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

[LondonMix]

It?s hard to know what they are up to.

I was surprised that they think there is a market for such large ?penthouse? flats. I mean, flats above shops and on busy roads always trade for a pretty heavy discount so why they are pushing this as luxury resi doesn?t make sense to me. I guess they feel it will work in the market but I?d be surprised.

[first mate]

LM, I suppose I am being frightfully cynical but even James labelled it classic salami slicing tactics, it just seems they are gaming the system for absolute maximum return and a cursory reading of docs attached to the latest application suggests to me, perhaps incorrectly because I do not know much about planning law, the developer is running rings around Southwark Planning and Councillors.

[MarkT]

Southwark?s Residential Design Standards SPD states:

?Where there is an extant planning permission and a fresh planning permission is submitted for a revised scheme taking the total units above 10 units, the residential design standards for major applications will be applied. The council will seek to ensure that proposals deliberately designed to circumvent the threshold of 10 units will not be accepted.?

James has referred above to the threshold of 10 units which applies to the provision of affordable housing and of family sized units. If the Council considers that the 2 applications for the additional 4th floor are ?deliberately designed to circumvent the threshold? then they must be rejected.

MarkT

[LondonMix]

Perhaps the developer was hoping that the council wouldn't put two and two together...

That would be a strange assumption though given how high profile it is, it seems rather daft.

[first mate]

LM,

I think it is more a matter of the developer exploiting little loopholes and technical hitches, that is how they managed to get the okay on the third application for 8 residential dwellings on the 1st and 2nd storey.

Actually I'd like to hear what James has to say about this, as our rep and someone who knows about planning.

[MissKing]

I'm a bit confused why it is a bad thing that they would build flats above the shop? More homes would surely be a better use of space than offices?

[LondonMix]

I'm not actually against more flats per se.

[first mate]

LM, so the fact that the developer was given permission to build 8 flats but chose to dump that application, chaging flats for offices and a further 4th storey for two penthouses on top, should be of concern?

I'm still wondering if James has any news on this?????

[LondonMix]

I'm not saying that. I am just saying I don't object to more resi being developed.

If the developer is trying to sneak out of the affordable housing req by splitting the resi in 2 applications that shouldn't be allowed. If they have decided to keep the office after looking into the conversion costs to resi but still incorporate some resi at the top floor, then I don't object.

I'm not sure if all the resi in the first application helped it pass. If so, they should reassess the merits of the broader proposal.

[James Barber]

If a developer applies for more than 9 homes or flats in this case then 35% have to be social housing. So addign 2 flats to previous 8 = a net huge loss in value to the developer. They've obviously realsied this so the new applicatiions are for 2 flats and offices. Once the new flats sold they'll use permitted development - almost impossible ot resist to convert the offices to 8 flats. Neatly side stepping the social housing requirement.

Eitherway Cllr rosie Shimell and I will call-in the new planning application - but also encourage as many people as possible to submit objections or statements of support.

[Jeremy]

James - would it be possible to approve plans with the condition that the offices cannot be changed to residential within the first e.g. ten years?

[James Barber]

Hi jeremy,

I doubt it. The developer wouldn't have any reason to agree such a condition and any appeal is likely to succeed. Appeals can incur costs for councils if the original refusal is thought unreasonable in terms of planning laws and council policies.

[first mate]

I hope all those banging the housing drum, especially social housing, will wake up and smell the coffee.

[worldwiser]

James, the main objection is surely over the opening hours and, more particularly, the delivery hours proposed. I don't understand why the very reasonable proposal of requiring them to park delivery vehicles on LL (rather than causing a nuisance to the residents of the adjoining street) was never imposed on them. The issue of the size of the redevelopment pales in comparison to the certain and daily intrusion on people's lives. And I don't live anywhere near there!

[harold76]

Agree completely with worldwiser.

James - it's the disruption to the lives of the residents of Chesterfield Grove that is the main concern to my neighbours and me. We already have to suffer the constant Iceland delivery lorries hurtling down our road, a bigger supermarket will only make things worse. Coupled with this, the additional vehicles that will be parking on Chesterfield Grove to visit the new M&S AND the parking requirements of the new residents of the proposed flats! My elderly neighbours already find themselves having to park a couple of streets away because of the lack of parking spaces available on our road.

[LondonMix]

The application has already been approved. The only thing being called in is the change they are proposing.

[harold76]

That's the main problem here. The council is up against a very well funded backer of the planning application, meaning that the council is reluctant to object to any proposal by them as they would need to finance the legal argument, or deal with the subsequent appeal. Let's all just go home...

[easytiger]

Is it going to be flats and offices and m&s downstairs?:)

[first mate]

Worldwiser, those objections were made and some upheld but then the developers out maneouvered the council planning dept and got the penultimate application ( inlcuding for the 8 residences)upheld.Those in know see that there are real H&S risks re transport, deliveries and so on.

As LM infers, that horse bolted long and the developers are clearly going to be relentless in asking for more and more and seems to have little regard for the impact.

[DulwichFox]

After Iceland closes, I no longer care what replaces it... (I never did)

I don't care what is built above it..

and I don't care if it is covered in Stik graffiti, cartoon bees or painted bright pink...

Foxy.

[Jeremy]

[DulwichFox]

Looks Good.. :)

[melbourne groover]

Prints still available...😉

[harold76]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Worldwiser, those objections were made and some

> upheld but then the developers out maneouvered the

> council planning dept and got the penultimate

> application ( inlcuding for the 8

> residences)upheld.Those in know see that there are

> real H&S risks re transport, deliveries and so

> on.

>

> As LM infers, that horse bolted long and the

> developers are clearly going to be relentless in

> asking for more and more and seems to have little

> regard for the impact.

James Barber - do you agree with this? I would be interested to hear what you think can be done to pressurize the planning committee into taking note of neighbours objections.

[bermygirl]

Good grief, it looks like it's going to be M&S and really some people just need to accept it and move on!! I mean it's not the end of the world and those people who still want Iceland can go to Peckham for it. It's not miles across London for gods sake!!! As for the price I happen to think M&S have superior sourced and superior quality food and you get what you pay for. But that is my opinion and I am entitled to it. Some of the people on here moaning as if the world is about to end should perhaps look at the bigger picture! There are people in crisis all around the world, Nepal...for example. Stop whinging and get over it! If M&S replacing Iceland is your biggest worry than I would say you are doing alright.