first mate

LM, re flats and occupancy, let's wait and see. Hope you are right. On the M&S point, I think you are being very generous. Yes, they wanted the ground floor extended, knowing the size of the site and knowing that the developer would build above, extending by another floor. M&S, knowing the size of the site, the size of the delivery entrance and service area, now much reduced at their stipulation, have also made it a condition that deliveries are stepped up thereby creating much more traffic and congestion on the street. M&S, knowing the history of damage to residential properties made by Iceland delivery vehicles, have forged ahead and, if anything, made further issues more likely by reducing the service/delivery area and stepping up deliveries. AS I said, yesterday there were two men clearly discussing large delivery vehicle manoeuvres into the site, trying to figure out how this could be done. They did not look happy.

My concern has always been with the scale of this development and M&S is simply shorthand for the site. Nonetheless, I do not think the shop would be oblivious to local objections to what the developer has managed to force through and in that sense they might be viewed as having colluded. On the subject of flats and car ownership- I do so hope you are right. Indeed let us hope that the flats are affordable for young buyers and actually occupied. LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't personally know anyone living in a flat > without kids that owns a car in London. The > people I know with a car have kids (and not all of > them, just some). > > I know that's anecdotal but its why I find some of > the parking pressure arguments a bit crazy. Young > people living in 2 bed flats in zone 2 London > aren't car owners. With uber and zip car, owning > a vehicle makes virtually no financial sense until > you need to haul kids around and even then its > more for convenience factor / car seat issue > rather than because it makes more financial > sense. > > Maybe Southwark and certain residents want a CPZ > but M&S isn't to blame for Southwark's political > aims. There is an M&S in Brixton and I just don't > see why one here is going to generate all this > crazy extra car traffic. > > I am concerned that the developer (not M&S) > appears to have skirted affordable housing > requirements and that delivery access may be a > challenge. The rest though just seems over blown. > Its one chain shop replacing another chain shop.

LM, I don't think it's a conspiracey theory, it is fairly clear that council and local Councillors want CPZ. I think what the estate agent meant was that there is an expectation that parking pressure will increase on streets close to M&S which will result in residents asking for CPZ some time soon. Don't forget that development also includes over ten flats, a proportion of which, if not all, will own cars. Double yellow lines are to be extended and ee may get some cycle hangars. Melbourne us also set to lose some parking spaces. As you know, if a number of roads get CPZ the rest of the area will follow, as parking is displaced.

Jeremy, Just a guess, but perhaps the estate agents share a bit of chat with the developers next door?

Some guys outside the service entrance today to do with getting large vehicles in and out, shaking their heads and looking perturbed. The local estate agent on corner pretty sure CPZ coming soon " because of M&S and increasd traffic".

Surely that cannot mean any disruption at all? There is a difference between outside influences that disrupt the service and bad management? If a service is not fit for purpose is that not grounds to take action? Does Southern advertise? If so how is the service presented? I'm no lawyer so would be interested to hear from one but if the service is beyond accountability, protected by a useless contract, that has to be addressed.

Louisa, quite and, though of little concern to those not directly affected, I am simply dreading the inevitable surge in vehicles, parking and congestion as people swing by for their M&S shop. The developers always said shoppers would walk, cycle or take buses and public transport. With Southern services being decimated and buses struggling, do we really believe the well heeled will simply hop on a bike or trot along from Dulwich Village to get their grub (not to mention booze)? Of course, those same developers promised a lovely green roof. It seems what we will actually get is two tiny beds of bog standard municipal planting. Next phase is when all those offices are turned into flats!

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Hi first mate, > You've watched too many dodgy movies. No > councillor is talking about closing this road. > This idea was floated early on but we've all > listened to resident feedback and it is not on the > agenda. > I and 5 other councillors agreed we needed to > respond to residents requests as we have for all > other such roads in the area - and agreed to > upgrade the poor out of date traffic calming. Not > sure why we should penalise these residents for > being on the last section of such road. > > The next step is to find a way to clam the > northern section of Melbourne Grove. James, I'm slightly concerned that you would even pretend to know anything about my viewing habits...... Also, I don't know of any movies, dodgy or otherwise, that star a local councillor intent on closing a residential street.

Precisely, we all know the real agenda here, fully supported by James Barber.

I am not aware of MG as an accident hotspot at all. It does seem an utter waste of resources. To what extent is the path to be widened? By hook or by crook the aim is to close this road off to traffic and the latest excuse is that peopel with buggies cannot get by. I cannot help but note Councillor Barber's comment that any path widening is to aid people walking with buggies. There is no mention of the elderly or disabled. For me this indicates whose interests are paramount for our local rep. Survival of the fittest and loudest.

Oh well, too late now, it's a done deal but shows what developers are getting away with....I always thought the 'green roof' was another bit of window dressing, the drawings showed something akin to the Horniman green roof. Turns out it's just two tiny planted beds.

Ah so two tiny squares of planting. Is that the extent of the so called green roof that was promised....interesting.

London Mix, I totally agree with you. This is not about strict liability but building control, having made numerous site visits must even in a minir way be held accountable..if only to finally indicate that stuff was deliberately hidden from them etc.. I have heard takes from builders working on large projects in ED that certain building control officers can allegedly be 'persuaded' to pass stuff that is not to standard. Obviously this may be oure baloney.

DF! Their words, not mine!

Looks like the Penthouses are going up on a fourth floor and that'll set a nice precedent for something as high over the road at Londis. I've lost track of where things are at re social housing quotas and whether the two floors of "offices" have yet been given permission to be flats? Remembering that the orginal applications were passed on the basis that we desperately need more flats and there is no demand for offices. But they then changed the submission from flats back to offices in order to greedily claim a new fourth floor for two penthouses - no doubt filling a much needed gap in the housing market ( the building was always 3 storeys before). I may be wrong but it could be once exterior build, internal plumbing and electrics are all finished the M&S below can open as they work on internal decorating and carpentry above?

buddug, Thanks for updating the forum and look forward to hearing more. Those poor people need someone fighting their corner. How odd that Southwark would claim another council has signed off major building work that falls within Southwark...how does this fit with Councillor Hamvas's assertion that Southwark have done everything by the book? Of course this may be true but I am intersted to know how the system works in this respect...do councils now share planning resources?

I guess it depends what time deliveries stop, that is the real issue and, as discussed, the delivery vehicles are huge and they do make a lot of noise, the beeping is really intrusive and because the service area is so small the whole process takes longer than it might each time. Not to mention all the clattering and banging that accompanies each delivery as stuff is unloaded. The delivery schedule is going to be greater than it was for Iceland anyway. I am not clear if a stop has been put on delivery and unloading times. I just don't see why some people assume that because you live close to a street with shops on it that it is a given that those shops can open for 24 hours should they choose and those close by should simply suck it up. Why does consumerism take precedence? Whatever happened to the notion of balance? Surely 7am to 10pm is enough time for most people to do their shopping?

I have not seen delivery vehicles of anywhere near the same size servicing Londis, nor do those vehicles have to move slowly in and out of a delivery bay beeping as they go. Why do you feel opening hours of 7 am to 10 pm need to be extended and why does this take precedence over the needs of residents close by? Just saying another shop is open longer is not much of an argument either.

Cedges it is as busy as you want to make it. The existing opening and closing times are perfectly reasonable and give ample time for those who wish to shop as well as time for residents close by to get some respite and sleep. Why do you feel it is necessary for the shop to be open later than the times agreed with planning?

Me too.

No I don't believe they can. Deliveries are very noisy in this instance to have them any time if the day or night would be too disruptive hence conditions in planning agreement.

Yes one is fne but what if one becomes many? Either everyone can do it or not?

M&S originally wanted to significantly increase opening/closing and delivery hours beyond those of the former incumbent Iceland. This would have resulted in disruption to locals as the delivery area is smaller than ever and the very large delivery vehicles not only block the street holding up traffic but also make a terrific racket as they inch into the delivery bay, beeping as they go. Part of the earlier planning agreement had M&S operating at similar times to Iceland. The fear was/ is that M&S will use the alcohol licence to impose the extended trading hours they originally wanted and that were rejected in earlier planning applications.