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

[Worker]

I like aspirational food, but I don't have any idea what it is.

[*Bob*]

Packshot shows food on square plate. Contains hints of things and/or jus. Costs about ?7.99.

[Penguin68]

I am saying that for those (many) who are looking for a quality chain grocers to open up in Lordship Lane, it's game-over (the police station site is far too off the beaten track - too little footfall - for it ever to be an option). Yes, the very good recent local shops may struggle on, but very much relying just on local trade and perhaps not even that.

This week's Private Eye has a cartonist who must have heard of the planning application.

[first mate]

I do wish people would actually read the application and the objections to it, rather than making vague statements about the nature of the objections. The application as it stands fails to meet planniong requirements on a number of levels. If you wnat to blame anyone, blame the developers and their consultants who haven't done their homework properly.

The issue isn't loss of parking its about significantly increasing overall traffic pressure on a street that is not designed to take it. This includes deliveries which would be stepped up significantly from the current schedule, also delivering at much earlier times daily and where the same size of vehicle will be made to manouevre in a very much smaller space, creating all kinds of potential hazards. They also want to massively extend the footprint of the overall building,in height as well, in order to accomodate living space for 8 households, but where parking provision will not be made. The assumption is that everyone will do their M&S shopping on bicycles and that the households will not need or want cars.

There are also more complex issues to do with noise and waste disposal, ownership of curtilage, threats to mature trees. Part of the plan indicates that it needs to encroach on and use private property in order to succeed. It's a very badly thought out application and there is a sense that they thought they could somehow will it through on the might of the M&S name.

[Otta]

"perhaps we can have another charity shop there?"

Great idea! I'd be much more likely to come down to LL for that than an M&S.

[first mate]

Penguin68,

Oh come on, if people want an M&S that badly they'll be prepared to walk, or as is equally likely in my view, drive, a few hundred yards up the main drag.

BTW James Braber's assertion that the application has been turned down may be a complete red herring. That result does not figure on the planning website and I have just seen that a revised application has suddenly appeared- dated 21/2/2013- but you cannot get in to read it. I sanyone else able to access it I can they notify us of what it says?

The road next to the entrance of the planning site and car wash is currently being resurfaced. A number of months ago some residents were told by road workers that resurfacing and smrtening up of the street would be done to coincide with M&S opening.

James, you sit on the planning committee so presumably you have some idea of what is going on? Can you please tell us asap. Is there any requirment to let residents know about a revised application?

[Jeremy]

The police station would be an ideal spot, and it can't be more than a two minute walk from Iceland. But I don't think anybody knows what's happening with the building.

[Otta]

Is it closed? I was under the impression it was still being used as office space by police, just closed to the public.

It is a huge space though what with the stables behind.

[Worker]

Don't suppose we could all declare our particular interests in this application? For example, resident of Chesterfield Grove, son of building owner, local politician gunning for votes, local politician trying to do what's best for ED, massive snob, Iceland customer by necessity, orange-a-phobic, etc.

I'll start: local (but not near) resident who would shop at M&S slightly more often than at Iceland, cares about the make-up of LL, but is not convinced by most of the arguments (for or against) on this thread.

[Lord Danny Poppins]

Does it have to be a food retailer based on that site? Why not...for example...have a Waterstones or...a Swag? They'ed be types of businesses that would have less intrusive and intensive deliveries too...

[Otta]

Son of someone who has used Iceland for years out of a mix of necessity and the fact that lots of their stock is decent and cheap (hence I ate a lot of their stuff growing up). Will use an M&S occasionally for a sandwich and fruit for lunch or a ready meal if feeling lazy. Wouldn't think twice about using an Iceland.

I'm not directly affected, but I know my mum and lots of her mates are gutted to be losing Iceland (assuming it does go).

[Jeremy]

What is "Swag"?

[puzzled]

is it what iceland regulars call the stuff they knock off

[Goose]

Local resident.

Not opposed to M+S.

Opposed to current application which IMO needs extensive revision.

Almost never shop in Iceland. Would sometimes use an M+S but not for major shop.

Most people want M+S - no evidence for that statement other than impression from this forum and general clientele on my train

Waterstone's - aren't all books electronic now ?!

Agree with FirstMate @1118 about most things said.

[civilservant]

Local resident

Occasionally shop in Iceland for basics

Occasionally shop in M&S, but not for basics

Not bothered whether we have an M&S in LL. There's one on the Walworth Road and in every major railway station if I need something from there.

But am bothered that the planning application was so slipshod, and would oppose having M&S on LL under those conditions

[tomk]

Agree with Penguin68's points. LL looking tattier by the day.

[Mick Mac]

Agree with Penguins comments above also.

Local representatives should read Penguins comment and see the opportunity for LL that they are turning down and the opportunity may not return.

[Louisa]

I'm with Penguin on this too. High streets up and down the country are struggling with empty retail spaces and falling footfall. We have the opportunity to attract a high end chain onto our main drag, which would compliment and perhaps reinvigorate the reputation of the area. What are we left with now? An empty neglected retail unit in the heart of our shopping centre. What would any visitor to the area think of this? I just hope Waitrose will feel the gap if M&S become bored of the constant moaning and groaning about the parking and other related issues. Such a terrible shame. It was only 25 years ago M&S decided to leave Peckham and look what's become of Rye Lane. As was said before, you'll be regretting this if no one now fills the gap.

Louisa.

[Freddy1929]

Louisa Wrote:

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

> I'm with Penguin on this too. High streets up and

> down the country are struggling with empty retail

> spaces and falling footfall. We have the

> opportunity to attract a high end chain onto our

> main drag, which would compliment and perhaps

> reinvigorate the reputation of the area. What are

> we left with now? An empty neglected retail unit

> in the heart of our shopping centre. What would

> any visitor to the area think of this? I just hope

> Waitrose will feel the gap if M&S become bored of

> the constant moaning and groaning about the

> parking and other related issues. Such a terrible

> shame. It was only 25 years ago M&S decided to

> leave Peckham and look what's become of Rye Lane.

> As was said before, you'll be regretting this if

> no one now fills the gap.

>

> Louisa.

Louisa

I do agree with you, reading all these moans about parking/traffic - we live in London, there are a lot of Cars about!! If you want a place where you can always find a parking space, and never have a traffic jam, move to the country!!

Having a M&S on the high street would be a benefit to the area, an empty shop of that size would be a disaster, and the high street would die, I remember M&S leaving Rye Lane the effect was immediate.

[Penguin68]

It?s worth noting several things:-

1. Traditional retail is under severe pressure from internet shopping, which will eventually lead to numbers of shop types virtually disappearing from the High Street ? we used to have travel agents in LL, now we don?t (and Thos Cook has ? yesterday ? seen the writing on that wall). Electrical retailers are going to the wall, as are camera shops etc. etc.

2. Despite Occado etc. food shopping still seems to need physical presence ? so we may expect food shops, both specialist and generalist, to remain in High Streets (for the time being), so long as alternatives (out of centre shopping, with effective and free parking) do not move people away. At the moment the mix in LL for that isn?t bad (and the out of area alternatives aren?t sufficiently compelling ? depending whether you treat Sainsbury?s at Dog Kennel as in or out of area).

3. Two retailer watchwords (well, phrases) are ?Retail is detail? and ?Location, Location, Location?. I suspect Iceland has been prepared to move (I have argued this elsewhere) because the detail of its local demographic is no longer compelling ? its sales per square metre figures no longer match its requirements. This matches the changing demographic of the area. [Which doesn?t mean that some local people don?t want to use Iceland, just not enough compared with its operations elsewhere.] The location of its shop (still in the midst, if towards one end) of the ?main shopping drag? in LL would make the site (if sufficiently adapted for modern retail grocer needs) of interest to M&S ? in conjunction with the demographic and assuming LL has an upward trajectory. For retailers foot-fall is key ? despite pleadings elsewhere, the old police station has virtually no retailer footfall where it is and it would be a bold decision by either M&S or Waitrose to move there. Both normally choose to be in the centre of a shopping area, not the periphery.

4. Streets where shops are boarded up, or where there are too many charity or pop-up shops do not have an upward trajectory. A site which can?t be used or adapted to meet modern food retailer needs will not be compelling to other retailers (except perhaps estate agents) ? most non-food retailers are not looking to expand at the moment (see (1) above).

5. Once neglect grabs an area it is difficult to stop the decline ? it normally requires both investment and a willingness of the local people to embrace change. There is no money to invest, and the willingness to embrace change has been well identified in its absence, led by the planning blight cheerleaders (see also the Co-op thread).

6. I take no pleasure in being a Cassandra, I have lived in SE22 for 25 years and have seen LL rise from the ashes to become a delightful and vibrant High Street ? but fear that the ?see a foot, shoot it? brigade will put a stop to this.

[i*Rate]

Louisa,

I think that M & S in Peckham probably closed down because it was too upmarket/expensive for the people living there although it was a pretty down market version. As for Iceland, it provides just the right price range for a vast number of local residents in ED who would struggle to manage their budgets using the other local shops.

puzzled,

Yes that right, nicking stuff from Iceland, that's one of the many things that us Working Class stereo types do around trendy ED - but it does add to the colourful character of the area don't you think?

[Penguin68]

it provides just the right price range for a vast number of local residents

If this was actually true Iceland would have been fighting to stay on the site - the fact that it isn't suggests that the returns it is getting from the LL site do not match its current requirements for profitability. If Iceland doesn't think it can operate the site to meet its profitability targets, and M&S (as far as we know) does - well, I suggest that both retailers may actually have done proper market research to reach these conclusions. It is clear that when/ if Iceland closes a number of local people will feel deprived. But not, as regards a proportion of the target ED population, 'a vast number', I would humbly submit.

[Worker]

Can I ask why you're bothered by the application? I ask as though I can see that very near residents may be affected, I can't muster the energy to be bothered by the application as it will not affect me. I guess I do not have the requisite civic-mindedness to be upset by a small increase in deliveries or a reduction in parking spaces, etc? Or most of the vocal objectors to the application live within spitting distance and are less civic-minded and more NIMBY?

civilservant Wrote:

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

> Local resident

>

> Occasionally shop in Iceland for basics

> Occasionally shop in M&S, but not for basics

>

> Not bothered whether we have an M&S in LL.

> There's one on the Walworth Road and in every

> major railway station if I need something from

> there.

>

> But am bothered that the planning application was

> so slipshod, and would oppose having M&S on LL

> under those conditions

[Otta]

We have no idea why Iceland have chosen to leave, it could be that business is as good as ever, but the rent has gone up too much. I don't know, but it is certainbly not an empty shop, people do use it, and not everyone living in ED has a lot of spare cash. There are still plenty of people living there who moved in before 2000.

[Worker]

I hear you, but the hard fact is that the freeholder and the retailers will cater to the demographic that makes them the most money. If those objecting to the application on the grounds of parking, deliveries, etc are in fact doing so to protect a resource that less well off local residents require, good on them.

Otta Wrote:

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

> We have no idea why Iceland have chosen to leave,

> it could be that business is as good as ever, but

> the rent has gone up too much. I don't know, but

> it is certainbly not an empty shop, people do use

> it, and not everyone living in ED has a lot of

> spare cash. There are still plenty of people

> living there who moved in before 2000.