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

[jonsuissy]

Re the 8 flats - aren't there flats already above the current Iceland? If so, the effect might be minimal from those.

Not from the shoppers of course though.

[bemusED]

I'm an architect and i've looked at the plans submitted

from the plans it is clear that the existing store has basically NO back of house storage which makes it unviable for a new retail tenant to simply move in if iceland have to leave. No serious retail tenant would take on this unit without notable alterations to provide adequate back of house - it would likely become yet another estate agent which add nothing to the daily lives of those who live here

the proposed retail shopfloor is marginally bigger than Iceland is currently. the proposed ground floor extension provides a suitable back of house storage area which could actually mean FEWER deliveries

the height of the residential units is the SAME as the existing building - the volume of the second floor accommodation is identical to the existing

the actual volume of the residential units at first floor level will REDUCE as it removes the projections towards the rear and replaces them with gardens

the vacant floors over the retail are being upgraded to become a modest development of 8 residential apartments - in line with council and government policy

Anyone who lives centrally in East Dulwich can benefit from its great facilities, particularly the rejuvenated high street. Others will come to shop on Lordship Lane, and yes some will come by car. If you are lucky enough to live on Chesterfield Grove, Ashbourne Grove etc then the luxury of living in such a central location will always have the downside of shoppers sometimes parking outside your house. I get it too on market days - that's life.

the complete consultation list is on the website

this is a simply food store - no bras etc

CONCLUSION

this is a very modest proposal which will give this unit a future and releases vacant floors for housing in a central location - hard to see why the council would refuse it

[Shaggy]

Thanks bemusED for your very informative post.

[first mate]

bemusED,

Good to have informed input.

To my uneducated eye it looked as thought the overall footprint of the proposed development would be larger than the existing development. The application states that the same type/size of lorry will be used for delivery (up to 6 a day, with some very early morning and night deliveries on the adgenda). The beeping sound these lorries make when trying to park is very loud. They will also, it seems, be trying to park in a much smaller sapce than before- this is likely to take more time.

Assuming each of the residents has a car that is 8 more cars on the street (the application states that parking for residents and for retail traffic is not factored in).

There already exists a very busy car wash which parks client cars along the street to wait to be washed. This allows clients the marvellous service of going off and shopping while the car gets moved in and off the street for washing. Sometimes this includes yellow line parking. The carwash appears to have a 'special' arrangement with wardens with reference to parking on yellow lines.

Factor in the liklihood of those who will want to drive in and park to shop at a desirable shop like M&S and I think this amounts to an enormous pressure on parking on the surrounding streets.

The street also services those who like to visit and park to go to Northcross road market.

CPZ is not the answer long term and that debate has already been done to death.

My solutions would be to put a clause into the 8 resident leaseholds for the proposed development to say they will not own cars. The development is being sold on the basis of eco credentials, so this does not seem unreasonable.

The carwash cannot park client cars on the street. They have an enclosed space- use it and if capacity does not meet demand then perhaps they need new premises.

Deliveries by articulated lorry to be made early morning and late at night to the front of the store on LL- we are talking before 5am so it should not be a major problem for traffic on LL. This would mean residents are not disturbed in the early hours by noise.

[gedwina]

Once again back to the parking!

[Zebedee Tring]

At first sight I was very pleased at the prospect of M&S coming to ED. However, when looking at the summary of the proposals, I was concerned about the potential traffic generation and parking issues. Now, having read the views of bemusED, I am satisfied that M&S will largely be able to meet the most serious objections to the application, subject that is to anything else that posters who are professionals such as architects and planners say about it.

[El Pibe]

Oh how disapointing. I was hoping for a Foxtons, or may be an M&S.

Wood Iceland consider opening a place their, I luv there frozen food?

[the-e-dealer]

I'm sure the residents of Lordship Lane will be delighted with pre 5am deliveries!

[James Barber]

hi First mate,

It does appear some overlap with Council Planning Officers arranging and holding meeting while the CPZ was being decided.

[first mate]

e-dealer,

Yes, it is rather early, that was my concern too.

[cl]

bemusED,

I am certainly bemused by your view that people living on Chesterfield/Ashbourne Grove are lucky to do so, and therefore should essentially just live with it. Most people have either been in these streets for many years and/or inherited homes through family, or have more recently already paid a premium to move into them, and all have every right to raise their concerns/objections, rather than putting up with it because they are ?lucky?.

In proposing a development where they extend a premises to house an extremely popular shop, take an existing car park away, and add 8 residential units without parking provision of their own, on a street that is already extremely congested and hard enough to park on, the populace in the immediate vicinity have not been considered.

Not all of this needs to be done - a middle ground could be sought.

As for your point that no other retail tenant would take this plot on as it is, please refer to James Barber?s earlier post on this string - ?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.?

And Im not sure I agree with your point about deliveries. The shop-floor is being extended (ie, more products to sell), and sells far more perishables than Iceland (frozen goods) so I think it is absolutely reasonable to assume that it will therefore need more frequent deliveries. Furthermore, the proposed schedule shows they will be taking place much earlier than Iceland.

I support a thriving LL with good businesses on it ? it is the heart of the area and one of its major attractions. By all means lets have an M&S and Waitrose, but lets just ensure that development plans are reasonable and sensitive to the local area and its residents.

[Penguin68]

I am certainly bemused by your view that people living on Chesterfield/Ashbourne Grove are lucky to do so, and therefore should essentially just live with it. Most people have either been in these streets for many years and/or inherited homes through family, or have more recently already paid a premium to move into them, and all have every right to raise their concerns/objections, rather than putting up with it because they are ?lucky?.

I suspect that the house price/ ease of selling will increase in houses with an M&S on the corner - particularly where they are also in easy walking distance of a main-line station 12 minutes from the City. Of course there will also be downsides - but this is hardly gloom city. Goodness, it could have been an Iceland moving in to replace an M&S! Or a Foxtons.

[the-e-dealer]

Hope James wont be on the Planning Committee if it gets that far.

[Damian H]

Gidget Wrote:

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

> Jeremy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Gidget Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > It's for people who don't cook and have

> > > lots of disposable income.

> >

> > Yeah, but so what? Some people aren't

> interesting

> > in cooking, some people don't have the time to

> > cook every night. It's not a crime. I'd rather

> > spend ?4 on something OK-ish from M&S than

> ?1.50

> > on something utterly revolting from Iceland.

>

> M&S seems to be at every mainline station going

> into East Dulwich. You can buy your stuff there.

What if you don't travel out of and back to ED every day?

[the-e-dealer]

There is NO M&S at Blackfriars so "seems" should be replaced with "are not"

[eddie]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> 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.

James, I thought you were on the planning committee. Is this not a conflict?

[the-e-dealer]

Only if he sits on the Committee for that decision because I think he has expressed views and met with the applicants and others who have an interest. Also if he is lobbied by his constituents he cannot be part of the decision.

[loveED86]

id hate to see iceland go!:'(

i usually pop in there on the way home from the school run if i need to get essentials ie milk as another user quoted 4 pints for ?1 which cant be found anywhere else on LL.

[eddie]

the-e-dealer Wrote:

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

> Only if he sits on the Committee for that decision

> because I think he has expressed views and met

> with the applicants and others who have an

> interest. Also if he is lobbied by his

> constituents he cannot be part of the decision.

I think James Barber should declare his interests on this matter.

[James Barber]

Hi eddie,

Labour Southwark who run the council are removing local planning committees and centralising them into the Tooley Street HQ. Its also changing the threshold for when planning applications are not decided by council officers.

I've heard two versions of this - 1. that the new threshold will be 5 objections for an application to be heard by the planning committee, 2. that only large schemes can be objected to.

Wont know for sure unti lthe final Council Assembly papers are publishing next week.

So this scheme will not be decided locally.

I hope to remain a reserve planning committee member but it is rare I'm called upon to cover for a colleague.

Hi the-e-dealer,

Planning committees are quaisi judicial committee and I would only ever sit on a committee and help decided an item I had not preconceived views or interests in.

[Undisputedtruth]

Ever wondered why M&S food looks so good on the telly?

 

[the-e-dealer]

You are very wise. Its not just preconceived ideas and interests. its a very sticky wicket.

[ladyinred]

I also will miss Icelands, with there ?1.00 milk, forzen veg etc, which I do not think M&S can offer that !!!:-)

[NickA]

I also will miss Icelands, with there ?1.00 milk, forzen veg etc, which I do not think M&S can offer that !!!:-)

me too.

[davidh]

I am hugely enjoying all the forum bedwetters frothing and fuming at the awful prospect of a top store opening in lordship lane.

wake up people. the lane needs a boost. I speak as one who runs a shop further down the road. busdiness is tough right now and marks and sparks would give us all a lift. we would become a destination.

some people on here seems to hate the idea of shoppers coming here to spend their money. I don't and neither would any other retailer on the lane.

maybe demon barber could bring himself to get off the fence for once and do something to help local trade