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

[meduza]

they are very nice blueberries though!:-)

[gedwina]

Hi First Mate

I have just had a cursory look at previous posts and it seems I have only used Nimby twice - once in the post replying to UDP and the other replying to you in the CPZ post - not really "quite a few times" to be pedantic, "The devils in the detail" as you point out.

You state "are you really in favour of daily deliveries by articulated lorries onto a residential street beginning at 6am?"

To be brutally honest it doesn?t bother me that much. I have lived in Clapham next door to a Sainsbury?s, in North London next door to a Tesco and over time you do get used to it. When I had problems I spoke to the store manager / head office / the council and generally things do get sorted. As before - you live near a main shopping road in London, you should expect disturbance.

"Have you actually seen the site of the proposed deliveries and seen for yourself how small the proposed space will b and are you clear just how big the delivery lorries are"

Yes and yes - big Lorries - not much space

"There are good planning proposals and bad ones- this is a bad 'un where the absolute focus appears to be on maximising the value of the property rather than effecting a balance between commercial interests and the quality of life of locals. ."

You talk about maximising value and bad planning applications. All commercial planning applications are about maximising value - no one in their right mind would put time / money and effort into planning a store if it wasn?t to maximise value. When you mention balance and quality of life what you mean is quality of life for the very local residents who live next to the store - what you miss out and is mentioned by penguin 68 is the balance of

"The value of having an M&S store locally (and clearly, vide the past threads there is a perceived value to many) will have to be balanced against the disruption to those living closely around the site"

I would think those who want the store outweigh the minority who don?t.

"You should be fairly clear by now that this is not simply an issue about parking- a massive over simplification on your part"

I am aware this isn?t an issue just about parking. If you read the thread in it entirety my response is to UDP who has tried to turn a parking issue into a campaign to "save the lane"

If I was you I would be more concerned about the land the car wash is on, in the market at the moment that is a small goldmine for the right developer.

[Undisputedtruth]

Gedwina, one of the reasons why I didn't respond to your previous posts is bcause I felt you didn't understand the issues surrounding Lordship Lane. Your last post definitely confirm this.

It seems you're confused about what are the issues surrounding the application and I'll put that down to all thoses chemicals found in M&S food.

[Nicholas Spears]

Ah, 'undisputed' 'truth' - you're stretching my definition of logic yet again. Disputing my claim that the founder of Iceland is worth ?200m, you've trawled the internet to find a lower estimate of ?60m or so.

How does that support your assertion that worthy Iceland keeps prices down by paying its directors more modestly than M&S? Even just ?60m seems like quite a lot to me

[KalamityKel]

so... no one recalling when last we had M&S in the area?

*would b nice if ppl took their squabbles elsewhere...*

[first mate]

Gedwina,

Of course I refer to quality of life of those closest to the development, they are the very people whose quality of life will be most affected by the proposed development and probably the cons will outweigh any pros.

I think that the notion that commercial developers seek only to maximise profit and any balance in terms of wider interests, and the only possible brakes on this are those imposed imposed by local planning officers and us nimbys is a rather sad state of affirs, if true.

[Penguin68]

I think that the notion that commercial developers seek only to maximise profit and any balance in terms of wider interests, and the only possible brakes on this are those imposed imposed by local planning officers and us nimbys is a rather sad state of affirs, if true.

There is a lot of blether about things like 'corporate social responsibility' - but in the end companies act well because customers like them to, and they do what customers like because that's how they make their money...

M&S will come into ED (if it does, and if it wants to) because it thinks that people will want to come and buy stuff from them, in sufficient numbers to make it worth their while - i.e. that there is a market out there for them, with willing customers. Of course some people will not like the change, for whatever reasons - commercially they must be assuming (if they are interested) that the numbers who will welcome them will be more.

There can be virtually no commercial enterprise, indeed no enterprise at all, that doesn't have its critics, people who run those enterprises make assumptions about the balance of pros and cons and act accordingly.

And I would be very unhappy if I was a shareholder to be told that the people I employ to run my company weren't knowingly acting (within the law and general morality) in the company's best (long term perhaps) fiscal interests.

[gedwina]

UDP please do post whatever you think it is that I don't understand.

[Damo]

Just to give this a bit of a real world angle, talking to an elderly neighbour they are really worried about the potential loss of Iceland. Its where they do their weekly shop and they think that the Co-op is too expensive. They are now fretting about having to go to Peckham for the cheap grocery shopping and are really upset that they may be excluded from their local high street after living here for 30+ years.

I was generally against M&S for various reasons but none so good as those of my neighbour and imagine that there are many that will be put to inconvenience due to the potential lack of a local "value" supermarket.

Anyway, I don't usually pitch in on these kind of matters but I think this is really rather sad and is maybe worth some thought when forming an opinion on any potential change.

[Undisputedtruth]

As you wish:

http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/Clone_Town_Britain_loss_of_identity_1.pdf

[gedwina]

UDP - you posted that before and if you read previous posts you will see why you are wrong.

[Undisputedtruth]

@Damo,

Well put, these people have supported the High Street through thick and thin. They deserve loyalty and respect. I'd also imagine that some people will find it difficult to travel to Peckham due to their health or disability problems.

@Penguin,

M&S is trying to piggyback off our local traders who made the area what it is today. Where was M&S in the last twenty years? Increasing numbers are saying we want our high street to be different to other high streets. I don't believe there is an overwhelming demand for a M&S food store.

@gedwina

See, I knew you wouldn't get it. Hence why I thought your other posts contained gormless-counter arguments and lacked sensitivity to people living close to the development. You don't deserve my response at all.

@Nicholas Spear,

I refuse to jump through your raised hoops especially as you appear to be making facts up about Malcolm Walker. Walker is an entrepreneur and have had other companies. His personal fortune, accrued over 42 years, does little to support your ridiculous notion that Iceland directors are paid just as much as M&S directors. You can't prove his personal fortune is entirely related to his pay in Iceland, can you?

As far I am concern no one has come up with any evidence that M&S sells quality goods. Nor have they provided evidence that M&S will provide economic benefits to the area. Sorry "I think" does not count as evidence.

In pure planning terms, M&S does not have a strong case to win planning consent.

Neighbours are concern with impact of noise, loss of light, privacy, safety to their families.

Traffic issues arise as cars turns into Chesterfield Grove and so impede the flow of traffic including public transport such as buses.

Car parking will become problematic for many and so will environmental pollution.

The poor are threatened with being economically excluded from their local high street. This is a planning and political matter by the way.

Local traders have worked hard to turn Lordship Lane into a special shopping experience are penalised as M&S takes up market share.

M&S are duplicating supply of food that can be found elsewhere in Dulwich.

Say no to M&S. Say yes to a more diversified shopping environment for everyone. Say yes to a sustainable retail future

[fazer71]

+ say no to M&S

consign to room 101

For not keeping up with the times and delivering shit at inconvenient times.

[first mate]

P68,

A considered response, as ever.

More than just M&S I was looking at the whole development- the application covers a number of elements, not just one and that package is rather presented as a winner for the community as well as being eco-friendly. This suggests that there is an effort to balance pure commercial interests with the needs/interests of the community, and this, I feel, gives some credence to my stance. However, I rather suspect that this is an appearance of balance, paying lip service to the notion as a bit of artful window dressing. The detail of the application appears to tip any balance rather heavily against immdeiately local residents.

As you observed in an earlier post, we can debate whether the benefits of an M&S outweigh the cons of the list UDP makes against (in terms of the neighbouring homes)? Clearly, I would argue no. Does a new M&S plus 8 new residential units bring benefits to the wider community that outweigh the cons to immediate neighbours? I would suggest this is so hard to qualify and quantify that it is not a way forward- though I can see that it is a route that might be used. I think a degree of common sense should prevail and most people, looking at the current application, would see the inherent problems and that these need to be addressed.

[dukesdenver]

If Iceland has already decided to leave ED, surely only another chain would want or be able to afford a site of that size. M&S could be the lesser of several evils.

[first mate]

But it is not just about M&S, it is the whole application package that needs to be considered.

[geneie]

I'm pretty sure that M & S were never in East Dulwich.

Funny, isn't it - so many people in Peckham want M & S to return to Rye Lane (and I suspect they never will)and there's this weird thing going on on this forum...

[jumpingbean]

I'd prefer Waitrose :))

[the-e-dealer]

Id rather be rollerskating. Maybe the new cinema could move into Iceland. Would they show films suitable for e Dulwich though

[Undisputedtruth]

Iceland is now in a far better position to negotiate a new lease after a managagement buyout completed back in mid February and its own future secured.

Everyone, whatever their income group is, has a right to use their local high street.

@jumpingbean

I like to see a Waitrose store in SE London at some point.

[cazzyr]

I do a weekly shop at Iceland. On my last visit I was party to a very heated discussion about how upset many customers were about consequences of Iceland leaving LL. According to the managers response within this argument LL branch is an extremely profitable store. I salute the people on here who have not spoken about the "I prefer" but have spoken about the needs of the elderly & low income families who see the shop as an affordable mainstay. There were so many voices in the debate I heard that won't be on this forum.

[fazer71]

geneie Wrote:

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

> I'm pretty sure that M & S were never in East

> Dulwich.

> Funny, isn't it - so many people in Peckham want M

> & S to return to Rye Lane (and I suspect they

> never will)and there's this weird thing going on

> on this forum...

Rye lane died when some genius decided make it busses only and stop cars driving through.

If Southwark did the same for lordship lane blocking it off to cars with a Barry road bypass then lordship lane would die too.

If Southwark want to regenerate rye lane the they need to open it up to cars again, maybe then M&S would return.

But until then rye lane will remain ghetto lane.

The reason lordship lane is vibrant and busy is because cars drive through without restriction and parking is free and available.

Our problem is the overspill of shoppers who would otherwise be going to rye lane and making the whole area including Peckham a nicer place to live but noooo Southwark insist on making Peckham a no go zone....!

James its about time rye lane was opened up to cars again!

[annabel42]

I agree. Those with mobility problems cannot shop in Rye Lane because they cannot be dropped off or

collected from outside the shops. Minicabs are not permitted to drop off or pick up from Iceland in Rye Lane. For these reasons I have not been to Rye Lane for years. There must be many more like me.

[DulwichFox]

Areas which have been Pedestrianised all have increased Crime.( Lewisham . Bromley ) ( Many Seaside resorts )

Lonely Pedestrianised areas are dangerous for people to walk through at night.

Yobbos hanging about causing problems. Drunken brawls in such areas after pub closing time.

Not nice for women walking home at night. Or anyone else walking home alone.

Much safer when there are cars and buses about where people can see what's going on.

Fox.

[annabel42]

Couldn't agree more. Some years ago I went to the cinema in Rye Lane in the early evening. When I came out it was dark. Apart from one couple and me the street was deserted. It was eerie and frightening.