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

[daveybigpotatoes]

People seem to think m+s is some brave New world that will excite those from miles around. It won't. It will be used by people coming home from work, people wanting a few bits and bobs, people who forgot to pick up some bread or salad or similar in their big shop. It really isn't a big deal - I'd prefer it to Iceland and I imagine the average ED resident would too- but let's all not have a fit about it.

[Marks2111]

I agree daveybigpotatoes

[Louisa]

I assume neither of you live on Chesterfield Grove then? Because if you did, would you want delivery trucks upto six times a day at various times of the day, clogging the road? Not to mention the potential for parking pressures. I guess if it doesn't affect you directly it's not a problem. Someone else's.

Louisa.

[Mick Mac]

I feel some sympathy for the people of chesterfield grove but maybe they should take one for the team.

[spanglysteve]

Louisa Wrote:

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

> ...would you want delivery

> trucks upto six times a day...

>

> Louisa.

I know it may attract people from other areas but what is the real liklihood of six deliveries a day? The rate of stock turnover would have to be phenomenal for six separate deliveries to be required.

[first mate]

Spanglysteve,

The obvious riposte is that if that level of deliveries is unlikely why is the figure there in black and white in the report? FYI there have long been problems with the Iceland deliveries which have damaged residents property on many occasions as well as causing jams. There was an opportunity to put an old wrong right and reroute deliveries or reduce significantly the delivery vehicle size. But no, instead the developers want more deliveries using the same huge delivery vehicles. In his wisdom, the planning officer has supported this using the rationale that a precedent has now been set by the former parlous state of affairs. Come on, there should be no place on residential streets, especially narrow ones, for huge juggernauts on anything more than an occasional basis, like when people move.

Someone knowledgable like Penguin68 may enlighten me but I wonder if by normalising the frequent use of very large delivery vehicles and referring to the area as a "Town Centre" precedents are being set to allow for ever larger developments, taller buildings etc...

I still want to know how residents objections that Southwark Planning upheld are no longer being upheld by them?

[kexiaode12]

Apple MacBook Pro MB990LL/A 13.3-Inch Laptop

the China Cheap original electronic is discount for selling now, Purchase to visit: w w w . p a d s e l l . c o m

Product Description

We have certified this product is Frustration Free. A Frustration-Free Package is easy-to-open and comes without hard plastic "clamshell" casings, plastic bindings, and wire ties. It's designed to be opened without the use of a box cutter or knife and will protect your product just as well as traditional packaging during shipping. Products with Frustration-Free Packaging can frequently be shipped in their own boxes, without the need for an additional shipping box.

Featuring a precision unibody enclosure crafted from a single block of aluminum, the MacBook Pro is thinner and lighter than its predecessor as well as stronger and more durable. But Apple didn't stop innovating with the body's design. The MacBook Pro also includes a new 13-inch, LED-backlit glass display (instead of an LCD panel) as well as a glass trackpad that doesn't include a button (for larger tracking area) that features Apple's Multi-Touch technology.

This 13-inch MacBook Pro (model MB990LL/A) also now includes Apple's innovative built-in notebook battery for up to 7 hours of wireless productivity on a single charge without adding thickness, weight or cost. Using Adaptive Charging and advanced chemistry first introduced with the 17-inch MacBook Pro the built-in battery delivers up to 1000 recharges before it reaches 80 percent of its original capacity--nearly three times the lifespan of conventional batteries.

[Siduhe]

Having had a quick look at the documents attached to the latest consultation, I have to say I'm very surprised that the latest Officer's Report recommends that planning permission is now granted.

If you compare the issues highlighted in the previous two reports, they are exactly the same - and were then considered sufficient to decline permission. Unless I'm missing something, the developers are not proposing to make any real changes to their plans, but rather have produced further reports which support the suggestion that the Council should "have another think about the development". The comments in the report which suggest 6 deliveries a day not before 7.00am is workable is frankly something of a joke, when you look at what the previous Officer's Report said about this proposal and how unworkable it was. No reason is given for the change in position (other than presumably a lot of pressure from the developers).

When the original application was made, there was an extremely detailed and helpful report done by residents showing exactly why deliveries of that size and scale at the site didn't work - showing traffic and turning lines into the site for delivery vehicles. The clear conclusion, which the developers appeared to accept because they withdrew that application immediately is that there simply isn't enough room for that size of lorry to service the site as it is planned to be developed. Yet all of this seems to have been forgotten or ignored in this application - and there is no similar report from residents for this application.

To be clear, I'm not a nearby resident, and I will likely use whatever shop ends up in that space, so I have little personal "skin in the game". I am, however, extremely worried at the precedent that it will set if this application gets passed. Nothing significant has changed in this application. It's the same application that has been turned down in strong terms by the council twice. Not because it's an M&S or not but (in the council's own words) because the application did not take any proper account of the impact on the local area - ignored rights of way, security and traffic problems. Yet suddenly it's ok and recommended to be passed?

From the outside looking in, this seems a really, really odd recommendation.

Edited for spelling.

[first mate]

Janes Barber sits on the planning commmittee, i do hope that he is noting the comments here. A comment by him would also ve welcome.

[Mustard]

I used to live very close to a commercial place where trucks would turn up between 6 and 630 am. The law in that particular borough was no deliveries before 8 am, but still they came early. They would sit there with their engines running and disperse noxious fumes. I was 4 house away and the fumes came in my bedroom window. It was horrible. I feel sorry for any residents affected by this development.

[DaveR]

"There was an opportunity to put an old wrong right and reroute deliveries or reduce significantly the delivery vehicle size."

This seems to me to be the nub of it. If you compare what is proposed with the current situation, it's difficut to make the case that either pressure on parking or disruption from deliveries is going to be much worse (maybe a bit worse, maybe no worse at all, but impossible to know). But if you compare what is proposed with what the immediate neighbours would ideally want the gulf is vast, but that's not how planning usually works.

[Ron70]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Janes Barber sits on the planning commmittee, i do

> hope that he is noting the comments here. A

> comment by him would also ve welcome.

I don't think comments on this forum are representative of the wider (silent) majority of ED, just a vocal minority!

Ron70

[spider69]

Ron70 Wrote:

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

> first mate Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Janes Barber sits on the planning commmittee, i

> do

> > hope that he is noting the comments here. A

> > comment by him would also ve welcome.

>

>

> I don't think comments on this forum are

> representative of the wider (silent) majority of

> ED, just a vocal minority!

>

> Ron70

What are the comments of the wider silent majority?

Perhaps Cllrs could tell us

[Siduhe]

DaveR Wrote:

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

> "There was an opportunity to put an old wrong

> right and reroute deliveries or reduce

> significantly the delivery vehicle size."

>

> This seems to me to be the nub of it. If you

> compare what is proposed with the current

> situation, it's difficut to make the case that

> either pressure on parking or disruption from

> deliveries is going to be much worse (maybe a bit

> worse, maybe no worse at all, but impossible to

> know). But if you compare what is proposed with

> what the immediate neighbours would ideally want

> the gulf is vast, but that's not how planning

> usually works.

I'm not sure it's right so say there's no real change in delivery patterns - at least from looking at the documents posted for all the previous applications. I definitely can't comment on what happens in practice and that may well be what you're referring to? I am only looking at the documents posted on the Southwark site, but this is what they say:

The original application for the site said that there would be up to four deliveries a day (para 4.5 of the Transport Assessment Report) which was said to be consistent in terms of numbers of deliveries with what happens at the moment, but they wanted to deliver earlier than currently agreed.

There is no current planning restriction in place, but there is an agreement mediated by Southwark Environmental Team which is referred in the refusal of the planning appeal. The agreement is no deliveries before 8am Monday to Saturday and no deliveries at all on Sunday. One of the key reasons for the refusal of the appeal was the applicant wanted the right to start deliveries at 7am during the week and 8am on a Sunday - and the appeal decision says:

Even if limited to a single lorry, any such delivery during the first hour, i.e. commencing at 07:00 hrs start on a Saturday and at 08:00 hrs on a Sunday, would be unacceptable on this site.

Even with the best endeavours of a retailer such as M&S, in all likelihood, the noise associated with delivery vehicles arriving at, manoeuvring within and departing from the site from 07:00 hrs on a Saturday and 08:00 hrs on a Sunday, including the inevitable noise of vehicles being unloaded, would be very likely to interrupt sleep patterns and cause significant noise disturbance for a number of neighbouring residents.

This latest application appears to be for up to six deliveries a day according to the officers report, starting at 7am Monday to Friday, 8am on Saturday and 10am on Sunday.

This is why I'm struggling to understand why the change in position from Southwark. What happens currently (at least according to the documents) is up to four deliveries Monday-Sat no earlier than 8am. What may happen afterwards is up to six deliveries Monday through Sunday no earlier than 7am Monday-Friday, 8am on Saturday and 10am on Sunday.

[Jeremy]

Not to suggest that the opinions of nearby residents and existing Iceland customers aren't important, but my gut feeling is that most people like the idea of an M&S, and when it comes the place will be rammed with customers - especially 6pm-8pm.

I'll happily admit I'm wrong if the shop proves less popular than Iceland. But it doesn't seem very likely.

[LondonMix]

Does anyone know how many deliveries Iceland makes per day and at what time they start? The fact they have asked for more deliveries than they initially did, suggests to me that they are now intending to use smaller lorries in response the the access issues raised. All articulated lorries are not the same size.

I have not had a chance to read through the current proposal and do a comparison but from what people have said, I would imagine that might be something worth double checking before condemning the planning application.

Also, if Iceland currently makes deliveries before 7am imposing heavier restrictions on a new trader would be inappropriate.

If anyone has read the documents / is familiar with the situation it would be good to hear when Iceland makes its deliveries and if M&S are now proposing smaller lorries and therefore more total deliveries throughout the day.

[first mate]

LondonMix

Nope the report states that the vehicles used will be 10.7 articulated lorries the same as currently used by Iceland, so more deliveries in less space in vehicles just about as large you can get. Iceland does not deliver 6 times a day.

[Goose]

To be honest we should keep a log of how many times Iceland does have deliveries. My impression is first is about 0900-0915 and a second one in early afternoon. Am not really aware of any others. We should really know that information.

[Louisa]

I think the question needing to be raised is how many deliveries per day are anticipated based on the potential popularity of the store. Of course, none of us know just how popular the store will be, but based on the demographics and shortage of similar stores locally it will in all probability be busier than the existing Iceland store. Therefore, it will need to be re-stocked more often, and consequently it will take more deliveries in a day. It's not rocket science.

Louisa.

[LondonMix]

Read through the planning report and this seems to be the gist--

The original decision which denied planning permission stated that on balance the benefits outweighted the cons until the additional noise disturbance was taken into account. The new application has required a later start time for deliveries on the weekend and the council seems to feel this adequately rebalanced the application towards approval. On all the other points, this seems to be their position:

1. The scale of increased parking pressure in and of itself cannot be grounds to refuse the application as a standalone issue. The parking point has been partially addressed by forcing the residential units to participate in car scheme as a planning condition for 3 years

2. That while concerns about truck access are important, the technical supporting information provided by the applicant hasn?t been refuted ? they diagramed out how the trucks will access the site using traffic software that showed that while its tight, its feasible and they have agreed that a member of staff will be onsite in a high-vis jacket to help direct the trucks in for delivery and servicing

3. Right now, Iceland can do whatever they want regarding deliveries etc and therefore the imposition of any new constraints is a positive for the nearby residents as it formalizes the situation and imposes legal limits on what goes on

[Earl Aelfheah]

Thanks for the summary. All sounds fairly reasonable on the face of it.

[Bluerevolution]

It's perfectly feasible that 6+ deliveries can occur, all depends on the distribution points. I was a warehouse manager for Sainsburys (not DKH) and we had 11 a day, sometimes just 2 or 3 cages of stock, all delivered on a 40" lorry. Things like bread (up to 6 different suppliers) and milk were delivered separate from general deliveries, it soon stacks up

[first mate]

It all sounds perfectly reasonable until you actually see the site and see how the trucks are manouevered. It is hard enough already, as stated ad nauseam, there is a list of incidences where property has been damaged. The space is to be reduced, the frequency of deliveries stepped up. The process of delivery is already slow and cumbersome, jams along the road are frequent.

The technical infomation provided by the applicant has been disputed it is just that planning have chosen to disregard those objections, it would seem. Squeezing a square peg into a round hole is 'feasible'after all if you push hard enough over time. The will of the developer is to prevail it would seem, despite the glaring and obvious fact that they are trying to squeeze too much into this space.

I wonder, for instance, why the store could not have expanded onto the second level rather than building out at ground level and putting flats on top? Not as lucrative for the developer I grant you.

[the-e-dealer]

A second floor would require disabled access lift or escalators. So space would not be as well used.

[Louisa]

Hear hear first mate. You can dress up the positives of parking schemes and more rigidly monitored deliveries, but the site is simply not big enough for the proposed development it's that simple. As you rightly point out, they could easily have spread the store across two floors, but less lucrative for freeholder so that's not gonna happen, and as James Barber has hammered home a few times, Waitrose were apparently willing to take the site on as is. It's far too easy to support this application as time goes on because most people are not directly affected and by now have a certain amount of apathy to the constant dragging process. It leaves the poor residents of this road in a horrible position.

Louisa.