New Peckham town centre development design revealed as opponents complain
Revised plans for 878 homes in Peckham town centre have been revealed by Berkeley Homes on a large car park and low density shopping centre.
Plans would see 25 per cent at social rent levels (around 220 homes) for those in temporary housing and on the waiting list.
These changes are a reduction from earlier proposals for 1,050-homes and losing almost 200 homes from the overall total will see around 50 social rent homes lost.
Opponents
Changes came about in part due to some vocal opponents stating demands that are quite frankly almost impossible to achieve in the current political and economic environment. The reduction of almost 200 homes still hasn’t placated them and one wonders if anything ever would.
Still, those opposing don’t seem too concerned about losing many social rent homes and presumably aren’t those living in insecure housing not knowing where they’ll be in two months.
In classic NIMBY style some grasp for reasons to oppose and settle on those they know are unachievable but doesn’t make it seem they are looking out for number one.
The claim is that affordable should be higher; 50 per cent? 75? Or maybe 100 per cent. Just throw any number out that isn’t happening. Sure, those high totals sound great and all but who is paying?
In the current political, economic and planning system that is NOT happening without billions in public funding and neither the existing Conservative government nor an incoming Labour government show any sign of doing that. Labour have made that pretty clear.
Asking for perfection or nothing will mean nothing – and deprive hundreds of a secure social home and many more people of a home. Those same people would help sustain the High Street and local businesses too – which in the current climate (and in future) will be needed.
Transport
Given the town centre location it’s also excellent for sustainable transport in the near area with many bus routes plus London Overground and Southern rail services nearby.
Despite that and 220 social homes, NIMBYs are gonna NIMBY and despite the reduction in total homes some are out complaining again. We may well see some ridiculous visual renders of the plan looming over like it’s Hong Kong. Par for the course.
Yes, dear reader the word “loom” has already been uttered. “New York” and/or “Croydon” will no doubt follow.
The Guardian too may pipe up again as they did before banging on about gentrification – while ignoring that it’s 220 social homes (already down from 270) or nothing for years.
If they do perhaps they could also go visit a family moved many, many miles out of London on the council’s waiting list. Perhaps in a B&B. There’s plenty like that.
Because what is more important? The complaints of the privileged living nearby in secure housing or those who desperately need secure housing – as well as others forced into flat shares. I’ll tell you now it isn’t private renters in overcrowded homes or families waiting years for a secure home against it.
And that’s another thing opponents miss. Block new developments (as so many are always happy today if more than two floors high) and ever more family homes are converted into house shares and lost to families. Then they wonder why it happens.
Halt brownfield = urban sprawl
Halting building in town centres near excellent public transport also ensures ever more sprawl. Still, that’s out of sight and mind.
Now, apologies if this is becoming a diatribe but as someone myself in insecure housing I’m sick of those lucky enough not to be attempting to halt improvements for others.
I can sympathise with calls to ensure existing retailers are protected and would accept if social housing levels were zero – but that is NOT the case.
It’s pretty clear: block this and little will happen for a decade and many, many will lose out. If you like your car and driving to the expansive zone two car park it’s good for you.
You can keep demanding the earth or aim for what’s best within the current system – and this IS pretty much the best. Lord knows I’ve covered enough plans over the years. And as regular readers will know I’m hardly a fan of Berkeley Homes.
So the choice is accept something take can benefit many or block it and let many rot. It’ll be interesting to see what happens. I’ll take benefitting those in need.
I wonder if the newly refurned station building would make a good inside football pitch.
Yes!!! Peckham local here and the opponents are putting out ridiculous propaganda which sadly some are falling for. Their dodgy tactics are befitting Brexit campaigners the way they manipulate what is proposed. One individual I know rather well is behind some of it while living in a nice house long paid off (she told me when I asked!) yet couldn’t give a hoot for those who will benefit. Instead they’re fear mongering and having a heart attack at the thought of seeing a new building on the horizon from their garden.
Self-centred jackasses.
The Guardian had this pretty awful article last year about the development headlined “It doesn’t need regeneration”.
Err, but maybe it does need 250 council homes for those on the waiting list and others too? Maybe it would help to provide new jobs while being built and then in services, shops and all the things 1000 homes bring? The story was garbage from the well-off who spout idealistic rubbish while are happy to throw others under the bus looking after an idealistic world they know little of and completely ignore any benefits and new homes it provides. Also some silliness about Peckham not being changed by developers despite the existing car park and shops being developed in the 70s and 80s for car owners by, what are they again, of yes, developers. Some tosh about private developers wanting a profit. No shit Sherlock that’s their job. It’s quite impressive to get this many council homes out of them.
It was impressively devoid of any mention that social homes were part of the plan and contained the usual dross. Putting shops at risk? Well thousands of residents including those in social homes will certainly kill it off. Doing nothing will achieve that far quicker. Look of course measures can be taken to protect some but the writer and those featured seem to see it as a reason to do nothing. It was dripping with middle class wankery under patronising shite about looking after poorer people while ignoring any benefit to them. Perhaps the poor folks just wouldn’t under stand.
Read it and weep
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/13/it-doesnt-need-regeneration-peckhams-charm-under-threat-from-gentrification-plans
There is a serious housing shortage and building on vacant land that has amenities and good transport links like this site is surely a good thing.
The 80’s Aylesham centre and huge surface car park wouldn’t look out of place in Basingstoke, it’s a total waste of valuable land in Peckham. The centre is an outdated, car centric throw back and needs to be replaced with housing and non car based retail.
Every proposed development is opposed, Peckham Rye station moves at a glacial pace.
The Aylesham site is dubbed by NIMBY’S as a new Lewisham of towers for Peckham and the loss of view’s from Franks rooftop. It gets boring opposing all the time