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

[Undisputedtruth]

I though Nicholas was very insightful on the planning application. In fact spot on in relation to the national planning framework guidance.

[LondonMix]

I doubt Nicolas has read the planning application. I have read the national planning framework. Under that guise, one can push for the redevelopment of the shop/ flats to be as sustainable as possible on many fronts as well as push that the re-design is of high quality. However, making an objection solely based on your belief that the intended store to whom the premises would be leased would be too successful is not within the spirit of the framework and quite frankly runs contrary to its ethos.

[Undisputedtruth]

No LondonMix, the spirit of the framework is actually about protecting high street assets such as the local butchers, bakers, delis from the likes of a M&S. That is what Nicholas was saying earlier on.

The M&S development have several flaws in its design that affects the immediate area and this is why the immediate local community is objecting the planning application.

[rch]

Ah, but in addition to National, London, and Borough planning legislation, we also have Supplemental Planning Documents (SPD) which lay out specified local adjustments. For instance, have a look at the Sustainable Transport SPD, which makes relevant points about the Dulwich area which can be taken into consideration when determining this application:-

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2208/sustainable_transport_spd

One of the most important consultations that will be coming up, hopefully within the next few months, is the Dulwich SPD, which I'm hoping that the community will be heavily involved in as it will shape the future of our lives on many levels for a long time to come. Here is the current Draft Dulwich SPD:-

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200151/supplementary_planning_documents_and_guidance/1247/dulwich_spd/1

Although both Planning is indeed a quasi-judicial function, the local knowledge of elected members can be invaluable in protecting the amenity of the community while encouraging positive and sustainable growth.

As I've said before, it's all a matter of finding the right balance...

[LondonMix]

The idea behind the National Framework is not to eliminate competition for existing businesses. If you want to support small businesses then shop there. If you fear that M&S will offer more convenience and cheaper prices than existing small businesses and you are concerned that consumers will choose that option, those are not legitimate grounds for blocking a commercial lease agreement.

There are concerns about the application- parking, delivery times, access routes etc that may or may not result in the planning authorities requiring an ammendment to the existing application. As a community, this forum allows us to debate the impact of the specific plans and share information so each of us can make an informed objection if we so choose. I have concerns about certain elements of the application (delivery times / accesss) that I do intend to raise. Other elements like the additional flats (which will only benefit the freeholder not M&S) I recognise will potentially increase parking pressure but I would like to discuss creative solutions to mitigate this to the greatest extent possible rather than suggest the flats should not be developed as I support the development of housing in general. Figuring out what would be acceptable for us and advocating for that is more likely to yield a better outcome for everyone involved.

This obsession with M&S is not productive and many of the fears raised regarding people flooding the highstreet in cars in my view is far overblown and ill-informed. The format of the shop is a Simply Food (basically a convenience shop selling ready meals, salads and sandwiches). There is absolutely no need to drive to such a shop, though of course certain people will always choose to drive when its not necessary regardless of who the retailer is. The idea that the shop will attract substantial new business from outside the local area is also questionable. There is already a massive M&S in Brixton, 2 in Lewisham, two in the Kennington / Elephant & Castle area and elsewhere around South London. I find it highly implausable that people will start driving from miles around to shop at the convenience format of M&S when there are larger versions of M&S already peppered throughout South London.

[rch]

Sorry, LondonMix, I'm having internet problems and realised after I hit "send" that it wasn't clear that I was replying to the discussion in general and not specifically to you.

I totally understand what you're saying, that's why I think you should read the SPD because then you can cite specific policies to give your objections about delivery time and access more weight.

The parking problem is more complex and needs more creative thinking.

I also agree that it's not a good idea to focus on the brand of the retailer as once planning permission to reconfigure the site is obtained then this could change. In theory, the developer could even apply for change of use.

[LondonMix]

Agree, rch and I was responding to UDT anyhow. Thanks for the link to the additional information.

[Undisputedtruth]

I think you're misundestanding the National Planning Framework (NPF). Not surprising as previous discussions have shown that your planning views are somewhat out of touch. No one ever said that NPF was the elimination of big busineses. You think that because you repeatedly failed to understand the policy. The NPF is about protecting high street assets such as your local butchers, fishmongers, bakers and delics from the likes of M&S. Perhaps you need to read the minister's foreword to understand the background behind the policy.

No one has said that homes above the site should not be developed as long as they don't infringe on neighbours' right to privacy, quietness and light. Having fully read all of the documents and consultation replies then I can't see how this planning application can proceed in its present format.

[LondonMix]

I won't trade insults with you UDT. People have opposed the development based on concerns about parking pressure if you read through the thread. You are right that I can't see the case anywhere, including in the forward pasted below, for rejecting a planning application to shield existing businesses from shops like M&S. This is one A-1 retail unit replacing another A-1 retail unit. You are of course free to try and make whatever case you want to the authorities.

Ministerial foreword

The purpose of planning is to help achieve sustainable

development.

Sustainable means ensuring that better lives for ourselves don?t

mean worse lives for future generations.

Development means growth. We must accommodate the new

ways by which we will earn our living in a competitive world.

We must house a rising population, which is living longer and

wants to make new choices. We must respond to the changes

that new technologies offer us. Our lives, and the places in which we live them,

can be better, but they will certainly be worse if things stagnate.

Sustainable development is about change for the better, and not only in our built

environment.

Our natural environment is essential to our wellbeing, and it can be better looked

after than it has been. Habitats that have been degraded can be restored. Species

that have been isolated can be reconnected. Green Belt land that has been

depleted of diversity can be refilled by nature ? and opened to people to

experience it, to the benefit of body and soul.

Our historic environment ? buildings, landscapes, towns and villages ? can better

be cherished if their spirit of place thrives, rather than withers.

Our standards of design can be so much higher. We are a nation renowned

worldwide for creative excellence, yet, at home, confidence in development itself

has been eroded by the too frequent experience of mediocrity.

So sustainable development is about positive growth ? making economic,

environmental and social progress for this and future generations.

The planning system is about helping to make this happen.

Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay ? a presumption

in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every

decision. This framework sets out clearly what could make a proposed plan or

development unsustainable.

In order to fulfil its purpose of helping achieve sustainable development, planning

must not simply be about scrutiny. Planning must be a creative exercise in finding

ways to enhance and improve the places in which we live our lives.

This should be a collective enterprise. Yet, in recent years, planning has tended to

exclude, rather than to include, people and communities. In part, this has been a

result of targets being imposed, and decisions taken, by bodies remote from them.

Dismantling the unaccountable regional apparatus and introducing neighbourhood

planning addresses this.

ii |

In part, people have been put off from getting involved because planning policy

itself has become so elaborate and forbidding ? the preserve of specialists, rather

than people in communities.

This National Planning Policy Framework changes that. By replacing over a

thousand pages of national policy with around fifty, written simply and clearly,

we are allowing people and communities back into planning.

[Undisputedtruth]

I'm not insulting you LM. Just pointing out your obvious failings as a way to correct your thinking.

Here are part of minister's foreword.

Our historic environment ? buildings, landscapes, towns and villages ? can better

be cherished if their spirit of place thrives, rather than withers.

You also need to read the New Economics Foundation website to further understand the background to the National Planning Policy framework http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/2012/04/02/time-is-running-out-for-clone-towns

[Siduhe]

rch Wrote:

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

> I totally understand what you're saying, that's

> why I think you should read the SPD because then

> you can cite specific policies to give your

> objections about delivery time and access more

> weight.

>

I'd be really interested in reading this but am getting a bad link when I actually try to click into the draft SDP document. It's supposed to be at http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/1506/draft_dulwich_supplementary_planning_document, but it also doesn't appear to come up on the search of the Southwark Council site). Any chance of an updated link?

[Undisputedtruth]

Try here Sidule http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2252/draft_dulwich_spd

[first mate]

Sidhue,

http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/230437_1.pdf

Please also look at this link which givesa blow by blow analysis of everything that is wrong with the application, as well as photos in situ that perfectly illustrate why parking is a big issue, as well as vehicle delivery size and frequency vis avis projected size and access to site.

[Undisputedtruth]

I fully agree with first mate with his link. Suggest you read the document in the link first, Sidhue.

[Siduhe]

Thanks both. The update link is particularly helpful.

[LondonMix]

First Mate, thanks so much for sharing your link. I agree with most of the points raised and will be incorporating some of your more detailed analysis into my own letter.

UDT- I see the point you are trying to make and I know you are not the only person who may feel that the new framework could work this way, but I disagree that the powers extend as far as you suggest.

From what I understand, the framework was designed to revitalise the high-street in a number of ways. First, the new framework prioritises the high-street over retail park development. This is both for sustainability reasons (people tend to drive to out of town retail park developments more than their local high streets) but also to prevent the continued decline of the high-street as locals abandon it for large out of town retail park developments (clone towns). The other major guideline is that the scale of new developments and redevelopments on the high-street should be in keeping with the local character and scale of a local shopping area. So building a new 5 storey retail out-let on LL would be an obvious violation of this. A-1 retail units and residential development are encouraged over all other forms of development / uses. Applications that include planned uses for community gathering etc will be viewed more favourably. Diversity of options will also prevent a store like Tesco for example, dominating one local shopping area through the development of multiple stores.

Where you and I disagree is that should all other aspects of the planning application be viable regarding scale and use, the planning authorities don't have the right to reject a planning application based on who the freeholder intends to lease the premises to. As RCH mentioned, lease agreements are temporary. If the premises were already exactly as a chain retailer would like them, the planning department would have absolutely no scope to enter into the commercial lease negotiations. Therefore, denying a planning application solely on the grounds of who the lease is intended for over-steps its authority. This is why I have repeatedly said we should stop focus on M&S lease and instead discuss the planning application.

We will have to wait and see how various councils interpret the new framework and the outcome any appeals that result from those decisions but I do not believe applications denied solely on the basis of who the shop is will stand.

Edited to remove ambiguity

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> I'm not insulting you LM. Just pointing out your

> obvious failings as a way to correct your

> thinking.

>

> Here are part of minister's foreword.

>

> Our historic environment ? buildings, landscapes,

> towns and villages ? can better

> be cherished if their spirit of place thrives,

> rather than withers.

>

> You also need to read the New Economics Foundation

> website to further understand the background to

> the National Planning Policy framework

> http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/2012/04/02/time-i

> s-running-out-for-clone-towns

[Undisputedtruth]

At least you're beginning to understand the principles behind the new framework. A step forward to meaningful discussions compared to your previous stance where you had a completely different idea about the framework that was not very productive to discussions.

Planning departments do not need to enter into any commercial lease negotiations, that's absurd. They simply set conditions to planning instead.

While you may still have a disagreement with the interpretation of new framework, the New Economic Foundation have campaigned on the issues of Clone Towns for several years and have direct access to central government like all think tanks. So I'm more than willing to see NEF view of things. Central government gives guidance to how the framework should be interpreted. If local governments were left to their own device to interpret the new framework then pandamonium will break out for sure.

[LondonMix]

Let's end this. My position has always been the same. We disagree. That's the end of it.

[Undisputedtruth]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Let's end this. My position has always been the

> same. We disagree. That's the end of it.

I'm happy to end discussions but I do wonder where you get your ideas/information. Certainly not from official sources.

[rch]

Do a Google search for Southwark Sustainable Transport SPD, that should work. The SPDs have area-specific guidelines, which is why they are so useful. I'm being a bit careful about what I'm saying as I don't want to express an opinion in public, just in case, so I'm trying to point you in the direction of useful documentation.

Thanks for posting David Roberts' objection as well... when the agenda for the relevant sub-committee is released, I'll ask for a full copy of all the reports that will be sent to the sub-committee. There should be transport assessments, etc, included in the reports.

When the Dulwich SPD consultation is launched, I'm hoping to ask planning officers to come to a Dulwich Community Council meeting so that we can all openly discuss how the SPD can address local concerns.

In my opinion, the biggest development that is going to impact on Dulwich will probably be the redevelopment of the seven acres of the Dulwich Hospital site, once the NHS ascertains how much of the site that they will need for their own medical use. Officers from Southwark NHS have already agreed to make a presentation to the DCC meeting on Sept 18th as they launch their consultation regarding the site.

[fredricketts]

No, sainsburys used to be kings college sports ground

[claire.rabey]

brilliant - finally a decent supermarket on lordship lane, both coop and iceland are rubbish

[claire.rabey]

M&S is also for people who dont have enough hours in the day to cook every night

[Undisputedtruth]

claire.rabey Wrote:

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

> M&S is also for people who dont have enough hours

> in the day to cook every night

Or do housework it seems.

[Callie]

claire.rabey Wrote:

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

> brilliant - finally a decent supermarket on

> lordship lane, both coop and iceland are rubbish

No,Iceland is not rubbish, it's a very useful shop & I will miss it if it goes. I wish I had discovered it sooner! I used to think it wasn't that great until I discovered you can get some great deals in there & I have intergrated it into my shopping routine really well. I use Sainsburys for main shop & Iceland. I go in Co-op for the odd thing - it's not that great, although looks much nicer now it's been done up.