Jump to content

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

James Barber
 Share

Recommended Posts

rch

rch

Posted
Posted

No, planning is a quasi-judicial process, all decisions have to comply with national, London, borough, and local legislation.


This is about creating a space within certain parameters - forget M&S, even the inspector notes in his decision notice that there is no guarantee that M&S will occupy that space. It's nothing to do with brand, it's to do with how a space can be used.


Once the space is created, anything can happen... a future application for change of use could render it as a betting shop, estate agent, restaurant cum wine bar cum nightclub.


The only way to encourage healthy development of an area is to delineate the space according to existing legislation, which is exactly what the inspector did.


I would encourage you to go back and read the inspectors decision notice very carefully.

AbDabs

AbDabs

Posted
Posted

Calsug Wrote:

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

> 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"? ....


Development is only good when it brings something to the area without taking anything away. Unfortunately we all only eat so much. Unless vast numbers started driving in from elsewhere (car parking?) then M&S would drive away those who love Iceland (that may benefit Peckham which needs a lift though) and the net increase in footfall might indeed come from Sainsburys. But I somehow doubt Sainsbo's would be chuffed if that happened and would fight back. Unfortunately they wouldn't fight M&S (as that happens on a national rather than local level), they'd fight the local shop keepers by undercutting on products that M&S don't supply.

James Barber

James Barber

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi HelBel65,

Entirely upto the freeholder.

But I'd expect them to make a quick decision OR extend Iceland lease beyond January. But Iceland may decide with Xmas and New Year out of the way they'd prefer to not extend.


So I'd expect the freeholder to get cracking deciding what they'd like to try next.


Hi rch,

Thanks for showing such a keen interest.

The car wash does cause no end of issues for some Chesterfield Grove residents. So resolving those and potentially them relocating to less problematic location coudl be a win win. But that depends on some pretty big decisions and offers by the current land owners.


Thankjs AbDabs. I agree with you all development isnt automatically good as Calsug postulates.


HelBel65 Wrote:

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

> When will we find out?

onthemove123

onthemove123

Posted
Posted
I think it's a wonderful idea - it will add a bit of class to the area and hardly anybody goes into Iceland. If the council put parking restrictions in the side streets off Lordship Lane so only residents can park there, it won't cause a problem. There are hundreds of M&S' that don't have parking and they are packed as they deliver quality food. M&S is also reasonably priced and to be honest, to get some nice bread that doesn't cost a fortune would be nice for a change.
Calsug

Calsug

Posted
Posted

James Barber Wrote:

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


>

> Thankjs AbDabs. I agree with you all development

> isnt automatically good as Calsug postulates.

>

> HelBel65 Wrote:

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


No more of a postulation than your comments James, but I suppose everyone in entitled to their opinions - unless your comments are based on some hard research instead of the consensus you have obtained from the forum . I am intrigued as to why you personally though are so anti the development and if the council has actually given any constructive feedback instead of blocking approval every time M&S try - Surely they (M&S) are not dim enough to keep on trying with plans that they know you will reject.

James Barber

James Barber

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi Calsug,

I'm against developers stating clearly ridiculous things such as closing a car park, adding 8 flats, will see no increase in the alleged non existant parking stress.

That having deliveries by HGV along Chesterfield Grove from 6am will not be an issue.


Ironically such arrogance is contrary to the M&S brand values I'd imagine M&S are trying to instill in us all.


I've promoted a cinema for Lordship Lane. That's hardly any development.

nxjen

nxjen

Posted
Posted

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Calsug,

> I'm against developers stating clearly ridiculous

> things such as closing a car park, adding 8 flats,

> will see no increase in the alleged non existant

> parking stress.

> That having deliveries by HGV along Chesterfield

> Grove from 6am will not be an issue.

>

> Ironically such arrogance is contrary to the M&S

> brand values I'd imagine M&S are trying to instill

> in us all.

>

**LIKE**


It would be nice to know, though I doubt it will be possible, is how much of the proposal was based on input from M&S and how much from the freeholder.

AlexC

AlexC

Posted
Posted

James Barber Wrote:

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

>

> I've promoted a cinema for Lordship Lane. That's

> hardly any development.


Is there any news on that? I had a Lib Dem person canvasing on my doorstep a couple of weeks back and they told me the new cinema had been secured, but I didn't think that was the case as yet?

Steviedulwich

Steviedulwich

Posted
Posted
Ive completely lost the plot with this thread are we getting M&S or not...? I personally cant wait.. I have to drive to Beckenham at the moment ...and oh yes I also support the independents in LL but sometimes I want convenience. ...so ...when are we getting M&S or even better still Waitrose ?
first mate

first mate

Posted
Posted

Calsug,


I think you may be overlooking the possibility that those against can simply be worn down over time by repeated applications that vary slightly each time. There are only so many times people can be galvanised to object, even if they really don't want a development. It is not so much M&S/the developer being dim, but them wanting something enough to try every possible angle to get it.






Calsug Wrote:

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

> James Barber Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> >

> > Thankjs AbDabs. I agree with you all

> development

> > isnt automatically good as Calsug postulates.

> >

> > HelBel65 Wrote:

> >

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

>

>

> No more of a postulation than your comments James,

> but I suppose everyone in entitled to their

> opinions - unless your comments are based on some

> hard research instead of the consensus you have

> obtained from the forum . I am intrigued as to why

> you personally though are so anti the development

> and if the council has actually given any

> constructive feedback instead of blocking approval

> every time M&S try - Surely they (M&S) are not dim

> enough to keep on trying with plans that they know

> you will reject.

unlurked

unlurked

Posted
Posted

unlurked Wrote:

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

> > James Barber Wrote:

> >

> -

> > -----

> > 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? What is it about Waitrose that

> you

> > have been pushing for it for years?

>

> You seem to have missed this, James.


Thanks for the partial reply, James, but what about the second bit, (above)? I would also be interested how you select, and approach a retailer and entice them to an area?

HelBel65

HelBel65

Posted
Posted
I am a supporter of the M+S/ Waitrose idea but didn't like the look of the M+S proposal, I think most reasonable people could see that it would not have been much fun for the immediate residents (I'm on Overhill, miles away!) Easy to make accusations of NIMBYism when you aren't affected yourself! If Waitrose now come forward with a proposal that doesn't negatively affect nearby residents, I'm all for it :)
KalamityKel

KalamityKel

Posted
Posted

Frankito Wrote:

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

> Ffs, it's only a supermarket... Just build it and

> let's get shopping...!!! I do prefer Waitrose over

> M&S although I realise I can't be too fussy in

> these uncertain times! :0)

What a perfect idea! Especially right next door to where you live yes?


How easy is it for others not to understand the effects it will have on neighbouring buildings especially when they dont live nearby or have any understanding of the proposed work - ooo sounds much like m&s too!

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...