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

[Angusvanfrehley]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> 16 Months later :- 96,361 Views 1,366 Posts.

>

> Nothing has changed.

>

> Iceland still there.

>

> DulwichFox

Quality!

[KalamityKel]

When might we hear the results of the appeal from last Wednesday?

[LondonMix]

Oh, did the hearing take place already. Wasn't aware of that.

[Louisa]

Welcome to ED the promised land for the middle classes, oops I mean Brixton, which is about to become home to a 'little Waitrose' convenience store.

Here's proof -

http://www.brixtonblog.com/waitrose-convenience-supermarket-coming-to-brixton/16054

More evidence ED's reputation is further slipping down the gentrification scale. Be afraid folks, I reckon at this rate Peckham will get one before we do. Haha such fun.

Louisa.

[lane lover]

Funny how some people feel a Waitrose mean an area is "gentrified". I prefer small independents to a busy high street full of chains.

Besides, your "proof" says that nothing has been decided about Brixton anyway. M&S have had "their eyes on" ED for some time.

ED was gentrified ages ago, whereas Brixton still has a way to go.

[James Barber]

M&S planinng appeal has been rejected by the planning inspector.

Please do read the attached report for the full details.

[Louisa]

I'm guessing Waitrose will take this site on now then James?

Louisa.

[Mick Mac]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> Food for thought

>

> The Waitrose effect: How upmarket supermarket can

> add 50% to the value of your home

>

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2316665/Wa

> itrose-effect-Living-near-supermarket-add-value-ho

> me-according-research-Savills.html?ico=news^headli

> nes

My view (and no i don't know any of the detail) on this is that a large section of ED people who could have benefitted from an M&S have lost the opportunity in order to protect the rights of a small group of households/concerns in the immediate vacinity. Shame.

[Zebedee Tring]

Personally I would welcome M&S (and indeed Waitrose) into ED. However, the application was unsuccessful not because of the identity of the applicant but because of the planning issues.

Would M&S be prepared to move into a store that was not refurbished to the same extent as that proposed in the unsuccessful planning application? That would stand a better chance of being accepted by Southwark. However, would such a scaled down development be economically viable as far as M&S is concerned?

[jonsuissy]

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> My view (and no i don't know any of the detail) on

> this is that a large section of ED people who

> could have benefitted from an M&S have lost the

> opportunity in order to protect the rights of a

> small group of households/concerns in the

> immediate vacinity. Shame.

You'd say the same if you were one of that small group right?

[Louisa]

My conclusion -

High streets failing up and down the country, an opportunity for a major retailer to move onto ours and its rejected. If I were Waitrose I'd not even bother. Once Iceland go shall we just have an empty shop? Maybe another estate agent or charity shop? Can't wait. :)

Louisa.

[tomk]

Admittedly read it v quickly, but large part of report seems to focus on the car park going. Have lived here for many years, including driving to LL, and honestly can say I don't know where the car park even is. Plus, didn't local residents vote against the CPZ?

[Vick]

Shame. Would have been a big boost to high street.

[Vick]

.

[unlurked]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> M&S planinng appeal has been rejected by the

> planning inspector.

> Please do read the attached report for the full

> details.

Hurrah

[Earl Aelfheah]

Why should those living just off the high street having difficulties finding a parking space, be of consideration here? What right does a resident have to park outside their house when they don't own the land? Is owning a car a right and if so, does that right then confer upon you additional privileges with regards the exclusive use of public space?

[ed_pete]

It would seem that the Inspector considered the parking issue:

"In addition, some incoming occupiers of the proposed flats may not be deterred by the ?parking stress? and could choose to own a car and also compete with existing residents for on-street car parking spaces. This would exacerbate the parking difficulties for neighbouring residents and, in so doing, harm their amenity and conflict with SP policies 3.2 and 5.6.

Extracts from the Southwark Plan below, (my bold).

Now you can disagree with the Southwark Plan and maybe try to influence the next version but that is the current plan and therefore the basis for the Inspector's assessment I guess, though I am no Town Planning expert, just a layman drawing together the available information.

Policy 3.2 Protection of amenity

222 Planning permission for development will not be granted where it would cause loss of amenity, including disturbance from noise, to present and future occupiers in the surrounding area or on the application site.

Reasons

223 To protect the amenity of an area and the quality of life for people living, or working in, or visiting the borough.

Policy 5.6 Car parking

432 All developments requiring car parking should minimise the number of spaces provided. Maximum standards are set out in Appendix 15.

433 Where more than 20 surface parking spaces are proposed, applicants must demonstrate why this cannot be provided underground or within the building.

434 All developments will be expected to include justification for the amount of car parking sought, taking into account:

i. Public Transport Accessibility Levels set out in Appendix 15; and

ii. The impact on overspill parking; and

iii. The demand for parking within the Controlled Parking Zones. The LPA will restrict permit provision where necessary.

435 Parking for retail and leisure uses within town centres should be shared with public parking, not reserved for customers of a particular development. Maximum stay restrictions are required for all retail and leisure town centre parking.

Reasons

436 Too many cars cause problems with congestion and pollution, increasing travel times and expense as well as causing health problems. With fewer car parking spaces available people will seek alternative modes of transport to the private car, subsequently reducing congestion and pollution.

437 Access to services, leisure, shops and a range of amenities by public transport and other alternative modes of transport to the private car must be considered when providing less car parking in order to ensure efficiency and social inclusion. Measures to control overspill parking are necessary in order to prevent or mitigate loss of amenity including inconvenience to local residents caused by overspill car parking and increased pressure on on-street spaces.

[HonaloochieB]

So, without going through the fine detail, it's all down to car bastards that I can't pick up that nice chicken and bacon sandwich, those lovely lentil sour cream chilli crisps and a tangy bottle of lemonade to wash them down with as I come home late after a hard day's service?

It would seem so.

Can't underestimate nimbyism's territorial span.

Or so it would seem.

[first mate]

It wasn't just parking, it was also the issue of early morning deliveries every day of the week and the noise and disturbance this would generate. There are also boundary and land ownership issues which are known about, although these points are only addressed obliquely in the statement.

For those that live in the immediate area it was quite clear that there was an attempt to stuff too much into the available space.

[tomk]

Think very local residents should be careful what they wish for. LL starting to look pretty run down in some places now - empty units etc.

[Earl Aelfheah]

There is great 'helicopter stress' on my street. It is virtually impossible to land a chopper outside my house. I'm assuming that the planning office will take this into account when approving any new developments. More cars = more helicopter stress.

[Mugglesworth]

I may be pointing out the obvious but there seems to be two conflicting arguments affecting this and the Morrisons thread.

One is: "Chain stores in ED will make it just another bog standard High Street, putting all the lovely independent shops out of business and pushing up rents".

The other: "What we really need in ED is a M&S / Waitrose / Nicole Farhi. It would be a great boost to my shopping options and to house prices".

My guess is that many proponents of the latter argument would be appalled at a Morrisons or Netto opening next to them. A chain store is a chain store but brand image makes all the difference. Advocates of the former argument may pay lip service to independent shops but make major shopping trips to Westfield, Bluewater or other "nicer" shopping centres.

Not sure if one argument is right and the other wrong but they can't both be right.

[BrandNewGuy]

tomk Wrote:

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

> Admittedly read it v quickly, but large part of

> report seems to focus on the car park going. Have

> lived here for many years, including driving to

> LL, and honestly can say I don't know where the

> car park even is. Plus, didn't local residents

> vote against the CPZ?

This is not in what was the proposed CPZ area. If anything, a CPZ puts stress on those streets just outside its boundaries, so the parking 'stress' at the proposed site would likely be even worse.

[James Barber]

Hi Louise,

Waitrose when I spoke with them were very clear they would be delighted to move in ASAP to the existing shop footprint.

They think it's fine and they anticipated the planning result M&S experts failed to foresee.

[James]

So that means we might get a Waitrose?

*AGOG*