Yes, the rumours are true. After years of experimental transport schemes involving the drilling of tunnels and buses with unstable middles, not to mention their occasionally explosive rear ends, the Mayor of London in his infinite wisdom has decided that the tram, beloved of Dr Zhivago-era Moscow and Judy Garland’s St Louis, is the way forward for transport. Better still, it will link those of us marooned on rock unsuitable for tunnelling, with our friends and jobs op’North and their fancy underground system.
After a lot of whispers and countless rumours it appears that the proposed Cross River Tram has finally gone to, wait for it, consultation. This means that they will probably push some bits of paper around for a long time and then might finish it by the time I’m forty and living in the sticks somewhere. As part of the consultation they want the local opinions of local people to add to their paper pile.
It is thoroughly important that you exercise your democratic right to inform our elected mayor of your opinions. Get your consultation document here. It won’t even cost you the price of a stamp to get your opinions on the route and the termini heard.
I am however rather miffed that some locals have already hijacked this scheme and decided it’s an entirely stupid plan because apparently artists’ studios, churches and businesses might have to be bulldozed to make way for a tram depot, which, after looking at their map, the businesses in question seem to be Trinketz, Ash’s Meat Centre, I think a car wash place, and that unsightly factory with the yellowed and broken windows you see as you come into Peckham Rye station from London Bridge. It is, according to these locals, an “area with potential for redevelopment.” They have already had their petitions out, you may have seen one floating around your nearest twee shop recently. This attitude says to me that a better, sustainable, and environmentally sound transport system for the area would be entirely pointless if they couldn’t buy unique prints entitled “Pain” and “Freedom” to put on the mantelpiece of their Bellenden boudoir.
I have a feeling that they may have missed the point. The tramline will bring better access to jobs in central London for many people. It will provide redevelopment in their “area with potential for redevelopment” and jobs on the trams and at the terminus and depot for local people. It would involve new building, and I suspect a more light and open feel to the area around Peckham Rye station. Not to mention the fact that it will hugely help the redevelopment of the bit of Peckham that no one likes to think about, which includes everywhere North of Peckham High Street as well as the Aylesbury and Heygate estates, by providing them with a fast and much needed link to Peckham town centre, and to Waterloo and beyond, and thus jobs. At then end of the day people living there have far more need for a better transport system.
I might sound like I’ve swallowed a bit of Ken’s propaganda on this, but having seen the change that the tram brought to Croydon (okay, I still wouldn’t like to spend too much time there, but the place has smartened up a lot since the tram was opened) I am convinced that the benefits far outweigh the problems of having a depot in Peckham.
I’ve said my thing, whichever way you lean on this, and whether you think I’m talking rubbish or not, please examine the consultation document and make those opinions heard to ensure that the area continues to thrive in the future.
Popularity: 60% [?]
November 30th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Problem with your link to the Consultation Document.
You need http://www.tfl.gov.uk/trams/initiatives/crt/consultation.asp
: P
November 30th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Duh. Sorry, updated now - thanks Pierre…
November 30th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
Oh no, some artists that have been there for over [u]two years[/u] may have to leave an embarrassingly ugly building. Several small businesses may have to relocate a few doors down to the Sky Shopping Centre or whatever it’s called. And some churches that have been meeting there for several years will have to find somewhere else to meet. They’d be the ones who believe most firmly that it’s not the building but the people that make a church, then. That’s not devastation, that’s redevlopment, and progress.
I also like the way that Peckham Vision (sic) appear to play the race card several times in their bleating, highlighting the impression that they’re a bunch of white middle-class Bulwagh-ites: you can’t possibly develop site 63P, there are Black and Minority Ethnic (sic) people on it - so what? The racial origin of a proportion (of whatever size) of its users should have no bearing whatsoever in choosing its fate. It sounds like the straw-clutching protestations of a group whose main impetus is “Not in my back yard! Think of the property prices! It won’t be finished until 2016, and by that time our children will be of school age - we’re hoping to move to Esher and we want to get a damn good price on our renovated Edwardian terrace before then!”
: P
November 30th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Right on, Pierre. Did I mention that the domain peckhamvision.org has the registrant listed as a (possibly) a Conservative Councillor from Blackheath… Does anyone know where you can find out the home addresses of local Councillors?
November 30th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
WHOIS lists him as Alex Wilson, of 40 Beaconsfield Road, SE3 7LZ.
The list of all MPs at theyworkforyou.com doesn’t contain his name, but that doesn’t preclude him from being a local councillor.
Oop, hold on a minute, looks like there’s an Alex Wilson on the Greenwich Council website, and according to the register of members’ interests he’s a Surveyor just down the road.
What are the odds…?
: P
November 30th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Got it.
Alex Wilson, registrant of peckhamvision.org, has a WHOIS registered telephone number of 02 8695 1500.
Alexander James Wilson, Conservative Councillor for Greenwich, registers his place of employment as Clarke Wilson Chartered Surveyors (above link to members’ interests).
Clarke Wilson Chartered Surveyors’ contact number?
: P
P.S. Clarke Wilson’s home page notes that they have an “emphasis on service to clients”. How unusual.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
bum - number is obviously 020…
- why can’t you preview and edit your comments on this blog?
Whose blog is it, anyway?
: P
November 30th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Wow, you guys are just a leetle bit scary. Remind me never to gain say you about anything…
November 30th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
You’re right preview would be handy. The webmaster used to be able to edit comments but I think it got broken… Teh ‘brain v.3 ought to be ready by the time the tram arrives.
Is it just me, or would registering a domain name on behalf of a local lobbying group constitute a conflict of interest?
November 30th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
Oh and btw, Cllr Alex Wilson’s blog is quite interesting. As is this article he posted on his constituency website.
I particularly like the third paragraph:
Oh, improved transport helps regeneration does it… Busted…
November 30th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Tory hypocrite.
: P
December 26th, 2006 at 2:10 am
Clearly all of you realise that the tram is a good thing, it seems quite obvious that Peckham vision do too. They just dont see the point in destroying a large area of Peckham town centre, right next to the highstreet, and preventing any redevelopment on the site for at least another 50 years. The buildings at the moment dont look great but there is a possibility of it being redeveloped into houses, flats and a shopping centre. Instead TfL want to make it into an unusable space that will not provide many jobs (will certainly destroy more than it would make), or income for the area. If you actually look into it rather than just moan about a group that is trying to do something to help peckham you would see that there have been far better proposals for the tram depot site, which will not mean scarring peckhams centre. Improved transport certainly does helps regeneration -duh, but the depot does not need to be next to a high street.
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Fair enough, Barry. Having considered what you say I can narrow down my particular reason for mentioning Peckham Vision’s campaign, taken from their website:
While I agree that the options for a depot do need to be reviewed fairly, I personally believe that the proposed site would be suitable. It is partially derelict, not on the High Street, but behind the shops, and while building flats is all well and good, I know very few people who would be tempted into investing in property next to a busy railway (and tram?) line/station. I personally believe that having a busy depot and station on Rye Lane would improve the safety of the area, just through increased volumes of people passing through.
My objection to Peckham Vision’s campaign is that they are asking people to ’spoil’ their consultation papers with complaints about the depot, which will in turn delay the planning at stage one. There are other places to raise concerns about a depot (and they do state that the depot will have a separate consultation of its own), but these particular papers were not the relevant place to do so.
Over and above your and mine opinions on this, I do hope that everyone has made an effort to make their views known and to submit their consultation documents, whichever way they stand.