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

[Cora]

Aldi won WHICH supermarket of the year...again, think you're more worried about image than reality!

[linzbee]

Waitrose would be much better than M&S or iceland.

being so close to central london people should be using public transport or cycling, there should be no need for a car and if you do need a car use zipcar... much better for the environment and the local community and would reduce congestion on lordship lane.

having people drive 200m just to buy a loaf of bread is wasteful and happens far to much already.

[KalamityKel]

gedwina Wrote:

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

> First Mate - The car wash has nothing to do with

> the m&s and a CPZ would solve this problem. This

> is a current problem as seen by threads on this

> forum.

>

> Are the 8 spaces fully used or are they the car

> park for the Iceland? Are they used by

> householders? - if so this could be a problem

> otherwise it will be no change to present use.

>

> How does the current shop get stock? Do they use

> "extremely large lorries"? or very small ones?.

> Currently there seems to be no issue with the

> Iceland lorries and I am sure that this will be

> the case with M%S.

>

> All I can see from the planning is the removal of

> 8 spaces which is minimal. Parking will always be

> a problem in East Dulwich and London as a whole.

Deliveries are not arranged much before 8am with Iceland as proposed in the application - 6am deliveries! Would an agreement/arrangment be put in place for drivers to ensure their engines are switched off if they arrive earlier than planned and had to wait to gain access as is the case with Iceland?

Also, Iceland lorries will not be facing the restricted space, through the considerate loss of carparking area, in which to manuever entering and exiting. Would you like to be a resident having to put up with being disturbed at all hours in the night/morning with the annoying beeps of a large vehicle reversing especially at the clever little mention (in the application) of possible night deliveries?

It seems little practical thought has been considered with this particular issue within the application.

[DulwichDeviant]

DELETED

[Sue]

aicardo Wrote:

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

> Here here! I can't bare the crapness of products

> sold at the Co-Op and those flaming queues!

xxxxxx

Never a queue at the wonderful M&S, of course.

And a lot of the stuff the Co-Op sells is very good.

[DulwichDeviant]

DELETED

[alice]

so the planning application doesn't mention m&s - couldn't iceland just be expanding? using the sale of the flats to finance the extension

[James Barber]

Hi alice,

The freeholder who has applied for planning permission talks about M&S.

Seperately I know the Iceland lease is close to ending. I'd be amazed if Iceland would offer as much rent as M&S would/have.

I'm also clear that Waitrose would like the site as is without the extension - and I've spoken at length to them about options.

Hope this helps.

[taper]

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> -----

> > What can M&S offer that cannot already be

> bought

> > on Lordship Lane or Sainsburys

>

>

> Cheese Tasters.

And Percy Pigs. Read the damn thread. Oh and microwaveable mashed potato.

[edhistory]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> I'm also clear that Waitrose would like the site

> as is without the extension - and I've spoken at

> length to them about options.

Mr Barber.

On which date did you start discussions with Waitrose?

John K

[showboat]

Worker Wrote:

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

> So we're only concerned about those independent

> shops who sell 'posh' food

Well, first of all define posh! If by that you mean places selling higher grade stuff at an understandbly higher price then yes. But that's supply and demand around here. So I suppose yes, they are the ones selling what you call posh food. But as I said, I've come to the conclusion that M+S have as much right to be there as SMBS and Moxons. We choose where to spend our money, and if a place we like goes out of business that's a market economy at work. It's up to us to support them if we want them to stay, rather than shouting that the big chains shouldn't come here at all.

Lordship Lane many moons ago was a much more, shall we say down at heel place. This is the price of progress, the big kids want to be here now. Not much we can do other than vote with our wallets.

[StraferJack]

It IS amazing what people will gravitate to when it's easy and in their face tho

[Eileen]

Lowlander Wrote:

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

> I'm refuting the argument that it's quicker to

> pick up a ready meal every day rather than cook

> from scratch. I fully appreciate that a lot of

> people don't enjoy cooking. There are many things

> I don't enjoy!

For someone who doesn't like cooking or food prep it is a chore, and chores usually take longer, or seem to, than things we like...

[minder]

Jeremy, going back to your comment on the first page; do you really think people are going to go all the way to park in Sainsburys, just to shop in a Marks & Sparks on Lordship Lane? Can't see that happening myself, especially as Sainsburys sell more or less the same stuff.

M&S food sells at ridiculous prices, yet they have the cheek to ask women to bring in their old clothes for Oxfam!

Couldn't some of their profits from their food prices go to Oxfam?

[Marmora Man]

alice Wrote:

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

> so the planning application doesn't mention m&s -

> couldn't iceland just be expanding? using the

> sale of the flats to finance the extension

Alice - if you look at the plans attached to the application it shows an M&S "Simply Food" frontage - which is a pretty good indicator that an M&S is what is planned.

[the-e-dealer]

Most Retailers use M&S as a bell-weather. If they move in they will follow.

[Jeremy]

minder Wrote:

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

> Jeremy, going back to your comment on the first

> page; do you really think people are going to go

> all the way to park in Sainsburys, just to shop in

> a Marks & Sparks on Lordship Lane?

Sorry, that's not what I meant... I meant that if parking is important to you, use Sainsburys instead. Most of the food is not that much different.

[cl]

As a resident of Chesterfield Grove, I have no objection to the principle of an M&S coming to the area, and can see that it could have some benefits. BUT there has to be balance and the population of the surrounding area needs to be considered. Having read the proposal in detail, it is quite obvious that the real effect on the immediate locality is not adequately addressed, no doubt in an effort to push it through.

Someone made a comment that parking difficulties are not a good reason to stop popular shops coming to LL. But I would argue that the issue here is not M&S in its own right, but the combination of the new (very popular, and enlargened) shop, the current car park being taken away, and the 8 new flats without parking that taken TOGETHER makes this a depressing prospect for residents in the immediate vicinity. I question whether all of these things are necessary.

Whilst it is easy for those who do not live on these roads to be flippant about the impact, for those that do these issues are very real.

[KalamityKel]

It's not an issue over having M&S move in or not. Regardless the space will be used by some big retail business or other. So arguing over what's for dinner is completely pointless and off topic so, those guilty of such interference kindly remove yourselves from this thead.

It's also not just about parking, again residents would be facing the situation regardless of it being an M&S or not. CPZ is NOT the answer at all!

There are so many factors to be considered.

Some such as:

As mentioned already by decreasing the carpark area there will be difficulties with delivery vehicles.

Lighting at the rear for residents of the new residential properties - I mean one would assume that lighting would be added so occupants can "see their bikes from their windows" at all times of day. Also for security additional/differently placed lighting would need to be considered.

Security in general. Iceland is already known to have problems in this area - much of the area is exposed and easily accessible so would things change considerably to improve this? What would the implications be to the surrounding area (at the rear of the building).

Delievery and opening times are ill thought (as mentioned already).

The front design is ridiculous. ED is NOT a "town centre". ED just happens to have a high street. Such a design is completely not in keeping with the surrounding area. Agreed, it would be different from the current uninspiring frontage but seriously? Even Maccy D's wouldn't have been so bold!

There is no mention of the inclusion of neighbouring streets in consultation which should have been top of the list to prevent people getting the pitch forks out and storming the streets of ED. Do they (those on the application) truly understand the local environment and will be able to anticipate and resolve problems amicably. An early demonstration of this (by the inclusion at the consulation stage) I'm sure would have gone in their favour.

[first mate]

kalamitykel,

Yes, given the size of the proposed planning application I am surprised there has not been a huge heads up to residents on the surrounding streets. All this must have been underway at the time of the CPZ consultation.

[kimblecake]

I love living in East Dulwich and love browsing the independent shops of Lordshop Lane - but there's no way I can afford to shop in the majority of them OR in M&S... Replacing the Iceland will just mean more time spent walking into Peckham for basics.

[the-e-dealer]

Huge heads up? You can find the date when they applied on the application

[gedwina]

Perhaps I was a little flippant about the parking - but surely if Iceland is giving up the lease then this will leave a vacant plot. If Marks and Sparks don?t take over the unit this will leave it open to other retailers. I for one would prefer M&S over Tescos / Wetherspoons.

[the-e-dealer]

How about a nice estate agent with free coffee?

[Penguin68]

Iceland will make/ may have made a decision based on quite clear calculations - what revenue/ profit per square foot/ metre are they earning from their Lordship Lane site and how does that compare with - other close stores/ their regional/ national averages etc.?

If their Lorship Lane site is a high earner/ highly profitable, then they will strive to keep it (taking account of additional costs associated with refurbishment which may be coming up, increased rentals etc.). If it is a poor performer they may be happier to withdraw. An 'average' performer where there may be a call for an expensive refit may be unattractive as profits (as opposed to revenues) may drop when cost of refurbishment is taken into account.

They also may have a siting strategy based on cachment - undoubtedly the social mix of ED has changed, which may mean that their concentration of target customer groups has reduced. If they perceive that this trend will continue, they may want to get out before their store becomes socially isolated.

End of a lease is always a good time to review positions. It may also be that whereas the planning application suggests someone is keen to spend money on developing the site, that may not be Iceland's strategy regarding its sites - so the site may actually be more attractive (because it offers greater options) to someone other than Iceland who has different site development strategies.