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

[dulwich2012]

It would be nice to see Waitrose instead

[Undisputedtruth]

dulwich2012 Wrote:

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

> It would be nice to see Waitrose instead

I like to see a Waitrose too but not at the risk of excluding the lower income people from their local high street.

[dulwich2012]

perhaps rules of the market will prevail? if there is no demand, there will be no supply?

[Undisputedtruth]

Not really, dulwich2012.

There are pockets of deprivation next to affluent areas in London. I also spoken to a member of Iceland management (where I earlier reported on this thread) and they confirmed that the store was making money. What we're see here is the risk of excluding the least well off members of society from their local high street. That is morally wrong. It's a concept that LondonMix couldn't grasp in relation to the National Planning Framework.

[Bic Basher]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> Not really, dulwich2012.

>

> There are pockets of deprivation next to affluent

> areas in London. I also spoken to a member of

> Iceland management (where I earlier reported on

> this thread) and they confirmed that the store was

> making money. What we're see here is the risk of

> excluding the least well off members of society

> from their local high street. That is morally

> wrong. It's a concept that LondonMix couldn't

> grasp in relation to the National Planning

> Framework.

Right UDT, I'll bite on this one. On Rail UK Forums while discussing the SLL closure/ELL extension when I mentioned that Peckham has social deprivation problems which means there's a higher percentage of people using buses as the main form of transport instead of the train to Victoria. You told me it was "old news" and that with more affluent people coming in, they would be the next rail passengers.

So, it's perfectly fine for a budget food store to stay in a gentrified part of town while you'd make some of the poorest residents in Southwark (who shop at Iceland and Lidl) use expensive rail services?

As I mentioned at the start of the thread, I also have concerns about the poorest being deprived of cheaper means of purchasing food, yet I'm confused by UDT's stance.

[Undisputedtruth]

You're confused, Bic Basher. Better transport infrastructure allows people access to more jobs. So some of the poor can better themselves by accessing better paid jobs. You're the one who wants to worsen our local rail services.

[Bic Basher]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> You're confused, Bic Basher. Better transport

> infrastructure allows people access to more jobs.

> So some of the poor can better themselves by

> accessing better paid jobs. You're the one who

> wants to worsen our local rail services.

All I've seen once again in this thread is you trolling your way through yet another serious topic which between your diatribes has some very good points raised which you've been very quick to be rude to those who oppose your viewpoint.

Still, that's "old news" eh?

[Undisputedtruth]

I can tell that you're easily narked because you just resort to name calling. I don't think you know what trolling is.

Anyway, you've been exposed with your simplistic thinking and your hatred over the South London rail services. I will continue to fight for improvements on rail services for East Dulwich, Camberwell, Nunhead and Peckham.

[Eileen]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Cllr Hamvas,

> Your proposals, decided at February budget setting

> Council assembly, make the hurdle for residents to

> object to a planning application much higher.

> Planning applications will more often be decided

> by unelected council officials even when people

> have objected.

please can you say what the hurdles will be in future? Until this change 3 objections were needed to prevent decision by officers. What will it be in future?

[Bic Basher]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> I can tell that you're easily narked because you

> just resort to name calling. I don't think you

> know what trolling is.

>

> Anyway, you've been exposed with your simplistic

> thinking and your hatred over the South London

> rail services. I will continue to fight for

> improvements on rail services for East Dulwich,

> Camberwell, Nunhead and Peckham.

Oh dear UDT, the keyboard warrior strikes again with another classic diatribe. You clearly know what trolling is pal. Now go and buy yourself a ?1 ready meal, it'll help your superior creative mind when trolling at 4am.

[fredricketts]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Cllr Hamvas,

> Your proposals, decided at February budget setting

> Council assembly, make the hurdle for residents to

> object to a planning application much higher.

> Planning applications will more often be decided

> by unelected council officials even when people

> have objected.

please can you say what the hurdles will be in future? Until this change 3 objections were needed to prevent decision by officers. What will it be in future?

It appears idiots are now allowed to decide what is best for

Residents in there communities.No consideration for our way life.Big brothers

telling us whats good for us, when they have not got clue.just tow the party line.

[KalamityKel]

It's tick boxes... sadly there's no thinking (using ones brain) envolved in the processes these days!

[Eileen]

> James Barber Wrote:

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

> > Hi Cllr Hamvas,

> > Your proposals, decided at February budget

> setting

> > Council assembly, make the hurdle for residents

> to

> > object to a planning application much higher.

>

Eileen Wrote:

> please can you say what the hurdles will be in

> future? Until this change 3 objections were needed

> to prevent decision by officers. What will it be

> in future?

________________________________________________

I have heard from Cllr James Barber that the bar has been raised to 5 objections. This is a shame but it is not a calamitous bar to get over. It is crucial that the guidance to the public about how to object to a planning application makes it very clear what the new rule is and any constraints on what will be viewed as an objection.

Can any councillors reading this tell us what the latest guidance says, or the weblinks to it?

[Huguenot]

The motivations of the objectors are intriguing.

There seems to be a small but legitimate foundation of those in the immediate neighbourhood concerned about traffic and delivery management, but a huge rump engaged in class war hysteria.

Others aligned to a 'save our traditional high street' agenda seem wilfully and bizarrely blind to the fact that the current shop is that flagship of seventies clone high streets, an 'Iceland' store. A nastier example of plastic blandness is hard to find.

It's also a monstrous carbuncle of post war architecture for which a total facelift is a moral obligation, not an aesthetic conundrum.

There's even a disturbing subset of objectors who seem to be using this store application as a proxy to engage in right wing propaganda about too many immigrants having access to houses.

Oh, and of course we have a berserker contingent who are determined to prove this is the government stealing from us all. Doolally.

UDT is on some sort of uncontrolled rampage against M&S because other people are 'suckers to brands' at the same time as admitting that he never enters the store, and so any view he has must be based on prejudice and assumption derived entirely from the brand itself. Amazing. Delicious irony.

Most of those in support of M&S are simply interested because it seems to be a fairly straightforward convenience shop that delivers food marginally better than Vesta meals. This doesn't seem unreasonable surely? Apart from the fact that the application really has little to do with M&S and more to do with commercial expansion.

Hilarious.

[Michael Palaeologus]

Not forgetting the politicians, their main issue seems to be that it is not Waitrose who are moving in.

[Alan Medic]

I must disagree with H regarding the content of Iceland. Isn't Vesta a car manufacturer? Yes admittedly the building looks awful but that can be changed with a bit of rebranding. Its content however is excellent for those looking for things like milk, potatoes, veggie sausages and cheap wine. Add to that shampoo, toothpaste and baby wipes, with everything charged at a ?1, by the time you get to the checkout you know how much you have to pay and gives women no excuse to be fiddling around in their bags looking for their purses as if surprised they have to pay.It's a unique shopping experience.

[Huguenot]

Sorry AM, I wasn't saying that Iceland doesn't offer value, it most certainly does - apparently all of its fruit and veg is organic, who'da known?

I was commenting on the campaign to prevent an M&S.

If you want Iceland to stay that's another question entirely, for which you'd surely be better off petitioning Iceland themselves rather than the Southwark planning unit? After all, the planners can't force Iceland to stay can they? They can only prevent the freeholder's renovation works.

I imagine Iceland would be overjoyed about a local petition asking them to retain their presence on the ED vital community contribution list. You'd have TV cameras everywhere talking about it. Might be a bit embarrassing though.

You could get UDT to front it up ;-)

[Undisputedtruth]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> UDT is on some sort of uncontrolled rampage

> against M&S because other people are 'suckers to

> brands' at the same time as admitting that he

> never enters the store, and so any view he has

> must be based on prejudice and assumption derived

> entirely from the brand itself. Amazing. Delicious

> irony.

>

Actually I do enter M&S stores for self-smug satisfaction purpose that I know I can buy cheaper and better quality elsewhere. Also, I actively check out their clothing range as I'll probably die of embarrassment if people remotely thought one of clothes came from them.

But I think the most important point you've missed out is 'social inclusion' in that people on lower incomes are excluded from their high streets.

[Bic Basher]

I'm not really bothered about the building's 70s architecture. This for me is about the loss of what is the last really cheap food store on LL. (Londis is more expensive than Iceland on many products)

Admittedly I'd use the Simply Food store as their sandwiches are of good value, yet they won't sell the range of frozen ready meals Iceland currently stock for those who like their products.

So where do the frozen food customers go? Co-op? Possibly. Sainsburys. Maybe, but the range is nowhere as wide. So where does that leave your average customer? The Iceland in Peckham or the larger supermarkets.

[Huguenot]

Sure sure, but planning laws don't give you the opportunity to force Iceland to stay - they can only prevent the alteration works.

People keep talking as if protesting against the plans will force Iceland to stay. It won't.

Instead of complaining about M&S you should be protesting about this evil store Iceland that has simply walked off and dumped you in your hour of need. They didn't care about you, you we just a number to them, a wallet, a mark.

[KalamityKel]

Now now that's not particularly a fair thing to say... it would seem there is/was (I don't know where they're at with the idea of moving on) no choice... however as you've clearly pointed out as have I and others to which this application effects the choice/selection/wishes of which store occupies the site is not the question

[Huguenot]

The point was, if someone wants Iceland, attacking M&S or the planning application isn't going to bring them back.

I'm guessing that if you really want Iceland to take up the lease you should create a campaign group and contact Iceland head office, ask them to offer more for the lease, and you'll find the outcome would be useful.

They'd love the PR and it would be cheaper and more effective for them than a single page in the Daily Hate.

I don't really think that'll happen because apart from the small core of nearby residents with genuine concerns, the real motivator for the rump of protestors seems to be class war, immigration, anti government and a smattering of nimbyism.

I look forward to being proven wrong.

[LondonMix]

As you know, I agree. A lot of people have expressed a lot of views and at this point, I believe one of the cllrs should step in and clarify how to make a formal objection and what grounds will be considered. There are serious problems posed by the planning application and 5 legitimate objections need to be formally presented. For instance, even getting clarification on how close you need to live to the store to be able to raise concerns about noise and parking?

KalamityKel Wrote:

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

> Now now that's not particularly a fair thing to

> say... it would seem there is/was (I don't know

> where they're at with the idea of moving on) no

> choice... however as you've clearly pointed out as

> have I and others to which this application

> effects the choice/selection/wishes of which store

> occupies the site is not the question

[rch]

In order for an application to be referred to a planning committee, there now needs to be 5 or more "relevant" objections, i.e. objections that raise material planning considerations (it helps to cite relevant policies in your objections) or two councillors can ask for it to be referred, subject to agreement by the chair of the planning committee in consultation with the appropriate chief officer.

Here's a link to the PDF document, if the link doesn't work try Googling "Southwark Planning Committee and Planning Sub-Committees":-

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s29008/Appendix%201%20Planning%20committee%20and%20Planning%20Sub-Committees%20Roles%20and%20Functions.pdf

[Undisputedtruth]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> The point was, if someone wants Iceland, attacking

> M&S or the planning application isn't going to

> bring them back.

>

> I'm guessing that if you really want Iceland to

> take up the lease you should create a campaign

> group and contact Iceland head office, ask them to

> offer more for the lease, and you'll find the

> outcome would be useful.

>

> They'd love the PR and it would be cheaper and

> more effective for them than a single page in the

> Daily Hate.

>

> I don't really think that'll happen because apart

> from the small core of nearby residents with

> genuine concerns, the real motivator for the rump

> of protestors seems to be class war, immigration,

> anti government and a smattering of nimbyism.

>

> I look forward to being proven wrong.

You haven't read the thread, have you Hugo? Iceland have taken out legal action in an attempt to retain the lease so interesting news should follow in September. As for class war, you could be right, it's the middle classes with bad taste/can't cook mob having a pre-empt strike in removing working class shoppers from their local high street. The more discerning sections of the middle classes would turn their noses to everything m&s.

Above all else, the people living near to the development have every right to reject the m&S proposal as it impacts on their living environment.