Revised new - M&S planning application to replace Iceland..

[KalamityKel]

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> London Mix, actually you are spot on, planning

> have no interest in the brand of shop and this

> will have no bearing on their decision on the

> application. The only objections they will

> consider and weigh in the balance, are to do with

> the detail of the application. For these reasons I

> would urge people to read the application and to

> comment, having considered its implications.

Although that doesn't seem to be strictly true... from the last application it was requested that M&S submitted further marketing information/strategies on the type of business they were and the plans for this particular outlet. There is now page upon page of nonesense within this application.

Why would this info be requested?

[LondonMix]

Where did you see that? The stuff on marketability of premises relates to justifying the need to convert the office space into residential space: the proof the freeholder submitted last time showing the office space couldn't be rented was weak so they asked for more substantive proof as well as cost benefit analysis. I have not read everything in depth so can you point me to where in the docs you've seen that requirement as that would be very surprising?

[StraferJack]

edited because I hadn't realised I was 3 pages behind... silly me

[KalamityKel]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Where did you see that? The stuff on

> marketability of premises relates to justifying

> the need to convert the office space into

> residential space: the proof the freeholder

> submitted last time showing the office space

> couldn't be rented was weak so they asked for more

> substantive proof as well as cost benefit

> analysis. I have not read everything in depth so

> can you point me to where in the docs you've seen

> that requirement as that would be very surprising?

Have a look in the "planning statement" provided by Farcastle Group Ltd and in email correspondance - which I find rather contradictory.

There are so many documents submitted this time round, a lot of it making rather hard reading, it would seem they mean business this time round although STILL they (M&S) are unable to provide accurate information and are missing details which were raised in objections the last time - simple things like lighting at the rear, security and actual impact on neighbouring property - only consideration has been given to the proposed residential space on the property itself.

The drawings are not particularly accurate either.

It would seem also that planning are keen for the application to be sucessful. For those that rejoiced and thought good of M&S to see the error of the application and therefore withdraw the initial application - it wasn't through consideration from M&S it was Victoria Lewis, Senior Planning Officer who, I quote "It may be advisable that you withdraw the application and resubmit at a later date, as this could result in a more positive response to the public consultation." (email from Victoria Lewis to Robert Battersby 15th August 2012).

[macrobana]

KalamityKel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It would seem also that planning are keen for the

> application to be sucessful. For those that

> rejoiced and thought good of M&S to see the error

> of the application and therefore withdraw the

> initial application - it wasn't through

> consideration from M&S it was Victoria Lewis,

> Senior Planning Officer who, I quote "It may be

> advisable that you withdraw the application and

> resubmit at a later date, as this could result in

> a more positive response to the public

> consultation." (email from Victoria Lewis to

> Robert Battersby 15th August 2012).

Smell.

[LondonMix]

I've read the emails and the planning statement and I don't understand it the way you do (or see pages upon pages of marketing information). The application is by the freeholder (not M&S) and many elements of it have nothing to do with the store -- like increasing the residential units (this is just the freeholder trying to make money).

From what I understand, it appears the freeholder is trying to justify the need for the extension (rather than M&S as a store) as they need to have some justification for extending the premises. Also, if they are customizing the premises to one particular tenant's needs as the rationale, they also need to illustrate that tenant is committed to continued use (hence the email from M&S), particularly if other retailers could use the premise as is.

As Robin has advised before, submitting objections saying: "I don't like M&S" are useless as they cannot be considered as such. The focus should be on any shortcomings with the redevelopment plan such as the ones you've highlighted. They have addressed some of the original concerns but from my quick reading some remain unaddressed and it would be good to have these dealt with before approval (which appears very likely) is granted.

[KalamityKel]

It is indeed a shame many have and are continuing to hi-jack this thread with their silly comments about the likes and dislikes between this and that establishment.

It doesn't matter who moves in the issues are the application itself. It is disappointing there are many who fail to grasp the implications of the application.

[first mate]

I'd still like to know when councillors were first aware of this new application?

The new application is very detailed, as I said the process seems to be weighted in favour of the application in that there is little time to object and what time there is falls over a holiday period. Moreover locals have not been alerted, until now- the application was in planning on 22nd November.

We also know that there were pre-submission talks between the developer and planning, where it was agreed that the application would be processed more quickly this time round....whatever that means.

[KalamityKel]

And still no "official" representative (meaning any that have declared themselves in an official capacity) has met with nearby residents to actually physically discuss concerns. It is all well and good to submit comments in writing whether objecting or supporting the application but as everyone knows it is easy to miss the point or misinterpret comments. I'm certainly not suggesting not to write in but that it would have been useful for all those involved in the planning application to actually speak to those nearby in a group - and not just one or two people seen by chance on any nearby streets.

[the-e-dealer]

Not sure which 'official' representative of whom ? and in what official capacity you are talking about. ?

[KalamityKel]

I would have thought that was obvious - planning or those submitting the application.

[KalamityKel]

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'd still like to know when councillors were first

> aware of this new application?

>

> The new application is very detailed, as I said

> the process seems to be weighted in favour of the

> application in that there is little time to object

> and what time there is falls over a holiday

> period. Moreover locals have not been alerted,

> until now- the application was in planning on 22nd

> November.

>

> We also know that there were pre-submission talks

> between the developer and planning, where it was

> agreed that the application would be processed

> more quickly this time round....whatever that

> means.

Please see response below:

Re: Revised new - M&S planning application to replace Iceland..

From: James Barber

To:

KalamityKel

Date: 14/12/2012 11:24

I'm not omnipresent. As soon as I could I posted the details as I understand them.

Last night I spotted the Thomas Moore application and have posted it today.

How is being so busy sneaky!

If I'd highlighted it first someone would have drawn some other negative conclusion.

In reply to [www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk]

KalamityKel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why haven't residents in the effected area been

> notified of this new application as with the other

> application?

> Rather sneaky no? Especially for our local

> councillor who was incredibly interested the first

> time round and now not to mention anything until

> someone else spotted the application on the

> planning website. Shame on you Mr Barber!

James, I don't see why your comments warranted to a PM.

[*Bob*]

PMs should be left private.

Poor form.

[KalamityKel]

I never requested a response privately and my comments were addressed publically. Indeed poor form for it to be taken privately.

I apologise to those who disagree.

[the-e-dealer]

He sounds p**ssed off KK you wont get any more PRIVATE messages !

[the-e-dealer]

KalamityKel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I would have thought that was obvious - planning

> or those submitting the application.

The applicant can not appoint any officials but could appoint a representative if they thought it would benefit them. And Planning do not have this role at all and never appoint 'official' representatives.

I'm sorry if the process seems complex, arcane and frustrating. That's because it is complex, arcane and frustrating and I for one would like it simplified and streamlined. Its daft that elected representatives have to act as independent judges because it looks like they are ignoring their voters. This is because as judges it is their duty to ignore their voters in so far as they should not base their decision on what the voters want but on planning grounds! Daft isn't it!

[KoolBananas]

I believe residents in Chesterfield Grove, where I'm currently staying received notification of the planning application this morning. Not sure if the whole street gets it or just those near to Icelands though?

Having looked at the planning application looks like the letter has been sent to 111 people? I don't know the ins and outs of planning mind.

Sadly I think given the presubmission stuff it does look likely the application will get the go ahead. The deadline is very soon, over the Christmas period where no one will have much time to deal with this or are away. A clever way to do things but not at all surprising.

[fredricketts]

To many back handers floating around.

[KalamityKel]

too true.

[Zebedee Tring]

fredricketts Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> To many back handers floating around.

And what evidence do you have for this?

You will of course remember from the McAlpine case that the libel laws apply to the internet, so be very careful what you say.

[KalamityKel]

im sure those comments are not meant maliciously nor are they aimed at any particular individual...

right fred?

[Marmora Man]

first mate said "We also know that there were pre-submission talks between the developer and planning, where it was agreed that the application would be processed more quickly this time round....whatever that means."

A pre-application meeting between the team submitting the planning application and the planing department is a normal and routine part of a planning application process and provided for in the legislation, the cost of which is recovered from the applicant.

The applicant(s) are not allowed to lobby or politic the planning committee but they can, for example, heck with the planning dep't the detailed requirements for the submission, what extra information would be useful (EG: traffic flow analysis, traffic tracking [ie will large lorries turn a tight corner without clipping parked vehicles], shadow patterns as the sun moves around the compass, noise surveys, environmental surveys and so on).

Given that there has already been one application made if I were the project manager I'd be asking at the pre-app meeting whether previously submitted surveys would still be valid, for details of reasons behind previous refusal, for advice on what needs to be modified to meet objections of local residents, councillors and others.

None of this is indicative of corruption, conspiracy or the evils of big business - it's just how the planning system works.

[Natashay]

Whilst I love the 'dine in for two' offers I really think this will have a negative affect on our village feel and the local shops will suffer

[Zebedee Tring]

Natashay Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Whilst I love the 'dine in for two' offers I

> really think this will have a negative affect on

> our village feel and the local shops will suffer

You mean the "village feel" that one experiences when one enters Iceland with its olde worlde charm?

[LondonMix]

Exactly. Sometimes I wonder what people are on about when they say things like that.

Anyway, agree with Mamora Man. I think the application is being viewed positively by the planning dept but insinuations of corruption are really uncalled for.

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Natashay Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Whilst I love the 'dine in for two' offers I

> > really think this will have a negative affect

> on

> > our village feel and the local shops will

> suffer

>

> You mean the "village feel" that one experiences

> when one enters Iceland with its olde worlde

> charm?