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

[MarkT]

No date published yet for Planning Committee meeting to decide on the additional fourth floor

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=dates&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9560814

MarkT

[fazer71]

That's a beautiful building how on earth didn't it get a preservation order ???

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?5,file=193607

Oh well maybe we can get a 40 story replacement about time we had some height in ED :)

Everything is around here is soooooo low .....

Come on let's have a couple of skyscrapers :) : ) : )

[first mate]

Mark T, thanks just hope the Committee do not just roll over.

There is in the last application a very detailed objection and it looks as though part of the plans objected to actually creep over onto land that does not even belong to the developer.

Access is also a major problem too and there is a smashed bollard at the entrance of the site showing how hard it is for large vehicles to move in and out, but one of the planning officers did not feel that this could necessarily be linked to vehicle damage, a conclusion that I find extraordinary.

[DulwichFox]

You only have to drive through Lewisham where once there was a pub and a few old shops...

... now stands many 10 storey + buildings..

Be careful what you wish for..

DulwichFox

[rch]

One way forward might be for you guys to email the Planning Enforcement team directly at:-

[email protected]

...and ask for an update, you might be able to get an idea of a tentative date.

The officer assigned to this case is really good, she used to be the allocated officer for Dulwich years ago, so she's familiar with local concerns.

If you get any updates, can you post it on here so that we can all know what's happening?

[fazer71]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> You only have to drive through Lewisham where once

> there was a pub and a few old shops...

> ... now stands many 10 storey + buildings..

>

> Be careful what you wish for..

>

> DulwichFox

I know Lewisham is shocking all those new homes for people to live in and enjoy with wonderful views a travesty. :(

[Penguin68]

I am not sure how long we can all hold out for 19th century suburban values in a 21st century populated London. The skill would be to encourage good high(er) density housing, rather than simply nodding through any old rubbish.

And it would be also good to recognise that whilst S London is to be forever deprived of high quality mass transit systems (such as tubes etc.), pretending that we can also thus live without cars is a complete madness - environments have to be designed with cars in mind, not futilely trying to design cars out of the environment. Bicycles as well as, not instead of, cars.

[first mate]

Yes and it is worth looking at the detail of this particular site instead of just spouting generalisations( not you P68). The developers have 0 interest in providing homes for the community, if they had they would now be building 8 flats on two floors instead of pushing now for two floors of offices with two penthouses on top, having earlier argued very hard with planners that there was no call for office space.

[first mate]

P68,

I agree, it is this moderate, considered approach that is both required and realistic. Far too much seems to be about chasing and fulfilling idealistic manifesto pledges, come what may

[DulwichFox]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> -----

> > You only have to drive through Lewisham where

> once

> > there was a pub and a few old shops...

> > ... now stands many 10 storey + buildings..

> >

> > Be careful what you wish for..

> >

> > DulwichFox

>

>

> I know Lewisham is shocking all those new homes

> for people to live in and enjoy with wonderful

> views a travesty. :(

They are mostly Private and cost a fortune. Again depriving local people of affordable housing..

Is that what you want in East Dulwich ?

DulwichFox

[fazer71]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> They are mostly Private and cost a fortune. Again

> depriving local people of affordable housing..

>

> Is that what you want in East Dulwich ?

>

> DulwichFox

How do those bizarre maths work?

?? More housing deprives local people of affordable housing. ??

That is suggesting the maths are + build high quality expensive housing - removes cheaper poor quality housing?

Doesn't make sense! That's a bonkers!

What new housing does regardless of the size quality or type is + ADD to the available housing stock.

So if we are short housing any new housing is a good thing?

Do I have my maths wrong ... It's just we keep hearing building new housing takes away housing and apparently btl takes homes out of the "system".

The discussion on housing in the uk is bonkers ... it is constantly absurd contradictory and somewhat idiotic.

nimby's and a socialist anti elite agenda skewing the reality and restricting supply insane.

[Jeremy]

Penguin - not 100% with you on cars. I do own a car, but most of us can't use them for work. Commuting into the centre of London by car is a thing of the distant past. I don't see the car an an alternative to peak hour public transport. A cycle infrastructure would help a bit, but really what we need is new public transport infrastructure opening up under-developed areas of London and the suburbs.

[DulwichFox]

If you say so.. Fazer71

[Penguin68]

Penguin - not 100% with you on cars. I do own a car, but most of us can't use them for work. Commuting into the centre of London by car is a thing of the distant past.

I agree that car commuting to the centre of London isn't a good idea (and frankly, doesn't work except during unsocial hours) - but if you live in say ED and work say in Greenwich (I did) you are swapping a 15-25 minute car journey with one that can take 90 minutes by public transport. East: West travel (without a car) can be hugely time consuming from around here. As can travel at the weekends when so much of our infrastructure is frequently closed down for routine maintenance. For many of us our communities of interest (life/ work) are not contiguous - we don't have the mass transit (trains into the centre notwithstanding) to support that. The Orange line too is a boon, now, but I still find that having and using a car is a real benefit. As a (relatively unfit) pensioner living on a hill, bicycles do not fill me with glee. I use public transport a lot, but without a car I'd often be stuck unable to live my life as I want to.

[first mate]

It is also the case that family responsibilities may require multiple journeys to areas outside of London that become impossible without a car, in that such journeys can be last minute and unpredictable and where the costs of using a combination of trains, buses and taxis, as may be the case, is too expensive to be feasible. Use of club cars requires a degree of planning, so not useful in such cases.

[Nigello]

Bottom line - SE22/15/5/21/23 etc needs more public transport, ideally a Tube link (unlikely and costly and lengthy even if possible) or at least buses that correspond with usage (so more buses/expresses at peak times, fewer/smaller vehicles at other times). An ED/London Bridge/Charing X route would be great, but unlikely. A Camberwell rail station would be great and surely not that hard to arrange?

More flats = more people trying to get to more places....

[Zebedee Tring]

Fazer, haven't you noticed that the extremely unsocialist Cameron is running the country and the extremely unsocialist Boris is running London. And if you think that Blair and Brown were socialists, then you're obviously deluded.

Your obsession with the so-called scourge of socialism is becoming somewhat tedious.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Bottom line - SE22/15/5/21/23 etc needs more

> public transport, ideally a Tube link (unlikely

> and costly and lengthy even if possible) or at

> least buses that correspond with usage (so more

> buses/expresses at peak times, fewer/smaller

> vehicles at other times). An ED/London

> Bridge/Charing X route would be great, but

> unlikely. A Camberwell rail station would be great

> and surely not that hard to arrange?

> More flats = more people trying to get to more

> places....

All around Camberwell Green there are developments going up. The whole area around the rail lines there has recently been, or is being redeveloped - Acres of land. Why did Southwark not use section 106 money to reinstate the disused station there on the Thameslink line?

[first mate]

rahrahrah,

Because they want the money and they want it now? Again, smacks of political expediency and short-termism.

[Jeremy]

Pingu/FirstMate - yes agree. I am not pushing an anti-car agenda, I own a car for all the reasons mentioned... just saying that most of us need public transport to commute into town, so roads/parking aren't going to make any difference to public transport load at peak times.

[fazer71]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> Your obsession with the so-called scourge of

> socialism is becoming somewhat tedious.

It's the whinging socialists (living in their illusion) who've become rather tedious turn on the radio listen to the news and is moan moan moan.

The poor need this. The rich have that.

This thread has mentioned penthouse apartments somehow taking away homes for the poor and how disgusting it is for businesses to make money from assets they own.

It just feels that every thread becomes a socialist opportunity to moan about the rich capitalists, either individuals or corporations, few ever question the incessant socialist whining, it has become "normal" to have a constant moaning socialist undermoan.

(for the record I'm not some r/wing capitalist they're equally bonkers)

We need more homes, the market will set out what should be built,,, that's not some evil capitalist system at work that's simply regular people (not the mega rich) living their lives and buying what they want.

So if the socialists want to be nasty (they almost always are nasty) towards anyone it should be regular people because it's regular people (just like "them")who drive the markets. That's the socialist illusion.

[fazer71]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> If you say so.. Fazer71

I DO there's no arguing with the maths.

Unless you are under some form of illusion.

[Zebedee Tring]

Fazer, you included six derogatory references to "socialism" or "socialists" in your last post. I would call that an obsession. Perhaps you could have a word with someone about it.

[fazer71]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> Fazer, you included six derogatory references to

> "socialism" or "socialists" in your last post. I

> would call that an obsession. Perhaps you could

> have a word with someone about it.

Are you suggesting Socialists are a specific race, and I'm being racist or some such?

If so who do you suggest I should have a word with the police?

If not, I don't understand what you are saying please explain!

I don't have an obsession I simply hate socialism post the great work it did in helping workers receive decent pay and working conditions, since then it appears to have done more harm to humanity than good.

Bizzare

[Zebedee Tring]

You're getting a bit paranoid, fazer.

I was suggesting, in an obviously too subtle way for you, that you might wish to have a word with a professional who might be able to work with you in order to reduce or minimise what I consider to be your obsession with socialism. If you don't regard it as an obsession, then so be it.

However, it might help to stop me thinking that it is an obsession on your part if you stopped referring in a derogatory way to socialism in so many posts that you make on the EDF.