Cardiffgirl

If you read the case officer's delegated report it is clear the applicant satisfied the correct planning tests. It demonstrated that there were no available premises within any defined centre (not only East Dulwich but Camberwell, Herne HIll and Peckham too). On this basis, and going back to my original post, investment into an empty premises should surely be welcomed. It will create jobs and bring an empty unit back into use. Given its scale it didnt need to demonstrate what impact it would have of these centres. As far as retail tests go, this application seems to fulfil these and really I dont understand James how you can be "amazed" that planning permission has been granted. Your Government is encouraging the planning system to be pro-growth after all.

First, just to confirm I am not a planning officer. Second, no abuse intended so sorry if I have offended - It is just frustrating as a local resident to see potential investment not coming forward without proper consideration as a result of fear into development proposals rather than full consideration to both positive and negative arguments and a proper assessment based on a balance of these. Finally, I understand as a Cllr for Southwark you have a right to call a decision in, or seek to try and ensure this happens, so I guess as my ward Cllr I am asking you to try and ensure a decision is made with all available information provided at this stage, so a sensible decision can be made as soon as possible rather than resulting in a position which just frustrates any investment in to the area.

Of course neighbouring properties should be consulted, but I think that perhaps you should give planning officers at Southwark some credit to know what they are doing? To fully assess a planning application doesn't immediately mean it has to go to planning committee; and given the scale of the proposals it would be normal for such an application to be determined under delegated powers. Officers at LPAs across the country are capable of making informed, correct planning decisions without it be determined at committee level.

If you are worried about the impact the proposal will have on LL ask the applicant to provide an impact assessment. I can't comment on how businesses are trading but from a qualitative perspective LL does appear to be quite vibrant. I appreciate applications like this cause concern but I think rather than blanket oppose them, establish the facts (i.e. why cant the operator go to LL which is a material planning consideration , and what impact will this application have on the trading for business along LL i.e. how much trade will it divert) and then reach an opinion. As being mentioned on this thread, the application will help bring investment and jobs to the centre, and it is a little disconcerting that such investment is being objected to before the facts are established. The first priority is to protect LL, but unless you look at all the facts you could end up preventing investment coming forward that would actually benefit the centre. Of course, this exercise may demonstrate that the impact will be damaging, but at least it would be based on evidence.

James Can we also write to the planning officer if we want to support the application? I note you only state in your original post that we can write if we want to object?! *note the sarcasm* Seriously though, whilst it is important to protect the High Street, there is also a case to bring empty units back into use, which at the moment is a massively important consideration. It may be that there are no suitable large units on the High Street unit for this retailer. To accord with planning policy the applicant should in fact carry out a sequential assessment, so perhaps a more proactive approach would be to ask the Council to ensure it is satisfied that there are no suitable premises for the retailer on Lordship Lane. Once this has been done, as Cllr for ED you should then consider the positives such as additional jobs in the centre. Your argument about "finite amount of cash" is a dangerous one unless you look at the whole case, which I agree is not presented here but that does not really give you the authority to make such assertions. You could in fact try and find out more before asking residents to object? It is disappointing that as ED Cllr you are quick to post this statement based on nothing more that your gut feel, and you don't try and think about ways of ensuring economic investment into the borough can be achieves in a way that benefits everyone.

Yes - I understand Rye Lane for some is their home and of course you want to keep it nice. However, when determining whether an advertisment stand is acceptable you have to look at the character of the site as a whole. Rye Lane is a commercial street characterised by illuminated signs. It would be a difficult argument to say that the proposed signs are inappropriate to the charcater and appearance of the area? I imagine each proposal will be considered on its merit - and apologies for what may have seemed like a flippant comment but I personally do not think that the character of Rye Lane will be made worse for the installation of an advertisment sign. ?80,000 may not be much in the context of Southwark Council's budget as a whole, however, every little helps surely?

Unfortunately, when local authorties are having their budgets cut they have to go to other forms of money making. This will be bringing in money which they need. I'm not saying they should all be allowed, and location is everything, but personally I think an advertisment stand along Rye Lane (a commerical shopping street) is not a massive problem.