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

[first mate]

puzzled,

you may not yet have gathered that the application is not about the brand of store...that is certainly not an issue on which it could or would be rejected by planning. It is the detail of the application, things like health and safety, boundaries,the size and scale of the buildings mooted, that have resulted in the rejection of the application. It fails to meet planning requirements.

[davidh]

I would have thought that getting m&s into lordship lane was a planning requirement.

[Goose]

I would say that most (but not all) would like to see a M+S food in East Dulwich. Surely they need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a different plan, particularly for the offices/ flats on the upper floors. Presumably it isn't the fact that it is M+S just the plans for the design for the upper floors and the issues with the deliveries. Can't they keep the delivery area the same as currently - presumably that would be acceptable to the residents and if M+S want more space use the 2nd floor as shop space or storage/ freezer space. That would then not create any parking issues either. Or are they being greedy and want the money from the flats ?

[Sue]

Goose Wrote:

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

> I would say that most (but not all) would like to

> see a M+S food in East Dulwich.

xxxxxx

What evidence do you base that statement on?

Have you done a survey? :)

[edhistory]

> I would say that most (but not all) would like to see a M+S food in East Dulwich.

And your evidence for this assertion?

John K

[Goose]

No survey ... just having read most of the 42 pages worth of posts on this forum over the last year. I did say most but not all, and I did say in East Dulwich, not necessarily instead of Iceland to try and avoid a M+S vs. Iceland discussion. It would be interesting for someone to do an independent survey - I don't think there has been one as part of the application process - can we have a vote on this forum ?

[first mate]

If the footprint and height of a new application was the same as the existing building, so that attempts were not being made to squeeze much more out of the same space, and the amount and timing of delivery/ vehicles was no different from those for Icleand, then I don't think residents would care who the shop brand was.

Goose what is your motivation for a vote??? The application has not been turned down on the basis that it is M&S.

[LondonMix]

Exactly. Also, the flats have nothing to do with M+S. That's a way for the freeholder to make money.

[puzzled]

john k et al

why would anyone not want m&s on lordship lane? they are anong the nost desired retail presences in the uk.

let us have your objections...... without the socio-policital prejudices.

as a retailer myself, I can tell you we all want them in.

[edhistory]

puzzled Wrote:

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

> john k et al

>

> why would anyone not want m&s on lordship lane?

> they are anong the nost desired retail presences

> in the uk.

>

> let us have your objections...... without the

> socio-policital prejudices.

Why me?

I have no objections to M&S coming to Lordship Lane.

My preference would be for M&S to take the Foxtons building.

John K

[Otta]

why would anyone not want m&s on lordship lane?

Why would anyone really care that much?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Doesn't the provision of a small car park actually increase the liklihood of people driving, with the knock on effects of increased traffic and congestion on surrounding streets?

[Worker]

I care what shops are on my local high street, 'cause that's where I shop. Not deeply, but I care.

Otta Wrote:

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

> why would anyone not want m&s on lordship lane?

>

>

>

> Why would anyone really care that much?

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

So does that mean Marks will or won't open shop eventually ?

I would love a Marks/waitrose, makes a change from CoOp, Tesco and Sainsbury's.

[Otta]

Worker Wrote:

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

> I care what shops are on my local high street,

> 'cause that's where I shop. Not deeply, but I

> care.

>

> Otta Wrote:

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

> -----

> > why would anyone not want m&s on lordship lane?

> >

> >

> >

> > Why would anyone really care that much?

Cool, I just found puzzled's post funny. Like they couldn't believe that anyone in the world would not desperately want an M&S.

[Jeremy]

I doubt I'd use an M&S much, but I'd probably pop in now and again. Sainsbury's is more conveninent for me for evening shopping. M&S sell better steaks I guess, and some nice puddings.

[LondonMix]

Anyone heard if they are willing to change the redevelopment plans or will M&S abandon the idea if they can't get the extra space required by expanding into the parking lot?

Didn't James mention at the beginning of the thread that Waitrose would take the space as is (presumably for less rent)? What are the prospects of Iceland now remaining or the site becoming vacant?

Any news / gossip welcome!

[Mazza6]

I would love M & S on Lordship Lane ... there I said it! Love the ?10 weekend deal.

[davidh]

the least surprising post was from the almighty james barber who does not like the idea of 24-hours co-op shopping. he appears not to like the idea of m&s either although it is difficult to pin him down on definitive answers. barber is a councillor for a ward. he is not in any position of power, thank god. he is very good on little local issues, but for god's sake keep him away from anything big

[bil]

I hope M&S do make it onto LL. Maybe the old and empty police station might be another option.

[Penguin68]

I am assuming that Iceland is still planning to close in Lordship Lane? - which means that we will lose a significant shop without gaining another - so those who resisted the plans will now be living amidst a blighted high street - perhaps we can have another charity shop there?

As the rot sets in, the Co-op will probably re-think its opening policy - why invest resource in a failing area? - and so it will go.

At least, when nobody wants to come here, parking will ease - and we will all need cars to drive out to where there are shops.

So, well done everybody, job done!

[davidh]

I am astonished at penguin68's bonkers that lordship lane is failing. the determination of m&s to open up here in spite of the barber's of this world is clear evidence that this magnificent shopping street is surviving and soon once again thriving.

[Penguin68]

Every occasion has tipping points. The blocking of the plans for the Iceland site seems to have stemmed from objections about deliveries and about the loss of the parking amenity behind the store ? both would be necessary to M&S?s operation ? the storage area behind the store now is far too small ? fine for the Iceland model of storing everything in freezers in-store, but not for the M&S model which requires better (less intensive) in-store display. [i doubt whether flats in place of offices will have caused that much of a planning problem, considering the shortage of living accommodation across London].

So no Iceland, no M&S, one of the largest retail spaces on the road empty (or a charity shop) ? (with another large space already a charity shop) ? suddenly LL starts to look blighted, and destination shops such as M&S (or Waitrose) don?t move into blighted retail areas. A smooth transition between Iceland and M&S wouldn?t have been an issue ? but I doubt M&S will be seeking another site, once its sees the gaping hole in the street that ex-Iceland will be.

In a time of slow economic growth companies such as M&S invest in certainties, they don?t speculate ? and LL is now looking like a retail basket case. It?s still good for eating and drinking ? and it may remain a revelling destination ? but as a shopping street this could have been the nail in the coffin. There are lots of areas that are full of middle class 30 somethings who will spend money at high-end grocers ? and many of these are also not full of Nimbys trying to keep nasty commerce away from them.

That?s where M&S (and Waitrose) will go, and good luck to them. We have sown, now we can reap.

[Worker]

I wonder if those that object to the application on the basis of parking pressures are aware of the many other applications for additional rooms, new houses or B&B's currently pending or already approved for ED? The level of upset with this application seems disproportionate.

Good to see the EDT planning to set up B&B rooms though. Presume the guests will not have cars.

[*Bob*]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

.. as a shopping street this could have been the nail in the coffin.

So what you're saying is that apart from the butcher, the various greengrocers (traditional, specialist) the fishmonger, the wine shops, the diy shop, the post office, the stationers and card shops, the banks, the various clothes shops, the delicatessen, the specialist cheese shop, all packed into about 150 yeards - apart from these - because we don't have ready access to Cheese Tasters and aspirational food for terminally lazy - we're doomed?

I think we'll be ok. (I will miss the Cheese Tasters though)