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

[bonaome]

It does seem clear that M&S is likely to generate more car trips than the existing Iceland

How is that clear?

[Mick Mac]

Obviously people who go to Iceland can't afford cars. James is clever and he knows this.

[gsirett]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> My interests are purely to ensure a healthy and

> vibrant area serving the local community.

Is that why on January 24th you, and your two lib dem colleagues, were the only councillors out of 18 (across two community councils) to vote IN FAVOUR of a CPZ in our area? Despite the fact that the local traders association pleaded with you not to. This was based on solid evidence of CPZ's decimating small retailers on high streets.

A representative of the LL traders assocaiotn stood in front of you and made this speech :

http://southsouthwarkbusinessassociation.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/deputation-to-dulwich-community-council.html

and you STILL voteed in favour.

How does that fit with your objective to ensure a virbrant area ? Funnily enough on that issue, you spent 2 months telling everybody on the ED forum that you would only wanted what was best and you would go with the will of the people.......then you did what YOU wanted

[James Barber]

Hi Mick Mac,

That's obtuse.

Hi bonaome,

I think it's clear more car journeys and parking will be created because...The freeholder has applied to nearly double the size of the current store and have indicated they're planning to lease said bigger store to M&S. Whenever I pass M&S food store formats they seem exceptionally busy compared to our current local Iceland. So in my opinion a much busier larger store will attract more people and even a smaller proportion driving would still result in more car jounreys generated compared to the current Iceland. That removing the existing car parking while creating higher demand for parking will increase parking pressures.

[Jeremy]

I would agree that M&S would be more of a "destination" shop than Iceland. Iceland stores are a lot more common in South London. Believe me, if M&S do open up, the shop will be absolutely rammed.

[Marmora Man]

James,

I would like to see your response to gsirett's post and the embedded speech given by Max Sharp = every word of which I endorse and well made, logical and sensible.

[Renata Hamvas]

Hi Koolbananas,

everyone can respond to a planning application, individuals within the same household can respond independently. All responses both positive and negative are looked at. At the planning meeting itself, however, there is only a 3 minute slot for objectors to an application and similarly for supporters (plus both parties may be questioned). Residents/interested parties tend to delegate the role of spokesperson to one or sometimes 2 people (who share the slot). Ward Councillors may in addition speak on the proposal. As well as council officers, councillors on the committee also read letters submitted as part of the consultation process.

Just to point out, I do also comment on issues in relation to Evelina Rd in Nunhead. This like Lordship Lane is outside my Ward, but is an amenity used by residents from my Ward. This, I think occurs naturally as ward boundaries do not coincide with community boundaries. Parts of East Dulwich, Nunhead and Honor Oak are within Peckham Rye Ward.

Renata

[the-e-dealer]

Greedy councils doing their statutory duty and what ? Forcing people to apply?

[the-e-dealer]

second hand and rubbish shops would that be the art shop 2 butchers and two greengrocers?

[first mate]

The major problem with this application is the increased footprint vis a vis increased deliveries. More large vans moving around in an already tight area, in the early hours. The parking sensors on these make one heck of a racket- that means a lot of noise for residents.

Of even greater concern is the 8 new flats and complete lack of parking space for them within the development. Existing space on the road closest to the proposed development is already heavily used by the adjacent car wash. This area also carries yellow lines. Even an additional eight cars will place great parking pressure on the street and this does not even address the possibility of an increase in cars wanting to park up for a new shop.

If the new flats could be dedicated as car-free this would help. In the development proposals much is made of it being and eco-friendly development, but the developers do not say where 8 new cars will go, or what impact they might have.

I do think that certain pro CPZ'ers will be rubbing their hands in glee as they see yet another opportunity to ramp up support for parking controls. I don't understand how the powers that be can propose that we all reduce car use on the one hand, but try to shoehorn in 8 residential units with no consideration given to parking in that instance, in a project that is likely to massively increase parking pressure in one fell swoop.

[James Barber]

Hi grisett,

And we also had people at the January meeting who trade on Grove Vale saying it would help their customers.

The proposal was for 1 hour of controlled parking Mon-Fri to stop rail commuters. The idea was that the freed up parking from deterred rail commuters would make it easier for residents and visitors to park.

South Southwark Business Association also objected to the new Lordship Lane crossings - which appear to be doing the job intended well.

[Penguin68]

second hand and rubbish shops would that be the art shop 2 butchers and two greengrocers?

No, that would be the shop selling second hand prams and other (let's be honest, much of it was, rubbish).

The greengrocers, butchers and the art shop were all admirable of their type (and I miss the art stationers) - there are other fresh food merchants (one butcher's outlet was replaced). I also miss the toy shop (Binester's also replaced) and the trainer shop (very good value).

But the people living around here now don't seem to support shops such as those. Outlets which close (other than through sole proprieter's death/ retirement etc.) do so because they no longer meet local needs (don't have sufficient local customers to continue trading), or they can't generate sufficient income to cover increasing costs. Sometimes that's down to increased rents or business rates.

The way to keep local shops is to buy from them - just walking past with a warm feeling that they are still there won't cut it. Cash trumps sentiment.

[gsirett]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi grisett,

> And we also had people at the January meeting who

> trade on Grove Vale saying it would help their

> customers.

Really ? I don't think any of the 150+ people and other 9 councilors in the room heard ANY traders saying any such thing. Anybody else remember that ? or is it just councillor Barber?

We did hear the lady from the cafe on Grove Vale also begging you not to vote in faour. That cant be who you mean surely ?

We all KNOW what the intentions were (including you) and we all also knew that the likely knock-on effects ("edge effects", damage to trade, etc) outweighed the likely benefits.....thats why I think the other 15 councillrs voted against. I guess you didn't quite get that ?

[Chener Books]

> James Barber Wrote:

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

>> Hi grisett,

>> And we also had people at the January meeting who

>> trade on Grove Vale saying it would help their

>> customers.

I don't remember that.

John K

[first mate]

gsirett,

Nor me. I remember a couple of residents in support of Cllr Barber's idea, but there were also some residents from that street who were inittailly in favour of CPZ, but having looked closely at all the evidence changed their minds and came out roundly against.

I do hope this new proposed development is not used as a way to ratchet up support for another stab at CPZ, but I've a feeling in my waters.

[James Barber]

Hi gsirett, Chener Books,

I did get the meetings. It's clear that the ED area doesn't want any form of controlled parking.

Which is why I think it so important that losing the sole car park on Lordship lane is so significant while increasing the number of car based shoppers.

[first mate]

James,

What about the area behind the police station- can that be opned up for use?

Additionally, would you like to see moves to make the proposed 8 residential units behind Iceland car free tenures?

[gedwina]

GSirett - what are your thoughts on the proposed M and S? Your contribution to this thread so far has been anti CPZ and James Barber bashing - nothing really to do with M and S apart from a "feeling in your waters" ? Please don?t derail this useful thread into local party politics

[first mate]

Gedwina,

I fear you are attributing my comments to gsirett. I don't think Giles is playing politics he is merely responding to what might be viewed as a distorted account of the meeting on CPZ back in January.

I feel there may be some kind of relationship between the effect of the proposed plans for Iceland and the long-term aims of the pro CPZ lobby.

I'm keen to know if James would actively lobby for the proposed 8 residential units to be car-free tenures, give that the application makes a big point of being eco-friendly.

[gsirett]

gedwina Wrote:

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

> GSirett - what are your thoughts on the proposed M

> and S? Your contribution to this thread so far has

> been anti CPZ and James Barber bashing - nothing

> really to do with M and S apart from a "feeling in

> your waters" ? Please don?t derail this useful

> thread into local party politics

Gedwina

First, you?re right and I do see your point: this is a thread about M&S and it is discourteous of me not to at least share my thoughts on that. To get that out of the way, I don?t feel strongly either way. The business that feels it can make the most money will be prepared to pay the most for the premises. The landlord will take the biggest bid. Not much will stop that. I don?t think M&S would have a major effect on our precious (to me anyway) local independents and I also don?t think its going to make any form of significant difference to parking, once the dust settles.

In my defence: On this forum, I saw a certain local councillor maintain for 2+ months a veil of impartiality over controlled parking ?only wanting what was best? and then vote, my guess, purely based on his personal/party ideology (my guess would be the latter, as all 3 of the same party did the same). I see the same veil of impartiality being used again and I do fear that there is an attempt going on here to open up the whole debate about controlled parking again. Given the chance, this man will play on the fears of local resident and use that to build a case for a CPZ again...and do that VERY subtly (last time round it was due to ?significant requests? to have one.

Turned out it was 34 people in 3 years). I think people should understand that history in this debate also.

Gedwina

First, you?re right and I do see your point: this is a thread about M&S and it is discourteous of me not to at least share my thoughts on that. To get that out of the way, I don?t feel strongly either way. The business that feels it can make the most money will be prepared to pay the most for the premises. The landlord will take the biggest bid. Not much will stop that. I don?t think M&S would have a major effect on our precious (to me anyway) local independents and I also don?t think its going to make any form of significant difference to parking, once the dust settles.

In my defence: On this forum, I saw a certain local councillor maintain for 2+ months a veil of impartiality over controlled parking ?only wanting what was best? and then vote, my guess, purely based on his personal/party ideology (my guess would be the latter, as all 3 of the same party did the same). I see the same veil of impartiality being used again and I do fear that there is an attempt going on here to open up the whole debate about controlled parking again. Given the chance, this man will play on the fears of local resident and use that to build a case for a CPZ again...and do that VERY subtly (last time round it was due to ?significant requests? to have one.

Turned out it was 34 people in 3 years). I think people should understand that history in this debate also.

Oh ,and he is prepared to give out as much dis-information as suits his case.

[the-e-dealer]

Look back at the Posts. Barber was happy for everyone to comment but when another Local Councillor commented he said her ward (Part of which includes Parts of East Dulwich) was too far away. Lets keep minor squabbles between Politicians out of here and have our own Minor (and Major ) squabbles.

[*Bob*]

Good o' e-dealer.

Always doing your bit to help keep the forum clear of minor squabble with politicians.

Keep up the good work.

[the-e-dealer]

Thanks, I do my best.

[Atticus]

e-dealer and maxxi, where you both once of this forum under different names?

[Jeremy]

Plenty of posters seem happy to turn threads into political arguments with James. It's not just councillors bickering amongst themselves.