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

[first mate]

I should also add that the tracking diagram provided by the applicant has not been 'refuted' because the resients have not come up with their own funded diagram, so on a technicality the planning officer can get away with making this assertion. Nonethless, a careful reading of the more detailed objections by residents (one a RIBA architect with long experience in these types of development) will show that the tracking diagram was ripped apartquite comprehensively.

I also think that the claim that putting the delivery hours on a formal and legal basis will benefit residents is nonsense. Quite the contrary, earlier delivery times and more frequent deliveries will now be given a legal greenlight, making them harder to overturn in future.

Also wanted to ask where James Barber is?

[LondonMix]

The truck access is a tricky one. I can understand why residents are concerned because Iceland deliveries have had difficulty accessing the site as is.

However, I can't imagine M&S are being disingenuous. No retailer would sign up to a scheme if they sincerely doubted they would be able to get the deliveries they need to the store. M&S and the developer may be wrong but they also might have better logistics strategies than Iceland.

[first mate]

e-dealer, a fair point but lifts and escalators would not be so hard to install and would take up less space than the current proposals. As it is those who are disabled will not be any better served by the current application, is my understanding. Those 6 deliveries a day will cause sufficient disruption, I am sure, to make negotiating the path/road difficult enough.

[LondonMix]

first mate Wrote:

> I also think that the claim that putting the

> delivery hours on a formal and legal basis will

> benefit residents is nonsense. Quite the contrary,

> earlier delivery times and more frequent

> deliveries will now be given a legal greenlight,

> making them harder to overturn in future.

>

Well if Waitrose did take the site as is and decided to start delivering whenever they want as frequently as they want, there wouldn't actually be any legal recourse really to oppose what they were doing. By needing planning permission for the expansion of the site, the council has the opportunity to impose what it views as sensible limits on any new retailer for the site going forward.

It's a bit of a stretch from the council to sell it as a positive but I can see their point. Given right now its technically a free for all, people should recognise that any conditions they impose should be seen as a positive.

Anyhow, it will be interesting to see what happens at committee.

[first mate]

LM, As ever a balanced and fair reply from you. Please though, if you have not visited the site go and take a look and with any luck you may see a delivery taking place and see for yourself the issues. Also factor in the pressures created by the car wash on a busy day and the shortcomings of this application should be apparent.

Again, where is James?

[derwentgrove]

> Again, where is James?

The Southwark website suggests that Cllr Barber is only a 'reserve' member of the planning committee. Unless that is out of date information there is presumably no guarantee he will be attending as a voting member on Tuesday. No doubt he will clarify the position...

[LondonMix]

Firstmate, I don't know how to drive so I am not the best person to judge if lorry driver will be able to squeeze in. I've literally got no idea! Probably why I am a bit more open minded.

[worldwiser]

James emailed his mailing list to say there's a meeting on Tuesday 22nd where the public are invited. I suggest going - 7pm Southwark Town Hall.

[worldwiser]

M&S Planning Application - 7pm Tuesday 22 July this planning application 14/AP/0280 will be decided (Southwark Town Hall, 160 Tooley Street, SE1). The meeting will hear from objectors living within 100m, the applicant, council planning officers and from ward councillors. The proposals have several show-stopping flaws but officers have recommended the application be granted planning permission. So this committee is our last chance to get common sense to prevail.

[MelonSmasher]

I want a lidl though

[Sophron]

Poundland for me

[MelonSmasher]

Sophron Wrote:

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

> Poundland for me

not unless they drop their prices

[Sophron]

:-)Cashconverters then?

[Earl Aelfheah]

I still find it galling that Southwark Council spent millions moving their office from the centre if the borough out to flash new offices on the edge if the city. Makes it much more difficult Goethe majority of their constituents to attend such meetings. Such a bad use of taxpayers money.

[spider69]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I still find it galling that Southwark Council

> spent millions moving their office from the centre

> if the borough out to flash new offices on the

> edge if the city. Makes it much more difficult

> Goethe majority of their constituents to attend

> such meetings. Such a bad use of taxpayers money.

Smart idea for them. Knowing in most cases people cannot or will not try to go to Tooley Street/Tower Bridge they can pass what ever new idea they come up with knowing there will be no little opposition not only for this but other plans

Why not hold it at the Community Council Meetings locally.

Council Staff can rest easy. No difficult questions to answer

Old Planning debates at the Peckham Road site were always very well attended.

[first mate]

Note that aside from the obvious difficulty of getting to the offices to object there has also been no formal notice given to those living close by enabling them to make the relevant plans. A thread on this forum is not sufficent notice in my view. This really does look like a stich up. Mr Barber is noticeably quiet/absent on the whole issue. I wonder if he is on holiday, if so will he be absent for this very important meeting?

[tfwsoll]

> I still find it galling that Southwark Council

> spent millions moving their office from the centre

> if the borough out to flash new offices on the

> edge if the city. Makes it much more difficult

> Goethe majority of their constituents to attend

> such meetings. Such a bad use of taxpayers money.

I regularly go to meetings at Southwark's new offices - I would describe them as 'modern' rather than 'flash'.

[spider69]

tfwsoll Wrote:

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

> > I still find it galling that Southwark Council

> > spent millions moving their office from the

> centre

> > if the borough out to flash new offices on the

> > edge if the city. Makes it much more difficult

> > Goethe majority of their constituents to attend

>

> > such meetings. Such a bad use of taxpayers

> money. E so!

>

>mew bonfire I regularly go to meetings at Southwark's new

> officeses

- I would describe them as 'modern' rather

> than 'flash'.

As the building cost Southwarwark residents ? 75 million one would hope so.

From my recollection of going go this building as there are no public meeting rooms apart from the vestibule open to all traffic you always had to arrange Times before hand to meet officers and can not just walk in off the street and discuss matters

So it does make sense to in inform those close to the site because of the interestso as to allow theme to make necessary plans and not have to rely on the forum for information to meeting times

Done and dusted comes to mind.

[KalamityKel]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Note that aside from the obvious difficulty of

> getting to the offices to object there has also

> been no formal notice given to those living close

> by enabling them to make the relevant plans. A

> thread on this forum is not sufficent notice in my

> view. This really does look like a stich up. Mr

> Barber is noticeably quiet/absent on the whole

> issue. I wonder if he is on holiday, if so will he

> be absent for this very important meeting?

I received notification from Southwark planning on the 10th July via email (method by which I sent my objections).

I believe this is the standard way to notify, or by writing, those who had/have already officially expressed an interest in the application (by "offically" I mean those who actually bothered to say anything either positive or negative to planning in the first place!)

[LondonMix]

Yep-- they also made it clear that only objectors living within 100m of the development would be heard.

[KalamityKel]

It's also not exactly an opportunity for anyone and everyone to speak up. It's the bog standard type of thing where only a representative is given a few minutes to have their say. Whilst anyone can attend such meetings it's exactly a "public meeting".

I'm certainly not trying to put off anyone considering attending. It's simply typical misleading info being shared.

[James Barber]

I'd personally enjoy the option of buying M&S food. But it isn't about me its about the impact on our area and the application is still flawed in many areas.

It still expects 15% of customers to arrive by tube!

Flats will put all their waste beside 1 Chesterfield Grove - separate land not owned by the developer.

The officers report clearly states that Southwark would expect a shop of this size to come with 28 parking spaces. That the flats following general Southwark planning guidance would require 5-6 parking spaces.

But Southwark has extra car parking rules for Dulwich requiring 1.5-2 parking spaces per home. The flats are being pitched as not needing play provision because they will typically be rented to two professional couples. So that's two households per property.

Either way this means council officers EXPECT at least an extra 40 spaces of parking pressure mostly on Chesterfield and surrounding streets. Perhaps people from outside this immediate area can now see why people within close proximity to this site think this an over development to the site.

M&S. I don't believe they've signed any contract with the developer and hadn't during the last planning application cycle. The developer could just as easily, for the right price, lease the property to any other business. Supporters of an M&S at any price will feel pretty daft if a Poundland or 99-p shop sign the lease. M&S is the aspirational stalking horse to win local and officer favour. We must judge the scheme on the merits of any potential shop occupying it - despite my predilection for M&S choccy biscuits and socks.

[daveybigpotatoes]

28 new spaces assumed is clearly daft. How many spaces for the larger co-op just down the road on this basis? And you say the total EXTRA spaces needed will be 40. Is this net of what Iceland use currently? I suspect this is yet more scaremongering.

[bonaome]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> M&S. I don't believe they've signed any contract

> with the developer and hadn't during the last

> planning application cycle.

......

> M&S is the

> aspirational stalking horse to win local and

> officer favour. We must judge the scheme on the

> merits of any potential shop occupying it

Calling the thread "M&S planning application to replace Iceland" hasn't really helped the whole aspirational stalking horse hoo-har.

[first mate]

davey,

Not scaregmonering, a simple statement of fact. It hardly stacks up to say that just because the current parking situation is just about holding that this means you can keep increasing pressure on particular streets by over development. This particular space is too small for the changes proposed. If it is true that Waitrose would take the site on with its current footprint, without losing the parking space or developing out, then the current application just smacks of developer greed.