Jump to content

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

James Barber
 Share

Recommended Posts

unlurked

unlurked

Posted
Posted

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Louise,

> Waitrose when I spoke with them were very clear

> they would be delighted to move in ASAP to the

> existing shop footprint.

> They think it's fine and they anticipated the

> planning result M&S experts failed to foresee.


But you have always wanted Waitrose om the Lane haven't you JB? Did you not start a thread 3 or 4 years ago trying to generate support for your plans? My memory tells me that you were slated on that thread for assuming this forum is representative of ED as you did not do any other 'consultation'. What is it about Waitrose that you have been pushing for it for years?

Mick Mac

Mick Mac

Posted
Posted

jonsuissy Wrote:

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

> Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > My view (and no i don't know any of the detail)

> on

> > this is that a large section of ED people who

> > could have benefitted from an M&S have lost the

> > opportunity in order to protect the rights of a

> > small group of households/concerns in the

> > immediate vacinity. Shame.



> You'd say the same if you were one of that small

> group right?


No - But i'm not.

What's happended here is like a reverse democracy.

first mate

first mate

Posted
Posted
It's balancing the needs of a smaller group of residents to get a decent night's sleep and to be able to park their car on or close to their street against a larger group of individuals' rights to buy tasty snacks and ready-made meals. It's tricky.
Earl Aelfheah

Earl Aelfheah

Posted
Posted
What is this right to be able to park a car in front of your house. Does this 'right' end with a car, or does it extend to a lorry, or a plane? Why is someone's ability to park a private vehicle on a public street a planning consideration?
first mate

first mate

Posted
Posted
I don't think anyone has said there is a right to park a car in front of your house- the point was being able to park on the street you live or in another street close by, more regularly than not- not the same thing at all.
first mate

first mate

Posted
Posted

James, yes, that old chesnut. Of course, one riposte goes if M&S snacks are so vital to one's quality of life why not choose to buy your house in an area that already has one? I guess the choice of location/you reap what you sow argument cuts both ways.


Anyway, it was not a single factor decision and the lesser known point re boundaries and land ownership, is one that would probably have made the scale of the application unlikely to succeed, whatever the planning decisions.

tomk

tomk

Posted
Posted

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> James Wrote:

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

> -----

> > So that means we might get a Waitrose?

> >

> > *AGOG*

>

> No - Someone will find a way to prevent it

> happening.


Already happening. My money is on either a Poundland or a Cashconverters when the landlord/developer gives up and moves on.

Goose

Goose

Posted
Posted

Rahrahrah - I think resident's have a reasonable expectation to park in their road (except where restrictions exist e.g. Lordship Lane). You could argue, why do shoppers have an expectation to park for free on residential roads?


I am local to Iceland and used to be in favour of the M+S application. However the longer this has gone on, I really am not so sure now. I would def. use it more than Iceland but it is expensive and good for sandwiches or last minute dinners but not regular shopping. Also concerned the effects it would have on local cafe's etc - equally I am totally opposed to Starbucks and would much prefer to use local shops for coffee etc.


I also feel the greed of the land owner/ developer doesn't help their application. Why put 8 flats with balcony's overlooking the neighbours on top of the development? They are not concerned about local housing just making money for themselves. Why not use the upstairs for storage for the downstairs store and keep the small car park.


If I were the developers I would involve the local community in their plans for design etc. If they had their support it would be much easier to convince the council planners. Whilst they quote the car parking issue for rejection there were so many problems with the application I suspect it was always doomed.


I bet we are still having this debate in 2 years time!

James Barber

James Barber

Posted
  • Author
Posted

M&S were VERY specific that their shop would not generate more car journeys. Their experts stated the aresa currently didnt suffer parking stress.

The Planning Inspector was clear that the M&S/freeholder assertions were likely to be wrong.

Based on the evidence and the inspector seeing fo themsevles the aresa DOES suffer parking stress the appeal was refused.

It was good work from Southwakr COuncil Planning Officers - well done to them - and local residents objecting. East Dulwich were delighted to play our part in this.


After a refused planning application has been refused their is no further appeal process. An applicant can only take such a decision to court IF they think they can prove the prccess wasnt correctly followed.


We know Waitrose are happy to use the Iceland shop as is when the Iceland lease ends January 2014 (Iceland don't want to pay the proposed rent increase).

Worst case for those that want such a shop M&S walk away and we get a Waitrose in the New Year. Most lilkely scenarios is M&S accept the site as is.

unlurked

unlurked

Posted
Posted

unlurked Wrote:

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

> James Barber Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Hi Louise,

> > Waitrose when I spoke with them were very clear

> > they would be delighted to move in ASAP to the

> > existing shop footprint.

> > They think it's fine and they anticipated the

> > planning result M&S experts failed to foresee.

>

> But you have always wanted Waitrose om the Lane

> haven't you JB? Did you not start a thread 3 or 4

> years ago trying to generate support for your

> plans? My memory tells me that you were slated on

> that thread for assuming this forum is

> representative of ED as you did not do any other

> 'consultation'. What is it about Waitrose that you

> have been pushing for it for years?


You seem to have missed this, James.

KalamityKel

KalamityKel

Posted
Posted

James Barber Wrote:

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


>

> After a refused planning application has been

> refused their is no further appeal process. An

> applicant can only take such a decision to court

> IF they think they can prove the prccess wasnt

> correctly followed.

>



And what about an entirely NEW application? The whole thing will start all over again.

rch

rch

Posted
Posted

From a purely planning perspective, this was an important result as it will give us a local precedent to protect the area from over-development in the future... something that could be an issue on the police station site, for instance.


The Dulwich wards are designated as "suburban" in the London Plan, giving us criteria to deploy to protect us from knock-on effects from developments that would be more appropriate in an urban city centre.


However, thinking strategically, what would help the developers in this case would be to look at buying up the strip of land where the car wash (which could be relocated as a condition) is located which could provide parking and a turning ratio so that deliveries could be made from Lordship Lane. The cost of this would probably make the development financially unviable, but it gives an idea of how creative solutions will need to be found in the future in order to maintain a balance.

Calsug

Calsug

Posted
Posted

You're kidding me right? Maybe I am missing some "grander thinking" point but surely any development in this economic climate is a good thing - why are these stores seen as a threat instead of increasing footfall and pulling people away from the larger supermarkets like the Sainsburys which is "out of town"? What are you protecting the area from?? If you don't try to proactively manage the high street by having a combination of chains and independent stores then all you will be left with is Estate Agents and betting shops


It is not a case of protecting but pure nimbyism



rch Wrote:

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

> From a purely planning perspective, this was an

> important result as it will give us a local

> precedent to protect the area from

> over-development in the future... something that

> could be an issue on the police station site, for

> instance.

>

> The Dulwich wards are designated as "suburban" in

> the London Plan, giving us criteria to deploy to

> protect us from knock-on effects from developments

> that would be more appropriate in an urban city

> centre.

>

> However, thinking strategically, what would help

> the developers in this case would be to look at

> buying up the strip of land where the car wash

> (which could be relocated as a condition) is

> located which could provide parking and a turning

> ratio so that deliveries could be made from

> Lordship Lane. The cost of this would probably

> make the development financially unviable, but it

> gives an idea of how creative solutions will need

> to be found in the future in order to maintain a

> balance.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • Rockets
      Is Rachel Reeves becoming the new Liz Truss?

      By Rockets · Posted

      No and Wes Streeting is heading in this direction because he knows the NHS is broken and was never built to cope with the demands currently being placed on it. A paid-for approach in some shape or form, and massive reforms, is the only way the NHS can survive - neither of which the left or unions will be pleased about.  
    • malumbu
      Is Rachel Reeves becoming the new Liz Truss?

      By malumbu · Posted

      Labour talks about, and hopefully will do something about, the determinants of poor health.  They're picked up the early Sunak policy on smoking and vapes.  Let's see how far they tackle obesity and inactivity. I'd rather the money was spent on these any other interventions eg mental health, social care and SEN, rather than seeing the NHS as income generating.
    • Sue
      Had to take a second look!

      By Sue · Posted

      I think it's connected with the totem pole renovation celebrations They have passed now, but the notice has been there since then (at least that's when I first saw it - I passed it on the 484 and also took a photo!)
    • HeadNun
      Is Rachel Reeves becoming the new Liz Truss?

      By HeadNun · Posted

      Labour was damned, no matter what it did, when it came to the budget. It loves go on about the black hole, but if Labour had had its way, we'd have been in lockdown for longer and the black hole would be even bigger.  Am I only the one who thinks it's time the NHS became revenue-generating? Not private, but charging small fees for GP appts, x-rays etc? People who don't turn up for GP and out-patient appointments should definitely be charged a cancellation fee. When I lived in Norway I got incredible medical treatment, including follow up appointments, drugs, x-rays, all for £200. I was more than happy to pay it and could afford to. For fairness, make it somehow means-tested.  I am sure there's a model in there somewhere that would be fair to everyone. It's time we stopped fetishising something that no longer works for patient or doctor.  As for major growth, it's a thing of the past, no matter where in the world you live, unless it's China. Or unless you want a Truss-style, totally de-regulated economy and love capitalism with a large C. 

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...