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

[fredricketts]

It is not meant for any indivudual, were there is big money

to be earned there will always be corruption.and I have known

Property develeopers in the past to have paid to get there

Projects through planning.Why are the planners set on pushing this through?and

When it is so obvious that parking problems in East Dulwich are increasing every day.

And overcrowding is increasing. Its time residents were put first

Over profit.It has always been the same, when,unless there is

a big uproar the council will do what the want, and it appears

More flats and houses no matter what the cost to residents ways of life.

And it makes it easier for the parking services to extort money

Out of us.

[Zebedee Tring]

fredricketts Wrote:

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

> It is not meant for any indivudual, were there is

> big money

> to be earned there will always be corruption.and I

> have known

> Property develeopers in the past to have paid to

> get there

> Projects through planning.Why are the planners set

> on pushing this through?and

> When it is so obvious that parking problems in

> East Dulwich are increasing every day.

> And overcrowding is increasing. Its time residents

> were put first

> Over profit.It has always been the same,

> when,unless there is

> a big uproar the council will do what the want,

> and it appears

> More flats and houses no matter what the cost to

> residents ways of life.

> And it makes it easier for the parking services to

> extort money

> Out of us.

Once again what evidence do you have for your claim that "too many back handers are floating around"?

The fact that you are unhappy about this application should not lead you to conclude that there must be corruption. I know that it's fun to put forward a conspiracy theory, but you can't just make allegations without anything to support it.

Look what happened to the people who tweeted about Lord McAlpine. This is not just a private chat in the pub, it's a public messageboard.

[first mate]

The point about the pre application talks was that the applicant asked that the processing of the application be speeded up and dealt with more 'expeditiously' than was the last application. As noted, the application has been entered over a busy, holiday period...'the oldest trick in the book', as other have said.

No doubt this is all above board and 'legal' but it does seem to tip the balance in favour of the applicant- it is probably in the interests of the developer for the application to be sped through. It is probably in the interests of a number of locals to have the application slowed down a little, to give time to digest the content, to seek advice, and to mount objections, if relevant.

To have to have objections in by 3rd January gives little time to do anything- especially as for most of us planning matters are not our profession and we do not spend all day delaing with applications. Residents adjacent to the proposed site were only informed of the application two days ago. The application has been in planning since 22nd November.

[macrobana]

Who is the council officer nominated to assist the residents?

[Marmora Man]

macrobana Wrote:

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

> Who is the council officer nominated to assist the

> residents?

Is there such a role in / on the Council? It is the Planning Committee's function to weigh the objective pros and cons of any application with respect to planning legislation, guidelines and take into account local residents legitimate (ie that take regard of the legislation & guidelines - meaning the simple "I don't like it" objection is not sufficient). Neither the applicant or the local residents should be assisted by the council.

[first mate]

But if an application is dealt with "expeditously" isn't it fair to speculate that this might be more to the advantage of the developer, particularly if they have had a pre-application meeting (though all perfectly above board) to iron out any problems on the prior application that was rejected? Who does the time limit on objections and the positing of the application over a major holiday period work better for, in this case?

[Marmora Man]

first mate Wrote:

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

> But if an application is dealt with "expeditously"

> isn't it fair to speculate that this might be more

> to the advantage of the developer, particularly if

> they have had a pre-application meeting (though

> all perfectly above board) to iron out any

> problems on the prior application that was

> rejected? Who does the time limit on objections

> and the positing of the application over a major

> holiday period work better for, in this case?

It depends upon the reason for the original rejection. If, for example, the original application was rejected because of a technical issue relating to the size of windows, the height of any new plant on the roof or some other similar matter then the "second" application may need to only consider these aspects and nothing else. Having already spent time (and no doubt money) on the original application and knowing that Iceland is intent on moving out the freeholder may be keen to obtain the necessary consent to make the property more attractive to a potential new retail business so as not to be holding an empty and unproductive property for too long.

The fact that there is a second application does not, necessarily mean that every single issue arising from the original application has to be re-considered. So, if the council's planning committee considered and rejected local residents objections regarding noise and / or traffic movements they wouldn't need to reconsider these points just to assure themselves that, for example, the windows now meet technical requirements.

You persist in seeing some form of conspiracy - I see a freeholder seeking to make a business work and using the planning process in accordance with the rules.

[macrobana]

Marmora Man Wrote:

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

> macrobana Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Who is the council officer nominated to assist

> the

> > residents?

>

> Is there such a role in / on the Council?

I don't know, that's why I asked.

You don't know either.

A developer can pay money and gets a nominated officer to assist the application.

Can a group of residents club together, pay the same amount of money, and get a nominated officer to help resist the application?

[first mate]

I do not see a conspiracy, I simply suggest that the process seems more advantageous to the applicant than it is to local residents, who may have objections to the proposals but have a very limited time to do so, much of that time falling over a holiday period. Residents also do not have the benefit of discussions with planning about the proposals and a sense of their thinking on matters like parking pressure, delivery schedules, delivery noise etc...

[Huguenot]

I would have thought the worst thing for a planning application was that it took a long time - leaving derelict buildings and failing companies in its wake.

So dealing with it expeditiously (within reason) is to the benefit of everyone, regardless whether the outcome is in favour or against the application.

Clearly one tactic of the 'losing' party is to do everything they can to delay and disrupt proceedings, in the hope that they can drive the opposing party into bankruptcy or disarray.

I don't think that approach benefits the community, so I'd hope that everyone would cheer a quick resolution.

[James Barber]

To ensure not just forumites are aware of this application we're delivering a letter to surrounding streets.

Talking to council officers if people miss the deadline it is quite possible their views will still be considered before the final report is produced for planning committee.

Hi Macrobana,

A developer pays for pre application advice. I've witnessed advice paid for being later told was totally wrong. So I'm not clear it's always good value for money.

Hi Marmora Man,

Members and reserve members of planning committees are lobied by developers - usually glossy brochures posted to us often repeatedly at different stages of process. Psychologically it's known this has an impact.

[first mate]

Huguenot,

My point is that it is not "within reason" for those residents who need sufficent time to get a handle on the new application and to lodge objections, should there be any. The current time span is inconvenient and very short...3rd Jan. It is not about asking for a delay of months, just a bit more time, perhaps not in the run up to Christams and the New Year (one of the oldest planning tricks in the book, say some).

These are not 'delaying tactics' but a reasonable request from those nearest to the site to have time to read and understand the application and its implications and where it differs to the last application, which was rejected. The freeholder and developer are looking after their interests, some of us residents just need a reasonable amount of time to look after ours. Please remember that we are not planners, it may not be as easy for us to quickly interpret the current application. As an aside I for one cannot get into much of the information online and I don't have time to make a special journey over to the planning office.

[Huguenot]

Is there a misunderstanding of the process going on here?

Aren't the 'representatives of the community' the planning committee?

The conversation on here seems to imply instead that the community representatives are a loose coalition of local campaigners who are being excluded both financially and from the process?

Yet surely we elect our councillors to represent our interests, not to pay for lawyers as if we were fighting some Erin Brockovitch legal campaign against the council!

Are we trying to have a dog and bark ourselves?

[macrobana]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Is there a misunderstanding of the process going

> on here?

>

> Aren't the 'representatives of the community' the

> planning committee?

>

Quasi-judicials.

[the-e-dealer]

No they are not representatives of the Community. They are Quasi Judicial in the planning role.

And to quote myself

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!

[James Barber]

You're all right and wrong.

Southwark council is composed ot 21 wards each with 3 councillors.

The planning committee has 7 councillors sitting on it. None from East Dulwich by I'm a reserve member. Those planning committee councillors act in a quasi judicial capacity and are meant to look at the merits and demerits of an applciation versus the policies and strategies agreed by the council.

We USED to have a local planning committee but with constitutional changes to the council that role was removed from the local Dulwich Community Council.

So ward councillors do expect to attend an planning committee that decides this application.

Hope this helps clarify things.

[first mate]

e-dealer, everything you say makes perfect sense but are you inferring that the opportunity to object/comment- which is part of the current process, is a kind of irrelevant, wild goose chase?

[Huguenot]

Well from an amicus curiae perspective I was personally commenting on the complaint that there should be a paid representative to uphold the interests of the local community.

There is one - it's the planning office, who review the various planning laws and building regulations and place those alongside the policies established by elected representatives. The Committee is expected to come to a decision based on the needs of the entire community rather than a proportion of it.

They establish their responses from a well informed and professionally competent perspective.

So far as I can tell, the views of joe public are simply there to add flavour, rather than having legal status.

Hence there is no window of opportunity for a local action group to instigate legal review and challenge, the most they could ever do would be to send a letter of opinion.

In that context there is no requirement for an extended review period, and it would carry NO legal weight anyhow.

[the-e-dealer]

The needs of the community do not come into it. They should but they dont. Views hold no weight however if the public come up with genuine planning reasons either for or against an application then these have to be considered and often are influencial in the decision. There is an Oraganisation call ed London Planning Aid which will help the public. I have used them and they helped us make major changes to the Harris Boys School.

[fredricketts]

Details of planning application - 12/AP/3773 on Southwark?s web site...

Date received: 22/11/2012

Statutory start date: 22/11/2012

statutory expiry date: 17/01/2013

Consultation period starts: 22/11/2012

Consultation period ends: 03/01/2013

Press notice date: Not required

Site notice date: 11/12/2012

Environmental impact assessment status: Not required by Regs & nothing submitted

Neighbours and statutory consultation:

Consultation period and how to comment on an application

To comment on this planning application please emails [email protected]. Please make sure that you state the application number and your postal address. Comments that you submit will be published on this website.

I received a letter from Southwark Planning on the 12/12/2012. Telling me that the consultation period started the day that they received the Planning application, which was the 22/11/12, which according to my calculations that was three weeks ago. WHY ARE THEY NOW TELLING ME IN THIS LETTER THAT THE CONSULTATION PERIOD STARTS ON THE 15/12/12?

Any one know the counils regulations on the consultation periods???

[bonaome]

first mate Wrote:

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

> the prior application that was rejected

It wasn't rejected, it was withdrawn.

[first mate]

Huguenot,

Unless they happen upon a genuine planning issue- not beyond the bounds of probability. I'm also not of the view that planners never ever make bad decisions or mistakes.

That aside, I'd be interested to know if the opinions/observations of residents next the site carry any weight whatsoever or are, as you state, sought merely to add a bit of flavour. Perhaps James or another planning savvy councillor, would enlighten us? Why even have a consultation if this is so?

[bonaome]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Who does the time limit on objections

> and the positing of the application over a major

> holiday period work better for, in this case?

Those of us who work full time, have busy family lives and who need a public holiday if we're ever to find the time to read through the materials posted on the planning site.

[first mate]

bonaome, so you'd rather no be involved?

[Huguenot]

So far as I know, planning law says that only 21 days is required. BUT since no notification beyond the website is required it's kind of irrelevant when you found out, so long as the notice was there.

Additionally, only the immediate neighbours (ie. people whose property immediately connect with the property in question) are obliged to be directly notified.

The rest of the community can be notified by street notices as a gesture of goodwill, but so far as I can tell no statutory requirement is made.

The planning officers may well make mistakes, but that isn't subject to local opinion or oversight, and no 'clearing period' is obliged under law for the local community to vet their work.

The planning officers CAN be overruled by the planning committee, made up of councillors. This decision can be made based upon the needs and the effects of the whole community NOT the neighbours.

If the councillor agrees to vote one way or another on a case BEFORE the vote tales place, their vote is DISALLOWED, as it proves they did not enter the voting process with an open mind.

I don't think it's arcane or complicated, it seems to be really straightforward.