first mate

P68, A considered response, as ever. More than just M&S I was looking at the whole development- the application covers a number of elements, not just one and that package is rather presented as a winner for the community as well as being eco-friendly. This suggests that there is an effort to balance pure commercial interests with the needs/interests of the community, and this, I feel, gives some credence to my stance. However, I rather suspect that this is an appearance of balance, paying lip service to the notion as a bit of artful window dressing. The detail of the application appears to tip any balance rather heavily against immdeiately local residents. As you observed in an earlier post, we can debate whether the benefits of an M&S outweigh the cons of the list UDP makes against (in terms of the neighbouring homes)? Clearly, I would argue no. Does a new M&S plus 8 new residential units bring benefits to the wider community that outweigh the cons to immediate neighbours? I would suggest this is so hard to qualify and quantify that it is not a way forward- though I can see that it is a route that might be used. I think a degree of common sense should prevail and most people, looking at the current application, would see the inherent problems and that these need to be addressed.

Gedwina, Of course I refer to quality of life of those closest to the development, they are the very people whose quality of life will be most affected by the proposed development and probably the cons will outweigh any pros. I think that the notion that commercial developers seek only to maximise profit and any balance in terms of wider interests, and the only possible brakes on this are those imposed imposed by local planning officers and us nimbys is a rather sad state of affirs, if true.

Gedwina, You have used the nimby word quite a few times now. Sticks and stones and all that but are you really in favour of daily deliveries by articulated lorries onto a residential street beginning at 6am? Have you actually seen the site of the proposed deliveries and seen for yourself how small the proposed space will b and are you clear just how big the delivery lorries are? There are good planning proposals and bad ones- this is a bad 'un where the absolute focus appears to be on maximising the value of the property rather than effecting a balance between commercial interests and the quality of life of locals. You should be fairly clear by now that this is not simply an issue about parking- a massive over simplification on your part. However, if you choose to view any objection whatsoever to the current application as nimbyism so be it.

bonoame, thanks for that- I think there are variations in the application with regard to times of delivery- will check to see which is most recent (application that is). I had not explained myself clearly about the space issue. The entrance will not be smaller- it couldn't be any smaller- the side bollards get hammered as it is now- which is telling us something about the fit between the types of vehicle going through that gap currently, let alone what is proposed in the future. And yes, residents have had front garden walls smashed and sides of cars damaged by Icleand delivery vehicles. The space that is now the car park will be significantly reduced. These very large delivery vehicles will be having to move in and out of a smaller space to get to what is already an inadequate entrance space. Less space in which to manoeuvre will probably mean even more time is spent easing the vehicles in and out- which has to mean more noise- beep; beep; beep those parking sensors go, imagine that daily at 6.30 am!!! Neither the current entrance or the residential street is of a size to accomodate this sort of vehicle- and the application indicates that there will be more arriving daily. Let us not forget the squeeze at the same end of the street caused by cars lining up for the car wash, either parked or just waiting in the road.

bonaome, just to clarify and add a little detail. Significantly stepped up frequency of delivery- to begin as early as 5am- backing extremely large articulated lorries (each blocks the whole street) reversing and attempting to manouevre in a space smaller than is currently available, reversing sensors beeping away. Residents on the street have already suffered damage to property by these lorries. If you visit the site you will see bollards to either side of the entrance to the car park are damaged, one knocked sideways (this space to be greatly reduced under the current proposals). Within this space it is proposed to build 8 new residential units- but there will be no room for any cars and only one bike space per unit. Immediately adjacent to the proposed development is an extremely busy car wash that uses the street to park up wiaiting cars while clients go off shopping. A new, even more successful shop is likely to bring the car wash even more custom, especially at busy shopping times. This is great news for the carwash and I can see the appeal of a spanking new shop for ED too, as well as the merits of affordable housing (presuming these will be reasonably priced- we have no evidence for that for that do we?). The only losers are the residents on the immediate streets who are going to have to contend with one heck of a lot of traffic and at some very anti-social hours as well. As you seem to suggest bonaome (forgive me if I am misreading between the lines) perhaps this thread is a bit of rumour mongering, partly to test the waters and partly to frighten the horses- the spirit of CPZ hovering o'erhead.

The objection is not to M&S at all, it is to the total application as it stands- the devil is in the detail.

Probably guarding their eggs/fledglings. They can be quite ferocious too. Poor cat.

gedwina, I'm not sure if you are across the detail of this proposed developnment, but you seem to suggest that if you happen to live anywhere close to shops then expect anything development wise and accept it without a whisper.

bonaome, It's good you have flagged up the need to address planning directly with your views and I hope more people do so. I just wonder if you have read the application in detail and if you are au fait with the back of the Iceland shop? I too broadly support the need for more low cost housing, especially for young people and for key workers. However, I don't think this proposal has been thought through that well and it could make life quite difficult for residents on the street particularly those who are nearest to the proposed development. There have been a number of comments on this thread to the effect that xy or z is not in the gift of the planner or the developers. I think that good planning has to take all the contingencies into account and perhaps come up with some more imaginative solutions. The current plans appear to seek to shoehorn in as much as possible into the space. No doubt there is a broader sense of community in ED than I give credit for but the bulk of views expressed on this thread centre on shop aesthetics and the brand- presumably because that is the point the development impacts on their lives. Please give some thought to the residents who live close to the proposed development they are also part of the community and current objections to development application are made on very reasonable grounds.

Renata, I'm afraid that other than the immediate residents, who will be affected day to day by this application/development in a variety of ways, the only real interest it can have for the GP of ED is the affect it will have on them and that is almost certainly what the shop has to offer by way of goodies and the aesthetic nature of its frontage and skyline- why would they care otherwise? 'Tis human nature.

P68, In the view of immediately local residents the negatives of the current application may outweigh the benefits. I would hope the planners and developers can have another look to see if there are tweaks that can be made that make the development more palatable all round. One can pick out any one aspect of the development as being for the greater social good, but it is the whole application that is, in my view anyhow, at issue. Any part viewed in isolation would probably be okay- except loads of deliveries by articulated lorry in the early hours.

As I have said before, I think the shop is pretty much irrelevant- it is the detail of this particular application in its entirety that looks like it could make life for residents in the immedate vicinity a pain.

Otta, the following is not much use to those not online bur those not online could write or ring planning at Souhtwark, quoting the reference below. email: [email protected] with your name,address and application no: 12/AP/1340 Do particularly consider how the development may impact on your everyday living if you live close to the proposed development, parking, noise, deliveries, etc Positive comments can also be submitted! It would be good if local businesses as well as residents respond to the consultation too.

Mssterblsster, Well of course. You are slightly cherry picking on the points though. I think, in this very specific instance, there is a fairly strong case to be made that all considered there will be an increase in parking. There is little point looking at just one aspect of the application (in your case residential units) the thing has to be considered in its entirety.

Motorbird, No problem- fair question. The car wash is well used- especially at the busiest shopping times, because that is when people like to leave their car to be washed, shopping at the same time. At these busy times cars waiting for the wash are parked on the street or in any other areas available. If those other areas are removed then that means even more cars from the car wash out on the street. As an aside, the car wash seems to be very lucky with the local wardens in that they never ever get caught, even when parking cars on yellow lines ;) One caould also say if there were no pressure on parking at these busy times (as you suggest) why would they even try to park on yellow lines? Additionally,under the proposals while spaces to park will be signifcantly reduced the aim is to put a minimum of 8 more residential units whose car-owning occupants will also need to park...on the street. An increase in traffic and deliveries by huge articulated lorries is not to be taken lightly either. Each and every arrival blocks the whole street for quite a time as there is so little space to manoeuvre them, the aim is to reduce this space but increase the lorries.

London Mix said "The impact of losing the car parking spaces should be considered carefully as part of the planning application but given that several people have reported back to the forum that they have not seen the parking full (neither during the week nor on the weekend), the impact of losing what is a nominal amount of spaces shouldn't be overstated. Also, those who seem to be claiming people will be driving for miles to buy convenience food to load into their cars seem to be misunderstanding the concept of the store". LM: The main issues for those living close by are: the loss of all parking space the addition of 8 residents who will need to park more car wash clients parking out on street (the car wash also likes to mend cars on street) An increase in deliveries to proposed new shop (as detailed in plans) inlcuding very early in morning. There will be no change in size of articulated lorries which have very loud parking and reversing sensors (BEEP' BEEP, BEEP- all at 5am). The use of these lorries has long been a bone of contention between residents and Iceland. Resident property and cars have all been damaged by the lorries. Bollards that protect the sides of the current entrance to Iceland car park are clearly damaged. The plans propose to make this overall space smaller. That is more lorries delivering and moving around in a much smaller space. The massive delivery vehicles, of which it is proposed there will be more throughout the day, frequently block the street. The street is also blocked by car wash clients. More residents to the street but a big reduction in parking- and the application says it is eco-friendly. On top of all that, yes, M&S/Waitrose/any shop that attracts more customers than Iceland, may also want to park.

Local residents, If anyone has concerns please get them in here...before it is too late. There is only a tiny window to voice objections email: [email protected] with your name,address and application no: 12/AP/1340 Do particularly consider how the development may impact on your everyday living if you live close to the proposed development, parking, noise, deliveries, etc Positive comments can also be submitted! It would be good if local businesses as well as residents respond to the consultation too.

Carrie, Thanks- I now see what James meant:) The developers are making such a big deal about the application being eco friendly that had thought the issue of car ownership could be covered by a clause written into the leasehold. I am clear that we don't want CPZ.

James, Just to clarify, it is currently the case that the council will only allow designated car-free addresses in CPZ zones? Is there a legal barrier to having designated car free addresses outside of CPZ zones? I am not sure what point you are making about the DVLA and registered cars? I am quite sure that all the owners of cars using the car wash are leaglly registered. Such is the demand that the business can only run if it parks waiting cars up and down the street.

e-dealer, I rather agree that the shop is not really an issue and parking from that would generally be dissipated- however, it is what happens at the back of the development that is more significant. As I have said before, there is already pressure from the car wash at the very point they also want to add in 8 residential units and step up deliveries, all in a smaller space and with any currently available parking space wiped out. There are solutions- to make the proposed residential units car-free and very early morning deliveries to the front of the shop.

Gedwina, I fear you are attributing my comments to gsirett. I don't think Giles is playing politics he is merely responding to what might be viewed as a distorted account of the meeting on CPZ back in January. I feel there may be some kind of relationship between the effect of the proposed plans for Iceland and the long-term aims of the pro CPZ lobby. I'm keen to know if James would actively lobby for the proposed 8 residential units to be car-free tenures, give that the application makes a big point of being eco-friendly.

James, What about the area behind the police station- can that be opned up for use? Additionally, would you like to see moves to make the proposed 8 residential units behind Iceland car free tenures?

gsirett, Nor me. I remember a couple of residents in support of Cllr Barber's idea, but there were also some residents from that street who were inittailly in favour of CPZ, but having looked closely at all the evidence changed their minds and came out roundly against. I do hope this new proposed development is not used as a way to ratchet up support for another stab at CPZ, but I've a feeling in my waters.

The major problem with this application is the increased footprint vis a vis increased deliveries. More large vans moving around in an already tight area, in the early hours. The parking sensors on these make one heck of a racket- that means a lot of noise for residents. Of even greater concern is the 8 new flats and complete lack of parking space for them within the development. Existing space on the road closest to the proposed development is already heavily used by the adjacent car wash. This area also carries yellow lines. Even an additional eight cars will place great parking pressure on the street and this does not even address the possibility of an increase in cars wanting to park up for a new shop. If the new flats could be dedicated as car-free this would help. In the development proposals much is made of it being and eco-friendly development, but the developers do not say where 8 new cars will go, or what impact they might have. I do think that certain pro CPZ'ers will be rubbing their hands in glee as they see yet another opportunity to ramp up support for parking controls. I don't understand how the powers that be can propose that we all reduce car use on the one hand, but try to shoehorn in 8 residential units with no consideration given to parking in that instance, in a project that is likely to massively increase parking pressure in one fell swoop.

jenny, It has been done...some would say to death. If you read the old, but not that old, CPZ threads you'll be able to see all the various arguments pro and anti.