham Rye Projects" saying that the council have now offered them the contract to restore and maintain the toilets building. For those who haven't previously heard of Peckham Rye projects, I'm sure they won't mind me briefly quoting their e-mail here:

"We are a not-for-profit gallery offering outreach programs to local schools and groups. We intend to sensitively restore the building, maintain the gardens and to open the gallery toilets to the public. We also intend to offer the building to community groups for use when the gallery is closed for business. We are aware that M.O.L and common land restrictions apply to any alteration of the building."

They applied for a Cleaner Greener Safer grant to restore this building before the council offered it as a commercial contract - an application that was supported by the Peckham Rye, Lane and Nunhead councillors. Although it wasn't successful in the 2009 round they were encouraged by the councillors to re-apply for 2010 - something they have now done. They are also seeking the support of the sub-group (set up by the Community Council and mentioned above) for their bid.

Personally, I think their suggestion is the best I've heard for the re-opening of this building and their willingness to make the toilet facilities open to the public will overcome objections from many people hoping to see the building returned to its former use. Obviously, this is not the end of the story, as Peckham Rye Projects will need to await the outcome of their bid to the CGS fund. Events have overtaken us to some degree, but in this case I think this is positive.

[PeckhamRose]

I think I agree with you. The idea as presented reminds me of that naff advert years ago voiced by Brian Sewell for I think the National Gallery where he said it was a great cafe with a gallery attached. In this case will it be a public toilet with a gallery attached or the other way round?!