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

[macrobana]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

>

> So far as I can tell, the views of joe public are

> simply there to add flavour

Much as I thought.

[first mate]

Soutnwarks own guidelines on planning consultations:

What can I comment on?

The following checklist gives examples of the type of thing you can comment on that will be taken into account in deciding the application:

Design and size of the development

Use proposed

Traffic generation and parking

Will it be a nuisance because of noise etc

Will it fit in with the surrounding area

Will it affect my amenity in terms of daylight, privacy etc.

How it complies with planning policies and guidance

Possible Section 106 planning contributions or benefits for the community that could be secured from the proposal

Any other relevant material planning or environmental issues.

[Marmora Man]

First mate - items 1 - 6 are within your remit to comment upon if you are a close neighbour.

[first mate]

Marmora Man,

Thanks and it is good to know that those comments will be "taken into account in deciding the application".

So immediate neighbours need a little more time to digest and consider the application properly, perhaps seeking advice about bits they do not understand so they can make informed comments.

[Huguenot]

Not really, the only influence you have is opinion. Share it. It requires no delaying tactics. Spend 20 minutes.

So long as what developers propose is within legal constraints, and councillors don't believe it is in conflict with the greater community, developers are within their rights to monetize their property as they wish.

Is this not reasonable?

[first mate]

Huguenot, an opinion can be vague and ill-informed or it can be based on facts. The fact is that the last proposal was rejected, possibly in part because of pertinent objections raised by locals. On that basis there will be those who want to compare this new application to the last one, to see what the differences, if any, there are and to comment. These are not delaying tactics. It is also the case that planners occasionally miss details which are in breach of planning guidelines, but which are picked up by members of the public- I believe this was the case with the last application.

[Marmora Man]

First Mate: It takes about two or three hours at the most to review a planning application. Roughly equal to a god night's homework for a 6th former or some light take home work of a busy executive.

If after that short review you feel there are matters that require more detail, information or investigation you can:

a. Commission the work yourself

b. Ask the council's planning dept to explain the points to you.

c. Raise an objection that these particular points are bot defined clearly enough and ask the Council to give more time for those affected by the application to research and consider them. If your point is sensible and well made the Council has the authority to do this - if it is frivolous they will dismiss it.

It is, as Hugenot has implied, wrong is to frustrate the normal process of a normal planning application by a normal business thru' inappropriate delaying tactics and crying foul.

[macrobana]

Marmora Man Wrote:

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

>

Know your place little man.

[first mate]

Ho hum.

[the-e-dealer]

No the plan has to comply with current planning policy and the Council's Unitary Development Plan.

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Not really, the only influence you have is

> opinion. Share it. It requires no delaying

> tactics. Spend 20 minutes.

>

> So long as what developers propose is within legal

> constraints, and councillors don't believe it is

> in conflict with the greater community, developers

> are within their rights to monetize their property

> as they wish.

>

> Is this not reasonable?

[Huguenot]

That's true - and the people tasked with making that review are the elected Planning Committee, not joe public. We don't try and run government by referendum, and we shouldn't do it to the planning process either. It's called representative democracy.

If Joe public wants to interfere in that process (without legal influence) then 3 weeks is quite enough time to form an opinion and send off a letter.

[first mate]

Huguenot,

In your view. Though I think it is slightly absurd to portray the reasonable concerns of neighbours as malicious interference in process, delaying tactics and attempts to drive the freeholder to bankruptcy and ruin. That sounds much more conspiratorial.

It will take some time to get through the application, to compare it with the last, as well as research some areas that appear to be problematic. A degree of planning savvy and know how is required to do that properly. A little more time, beyond 3rd January, would be helpful. We are talking days not months. However, James Barber indicates that this is not an absolute deadline, so we'll see.

Have you read either application by the way?

[Huguenot]

No first mate - as I said, it was from an amicus curiae perspective.

I don't necessarily believe that a local interest has to be a delaying tactic, I just think that the locals are trying to do the job that they pay planning officers to do, and elected the councillors to oversee.

In order to do that it would clearly take a long time for dilletantes to get up to speed.

In my own company if I see this taking place - particularly sales people trying to do 'operations' roles - it's both disruptive and counter-productive.

The way to judge the performance of the councillors in relation to planning activities is at the ballot box, not by trying to do their job for them.

[first mate]

Well you on the one hand you accuse those wishing to lodge concerns as being dilettantes and on the other criticise them for asking for a little more time to gather information from more knowledgable sources.

Councillors or planners do not always know everything about an application. There are good planning decisions and there are not so good and I imagine that the devil is often in the detail. So this is not a judgement of councillors or planners, it is simply being realistic in trying to make the very most of the consultation opportunity.

Actually it won't take that long to get across this, but it is my understanding (I may be wrong) that most planning applications take about 8-13 weeks to be considered, less than seems to be the case here.

[bonaome]

first mate Wrote:

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

> bonaome, so you'd rather no be involved?

I'm involved. I read through all of the materials of the last application very carefully and wrote to the planning officer with my views. Over Christmas, I'll read through all of the new materials in detail (I've only scanned them so far - busy old run up to Christmas at work) and I'll then write again to the planning officer with my views.

BTW: You keep saying that the previous application was rejected. This isn't true. It was withdrawn before a decision had been made.

[first mate]

bonaome,

Yes, you're are right on that.

[fredricketts]

As a resident living close by to this and other developments, going on in East Dulwich, I am not

concerned so much, as who takes over Icelands, What I am concerned about is the impact, that with

more flats, and people, it will have on our way of life as residents, who have to put up with more

speeding cars, more traffic congestion and pollution, less parking spaces, and parking space rage

along with the violence, and more rubbish in the streets. This is what is already happening.

Whatever, anyone on this site, can do to help stop the rot that is setting in East Dulwich, by objecting to these

plans.

I say thank you.

[bemusED]

and there I was, thinking it was the season of goodwill...

fredricketts Wrote:

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

> As a resident living close by to this and other

> developments, going on in East Dulwich, I am not

>

> concerned so much, as who takes over Icelands,

> What I am concerned about is the impact, that with

>

>

> more flats, and people, it will have on our way of

> life as residents, who have to put up with more

>

> speeding cars, more traffic congestion and

> pollution, less parking spaces, and parking space

> rage

>

> along with the violence, and more rubbish in the

> streets. This is what is already happening.

>

> Whatever, anyone on this site, can do to help stop

> the rot that is setting in East Dulwich, by

> objecting to these

>

> plans.

>

> I say thank you.

[Calsug]

fredricketts - Anyone would think the intention was to put an open prison or a drug rehab centre on this site from the tone of your post! I doubt a block of flats with more than likely couples will add to the violence and "rot" if anything - more people means more money for the local area and businesses! I don't think that the new owners will be organising illegal drag races down lordship lane either...

Sorry I rarely post on the "sensitive" to east Dulwich topics but if we are being honest here I think it boils down to one thing - the people who have been in east Dulwich for many years simply don't want an M&S as for them this is the removal of a cheap supermarket on their doorstep and i fully understand why people are irked by it and what it represents but suggesting all other reasons listed above I find hard to believe.

For the record I don't care if another Iceland goes there, M&S food is overrated and over priced the only thing I would like is something that is less ugly and more aesthetically in keeping with the surrounding stores.

[first mate]

The issue is not M&S, it is the size and ambition of the application and how well it fits with the available space/location.

[Gadge]

In response to Calsug

"the people who have been in east Dulwich for many years simply don't want an M&S as for them this is the removal of a cheap supermarket on their doorstep"

Sorry Calgug but I disagree. Amongst the people that have lived in East Dulwich for some time I think the ratio for and against would be similar to the general population of East Dulwich. That's because a lot of the longer term Ed residents do eat quality food. If you talk to the older residents they will tell you that some time ago there was a tesco at budgens, a Woolworth at foxton's, a butcher, a fishmonger, multiple green grocers, multiple bakers, deli,s etc on lordship lane and I am not saying that those times were better. Rightly or wrongly the big increase to the high street has been estate agents, bars, and restaurants which as change goes has not been bad.

M&S is a welcome addition to the high street and it doesn't result in a complete change of use

[macrobana]

Gadge Wrote:

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

>

> M&S is a welcome addition to the high street

Wrong tense.

[Mick Mac]

Bore off Macrobana. In any tense.

[macrobana]

Child.

[Zebedee Tring]

The last time that I remember reading or hearing such insults was in the playground when I was about 12 years ago (many, many years ago). It would be a good idea either to continue the debate in rational terms or to close the thread down.

If that doesn't appeal to you, why don't you arrange to meet and just have a damn good fist fight?