first mate

I wonder if any councillors can comment on the present state of play with the application? I have looked on the application site but cannot see anything and yet I hear rumours (and granted, they are only rumours) that M&S are due to move in the autumn? It is notable at a glance at the site that those writing in in favour are doing so from Dulwich Village and places like Therapia Road, these supporting letters are very brief and make statements along the lines of- yay, we'd love to shop at a local M&S,.. But most do not comment on the application itself other than to say parking won't be an issue because those individuals will not use there cars, or simply that it won't be an issue because they say so. Can those kind of replies really be used as support for the application???!!! Almost without exception, those writing in against are from the roads around the proposed application site and these replies are incredibly detailed, taking the application to task on numerous issues, not least alleged contravention of planning guidelines. One excellent reply also shows how ill suited even the current Iceland lorries are to deliver on Chesterfield Grove. On another note the cars are queueing up at the car wash and, gain, blocking pedestrian access on the path, requiring pedestrians to walk around cars into the road to get by. Unacceptable for the elderly and infirm and for mothers with kids. Have any councillors monitored the behaviour of the carwash (and their "good friends" in Southwark parking ;))?

As Strawbs said this was a young, black male. Those are the facts, I see no problem with stating the facts. I hope that the important people in all of this- Strawbs and her family- are okay. A horrible experience.

qotsa79, more than anything else the current application would in practice work at the expense of local residents.

Truly disgusting- if this is what major political parties are getting up to, imagine what everyone else is doing.

A dog that howls for hours at a time is most definitely not fine- it is akin to a person shouting 'help,help' for hours at a time. Some dogs can suffer very badly from separation anxiety and simply cannot cope when their owners go off to work for the day. It could be that the owners are not aware. The dog is probably inside the house- howling is a sound that carries easily. The only other thought is that if this is an intact male dog it could be that there is a bitch in season. Male dogs can get incredibly worked up at any whiff of scent nearby (the scent of an in-season bitch carries for 5 miles)and howling is then a signal of frustration. If this is the case, once the season is oveer the howling will stop.

If anyone has any interest, beyond their 'preferred' brand, in the detail of the application and its potential impact on our community please see this link http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/230437_1.pdf These are the detailed objections of a local resident and RIBA architect. In particular, note a series of photographs from p.6 on which show the impact of delivery lorries and how badly matched they are for a residential street. The author of this detailed objection also notes that a very similar application was turned down by planning a few years ago, arguably setting a precedent.

I think I am correct in saying that the brand of the shop will have little if any bearing on the planning application- it is the fine detail of the application and what each proposer brings to the table in terms of the building and issues of parking that are of any significance. It is whether the shop wants to expand the existing building imprint, what they actually want to do with the structure of the building that will have any bearing on planning decisions.

Neilson 99 said Get's my vote too. If you don't want shops and are worried about parking spaces, then don't live near Lordship Lane. It's quite simple. Same as those people who buy a house near a pub and then complain about noise and people drinking. Yes, but suppose some planners come along with a proposal not only to change the brewery but to enlarge the footprint of that pub and build 8 new flats on top of it and extend the licensing hours so that it can now open into the early hours. Those living close to the pub are understandably concerned, but those further away can only focus on the fact that the new bewery will be selling guzzlegut5x and some of their other fave beers. Do you see the difference?

davidh, How does informed objection to the detail of a planning application make kk a 'flat-earther'? As underlined by kk, the objection is not to M&S per se but to the total planning application and the impact this will have on those living closest to it.

KK, Bang on.

bemusED, but in many other ways fazer71 has seen the light, in that the application really does present an attempt to 'maximise' use of space in a way that is highly detrimental to those immediately around it. That the application also attempts to trade on eco-friendly credentials is derisable.

But it is not just about M&S, it is the whole application package that needs to be considered.

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.