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

[gedwina]

Surely residents who live near a road with shops should expect developments like this, I live near Camberwell old cemetry, I moved in when it was unused but it is now being considered for new burials. This doesn't bother me as I bought a house next to a cemetry

[first mate]

gedwina,

I'm not sure if you are across the detail of this proposed developnment, but you seem to suggest that if you happen to live anywhere close to shops then expect anything development wise and accept it without a whisper.

[the-e-dealer]

Expect a shop to try and and expand I suppose. And not expect a Council to say no. However we all have the right to express ourselves and to try and ensure that if a development goes ahead that at least any potential problems are minimised.

[Cora]

When is the deadline?

[the-e-dealer]

All the details on the link. 13 June.

[KalamityKel]

The deadline for comments is 26th May. The council "consideration" is in June

[allio]

Perhaps the threat of an M&S coming onto the high street will make the likes of the co-op and Tesco liven up a bit and provide better stocks and SERVICE which are currently dreadful. I prefer to shop at M&S in London on my way home and carry the goods all of the way home rather than trying to shop locally and having to queue for over 10 minutes. I also know the products are of a far superior quality and I get service with a smile, not a huffy don't want to be here attitude.

[the-e-dealer]

Consultation period starts: 27/04/2012

Consultation period ends: 13/06/2012

[cl]

There is a discrepancy on dates.

The letter that was put through the doors of those in the immediate vicinity states the end of consultation period is 26/05/12.

The website states 13/06/12.

No idea why this is.

[bonaome]

Please give some thought to the residents who live close to the proposed development they are also part of the community and current objections to development application are made on very reasonable grounds.

Indeed so, I hope not to have suggested otherwise.

[gedwina]

But if the objection goes ahead and M and S pull out (if they are the supposed retailer) then you have an empty retail unit - any objections you have now will be multiplied many times over if Tesco move in. M and S are an approachable supermarket , Tesco are not and are expanding rapidly.

[first mate]

The objection is not to M&S at all, it is to the total application as it stands- the devil is in the detail.

[Alan Medic]

Do I need to read the whole thread to understand this or could someone explain what it means briefly. Thanks.

[bonaome]

There has been a planning application to develop the property on the site of Iceland. The plans involve extending the property to cover much if what is now the carpark at the back of Iceland, and changing the upper floors to accommodate 8 new 2 bed flats. It seems that the lease on the property is soon up for renewal. Nobody knows whether Iceland wish to renew or plan to quit (pls correct if I'm wrong). M&S appear to be keen on takin the redeveloped property. Nobody knows if M&S would still be interested in the property if not redeveloped or if the plans were curtailed. The first post in the thread has links to the proposals on Southwark's website. Concerns are that the proposals would mean increased problems for residents of Chesterfield Grove from the delivery lorries making noise and damaging residents' cars and increased pressure on local parking from a) a busier store and b) the new residents. This vs. potentially neither Iceland nor M&S wanting to stay leaving an empty space on LL. Lots of people v excited about M&S both for and against. A less thoroughly discussed possibilities: no change at all - Iceland stay, no planning consent; planning consent and Iceland stay; planning consent and a 3rd retailer takes the space; etc

[first mate]

bonaome,

just to clarify and add a little detail.

Significantly stepped up frequency of delivery- to begin as early as 5am- backing extremely large articulated lorries (each blocks the whole street) reversing and attempting to manouevre in a space smaller than is currently available, reversing sensors beeping away.

Residents on the street have already suffered damage to property by these lorries. If you visit the site you will see bollards to either side of the entrance to the car park are damaged, one knocked sideways (this space to be greatly reduced under the current proposals).

Within this space it is proposed to build 8 new residential units- but there will be no room for any cars and only one bike space per unit.

Immediately adjacent to the proposed development is an extremely busy car wash that uses the street to park up wiaiting cars while clients go off shopping. A new, even more successful shop is likely to bring the car wash even more custom, especially at busy shopping times.

This is great news for the carwash and I can see the appeal of a spanking new shop for ED too, as well as the merits of affordable housing (presuming these will be reasonably priced- we have no evidence for that for that do we?). The only losers are the residents on the immediate streets who are going to have to contend with one heck of a lot of traffic and at some very anti-social hours as well.

As you seem to suggest bonaome (forgive me if I am misreading between the lines) perhaps this thread is a bit of rumour mongering, partly to test the waters and partly to frighten the horses- the spirit of CPZ hovering o'erhead.

[Alan Medic]

Bonaome, was that meant to be answer to my question?

[the-e-dealer]

I think its a bigger Question.. Let Lordship Lane Develop and Grow as a shopping centre or chop it off at its knees.

[Alan Medic]

I personally think the solution is to paint Iceland in a colour the locals are happy with and leave the interior as it is. Perhaps they could drop the bargain signs from their windows though or at least put the prices on the signs much higher to keep the riff raff out.

[bonaome]

Hi First Mate.

The document that I think has the most detail regarding deliveries etc is this one. It proposes deliveries from 6:30am.

The proposals suggest no change to the entrance to the site. They show how the proposed size of articulated lorry can enter and exit the site in a forwards gear. The arrivals and departures will be supervised by a person on the street. Currently deliveries are unrestricted. I do not know the current pattern of deliveries or whether they are supposed to go in and come out in a forwards gear (i.e. not reversing on Chesterfield Grove) and if so whether they abide by that, or whether or not they are (supposed to be) supervised from someone on the street. Do you know?

[KalamityKel]

Deliveries are currently restricted. There is an agreement with Iceland and Chesterfield Grove residents on when they can deliver which is certainly not before 8am.

Through health and safety anyone assisting in helping a driver to access or exit the site must be fully trained and wear high visibility gear (this is standard anywhere) not just any ol' person (as helpful as it may be). On the off chance there is an accident no one is covered.

[Undisputedtruth]

bonaome Wrote:

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

> Hi First Mate.

>

> The document that I think has the most detail

> regarding deliveries etc is this one. It proposes

> deliveries from 6:30am.

>

> The proposals suggest no change to the entrance to

> the site. They show how the proposed size of

> articulated lorry can enter and exit the site in a

> forwards gear. The arrivals and departures will be

> supervised by a person on the street. Currently

> deliveries are unrestricted. I do not know the

> current pattern of deliveries or whether they are

> supposed to go in and come out in a forwards gear

> (i.e. not reversing on Chesterfield Grove) and if

> so whether they abide by that, or whether or not

> they are (supposed to be) supervised from someone

> on the street. Do you know?

From this document, page 5 paragraph 4.3 M&S is proposing to have four deliveries between 6 and 7am.

I feel for the residents on Chesterfield Grove.

[Undisputedtruth]

Alan Medic Wrote:

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

> I personally think the solution is to paint

> Iceland in a colour the locals are happy with and

> leave the interior as it is. Perhaps they could

> drop the bargain signs from their windows though

> or at least put the prices on the signs much

> higher to keep the riff raff out.

Not sure Iceland would agree. Orange is their corporate colour.

Anyway, in the planning application there is a letter where M&S has entered into a contract, with a planning consent proviso, to open a store on the Iceland site. Anyway, I won't be shopping there as the shop is beneath me. I've got standards you see.;-)

[Undisputedtruth]

the-e-dealer Wrote:

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

> I think its a bigger Question.. Let Lordship Lane

> Develop and Grow as a shopping centre or chop it

> off at its knees.

I think you're right in saying there is a bigger question. I like shopping in Lordship Lane because they offer a unique shopping experience and is one mile from where I live. Once the chain retailers moves in and replaces the independents then you will have a phenomenon called 'Clone Towns' where the shopping experience is indistinguishable from other areas. I have shopped in Cambridge, Nottingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and Birmingham and you see the same old chain stores selling the same old stuff. No room for individuality whatsoever.

Fortunately, this issue is recognised in government, including PM David Cameron, and reflected in the National Planning Framework.

I like all things cool so I'll be avoiding M&S on Lordship Lane and spending more time in Brixton and Spitalfield as their retail environment tends to cater more to my exquisite tastes.

Also, I'd expect to see price rises in William Rose butchers when M&S arrives. Retailers normally pitch their prices according to nearby competitors. M&S price their food a lot more than Iceland's.

[first mate]

bonoame,

thanks for that- I think there are variations in the application with regard to times of delivery- will check to see which is most recent (application that is).

I had not explained myself clearly about the space issue. The entrance will not be smaller- it couldn't be any smaller- the side bollards get hammered as it is now- which is telling us something about the fit between the types of vehicle going through that gap currently, let alone what is proposed in the future. And yes, residents have had front garden walls smashed and sides of cars damaged by Icleand delivery vehicles.

The space that is now the car park will be significantly reduced. These very large delivery vehicles will be having to move in and out of a smaller space to get to what is already an inadequate entrance space. Less space in which to manoeuvre will probably mean even more time is spent easing the vehicles in and out- which has to mean more noise- beep; beep; beep those parking sensors go, imagine that daily at 6.30 am!!! Neither the current entrance or the residential street is of a size to accomodate this sort of vehicle- and the application indicates that there will be more arriving daily. Let us not forget the squeeze at the same end of the street caused by cars lining up for the car wash, either parked or just waiting in the road.

[LondonMix]

Undisputed Truth-- Iceland is a chain so M&S replacing Iceland does not increase the number of chains on LL. Also, Brixton has a huge M&S....

All of this is off topic though. I think the application has 3 issues that need to be addressed:

1. Delivery hours, which I believe can be objected to without objecting to the application in general

2. The creation of the flats which is unlikely to be important to M&S and probably of benefit only to the freeholder. Given the need for new housing development in London, I'd be surprised if this wasn't viewed positively. While we all recognise housing development increases parking pressure, the need must be met and on balance, I am in favour.

3. The extension of the premises which will eliminate 8 parking spaces- This is the most controversial bit for me. The question is how important this extension is for any retailer who could be interested in taking over the space. If only M&S want this while other retailers that could do at least an equal amount of trade could take over the premises as is, then on balance, I would object to this as unnecessary. However, others on the forum have already suggested that any retailer would need this extension. If this is the case, then I wouldn't object to this element of the proposal given the relatively small number of spaces lost.

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> Alan Medic Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I personally think the solution is to paint

> > Iceland in a colour the locals are happy with

> and

> > leave the interior as it is. Perhaps they could

> > drop the bargain signs from their windows

> though

> > or at least put the prices on the signs much

> > higher to keep the riff raff out.

>

> Not sure Iceland would agree. Orange is their

> corporate colour.

>

> Anyway, in the planning application there is a

> letter where M&S has entered into a contract, with

> a planning consent proviso, to open a store on the

> Iceland site. Anyway, I won't be shopping there as

> the shop is beneath me. I've got standards you

> see.;-)