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

[rch]

No, planning is a quasi-judicial process, all decisions have to comply with national, London, borough, and local legislation.

This is about creating a space within certain parameters - forget M&S, even the inspector notes in his decision notice that there is no guarantee that M&S will occupy that space. It's nothing to do with brand, it's to do with how a space can be used.

Once the space is created, anything can happen... a future application for change of use could render it as a betting shop, estate agent, restaurant cum wine bar cum nightclub.

The only way to encourage healthy development of an area is to delineate the space according to existing legislation, which is exactly what the inspector did.

I would encourage you to go back and read the inspectors decision notice very carefully.

[AbDabs]

Calsug Wrote:

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

> You're kidding me right? Maybe I am missing some

> "grander thinking" point but surely any

> development in this economic climate is a good

> thing - why are these stores seen as a threat

> instead of increasing footfall and pulling people

> away from the larger supermarkets like the

> Sainsburys which is "out of town"? ....

Development is only good when it brings something to the area without taking anything away. Unfortunately we all only eat so much. Unless vast numbers started driving in from elsewhere (car parking?) then M&S would drive away those who love Iceland (that may benefit Peckham which needs a lift though) and the net increase in footfall might indeed come from Sainsburys. But I somehow doubt Sainsbo's would be chuffed if that happened and would fight back. Unfortunately they wouldn't fight M&S (as that happens on a national rather than local level), they'd fight the local shop keepers by undercutting on products that M&S don't supply.

[James Barber]

Hi HelBel65,

Entirely upto the freeholder.

But I'd expect them to make a quick decision OR extend Iceland lease beyond January. But Iceland may decide with Xmas and New Year out of the way they'd prefer to not extend.

So I'd expect the freeholder to get cracking deciding what they'd like to try next.

Hi rch,

Thanks for showing such a keen interest.

The car wash does cause no end of issues for some Chesterfield Grove residents. So resolving those and potentially them relocating to less problematic location coudl be a win win. But that depends on some pretty big decisions and offers by the current land owners.

Thankjs AbDabs. I agree with you all development isnt automatically good as Calsug postulates.

HelBel65 Wrote:

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

> When will we find out?

[onthemove123]

I think it's a wonderful idea - it will add a bit of class to the area and hardly anybody goes into Iceland. If the council put parking restrictions in the side streets off Lordship Lane so only residents can park there, it won't cause a problem. There are hundreds of M&S' that don't have parking and they are packed as they deliver quality food. M&S is also reasonably priced and to be honest, to get some nice bread that doesn't cost a fortune would be nice for a change.

[spider69]

Hardly anyone goes into Iceland. You must be living in a different road on another planet.

I feel sure some of the wonderful less busy independents would welcome Icelands foot fall.

[Calsug]

James Barber Wrote:

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

>

> Thankjs AbDabs. I agree with you all development

> isnt automatically good as Calsug postulates.

>

> HelBel65 Wrote:

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

No more of a postulation than your comments James, but I suppose everyone in entitled to their opinions - unless your comments are based on some hard research instead of the consensus you have obtained from the forum . I am intrigued as to why you personally though are so anti the development and if the council has actually given any constructive feedback instead of blocking approval every time M&S try - Surely they (M&S) are not dim enough to keep on trying with plans that they know you will reject.

[James Barber]

Hi Calsug,

I'm against developers stating clearly ridiculous things such as closing a car park, adding 8 flats, will see no increase in the alleged non existant parking stress.

That having deliveries by HGV along Chesterfield Grove from 6am will not be an issue.

Ironically such arrogance is contrary to the M&S brand values I'd imagine M&S are trying to instill in us all.

I've promoted a cinema for Lordship Lane. That's hardly any development.

[nxjen]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Calsug,

> I'm against developers stating clearly ridiculous

> things such as closing a car park, adding 8 flats,

> will see no increase in the alleged non existant

> parking stress.

> That having deliveries by HGV along Chesterfield

> Grove from 6am will not be an issue.

>

> Ironically such arrogance is contrary to the M&S

> brand values I'd imagine M&S are trying to instill

> in us all.

>

**LIKE**

It would be nice to know, though I doubt it will be possible, is how much of the proposal was based on input from M&S and how much from the freeholder.

[AlexC]

James Barber Wrote:

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

>

> I've promoted a cinema for Lordship Lane. That's

> hardly any development.

Is there any news on that? I had a Lib Dem person canvasing on my doorstep a couple of weeks back and they told me the new cinema had been secured, but I didn't think that was the case as yet?

[Steviedulwich]

Ive completely lost the plot with this thread are we getting M&S or not...? I personally cant wait.. I have to drive to Beckenham at the moment ...and oh yes I also support the independents in LL but sometimes I want convenience. ...so ...when are we getting M&S or even better still Waitrose ?

[first mate]

Calsug,

I think you may be overlooking the possibility that those against can simply be worn down over time by repeated applications that vary slightly each time. There are only so many times people can be galvanised to object, even if they really don't want a development. It is not so much M&S/the developer being dim, but them wanting something enough to try every possible angle to get it.

Calsug Wrote:

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

> James Barber Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> >

> > Thankjs AbDabs. I agree with you all

> development

> > isnt automatically good as Calsug postulates.

> >

> > HelBel65 Wrote:

> >

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

>

>

> No more of a postulation than your comments James,

> but I suppose everyone in entitled to their

> opinions - unless your comments are based on some

> hard research instead of the consensus you have

> obtained from the forum . I am intrigued as to why

> you personally though are so anti the development

> and if the council has actually given any

> constructive feedback instead of blocking approval

> every time M&S try - Surely they (M&S) are not dim

> enough to keep on trying with plans that they know

> you will reject.

[KalamityKel]

Exactly!

[unlurked]

unlurked Wrote:

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

> > James Barber Wrote:

> >

> -

> > -----

> > But you have always wanted Waitrose om the Lane

> > haven't you JB? Did you not start a thread 3 or

> 4

> > years ago trying to generate support for your

> > plans? What is it about Waitrose that

> you

> > have been pushing for it for years?

>

> You seem to have missed this, James.

Thanks for the partial reply, James, but what about the second bit, (above)? I would also be interested how you select, and approach a retailer and entice them to an area?

[Steviedulwich]

So it sounds like im the only person in Dulwich who wants M&S....Im sorry for being such a heathen :-D

[Zebedee Tring]

Stevie, you certainly aren't the only person in Dulwich who wants M&S.

[HelBel65]

I am a supporter of the M+S/ Waitrose idea but didn't like the look of the M+S proposal, I think most reasonable people could see that it would not have been much fun for the immediate residents (I'm on Overhill, miles away!) Easy to make accusations of NIMBYism when you aren't affected yourself! If Waitrose now come forward with a proposal that doesn't negatively affect nearby residents, I'm all for it :)

[Jeremy]

As it is, the store would still be a very good size for M&S Simply Food. I can think of several much smaller branches. Don't see why M&S wouldn't take it as it is.

[StraferJack]

"Driving to beckenham for a bit of convenience"

Too funny

[Millhaven]

"Driving to beckenham for a bit of convenience"

StraferJack wrote:

"Too funny"

Very funny indeed, considering there is an M&S in Brixton.

[the-e-dealer]

Put in on Frieen. Demolish the School!

[LondonMix]

There is a large on in Brixton.

[Frankito]

Ffs, it's only a supermarket... Just build it and let's get shopping...!!! I do prefer Waitrose over M&S although I realise I can't be too fussy in these uncertain times! :0)

[KalamityKel]

Frankito Wrote:

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

> Ffs, it's only a supermarket... Just build it and

> let's get shopping...!!! I do prefer Waitrose over

> M&S although I realise I can't be too fussy in

> these uncertain times! :0)

What a perfect idea! Especially right next door to where you live yes?

How easy is it for others not to understand the effects it will have on neighbouring buildings especially when they dont live nearby or have any understanding of the proposed work - ooo sounds much like m&s too!

[unlurked]

What KK said.

[Mick Mac]

the-e-dealer Wrote:

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

> Put in on Frieen. Demolish the School!

Frieen - Is that you just typing it the way you say it ed?