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

[XIX]

we are on the list and did not get a letter.

[Angelina]

We didn't get a letter either

[KalamityKel]

No letter OR email here either... oh dear

[Cora]

I haven't had a single planning notification since signing up....

[fazer71]

I've had 60 letters through my door in the last couple of weeks. :(

;)

[first mate]

Hoping James is along soon to explain what has happened.

[KalamityKel]

whose responsibility is it to ensure notification to those concerned has happened?

Who isn't following procedures? :s

[fazer71]

On appeals there's no requirement.

[MarkT]

Fazer71,

The planning inspectorate seems to believe that there is a requirement.

See Link http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=15/AP/1186&system=DC

See "Appeal Document - START DATE LETTER"

See Page 2 "By 16 September 2015"

[James Barber]

I've asked the new case officer how we can help fight this appeal.

The new case officers is very good from past experiences.

[James Barber]

This is the response I've just received from the now lead officer of this case:

"

Hi Cllr Barber

The deadline for the public to send responses for this appeal to the Inspectorate ended on 11 October. If they had already written in on this application their comments would already be with the Inspectorate. There will be a site visit by the Inspector, which it may be worthwhile having the owner of 1 Chesterfield Grove attend but there is no date/ time set for this as yet.

You can advise residents that the Council is recommending the Inspector refuse the application on the following grounds;

1 The proposed roof extension by reason of its lack of a setback to the rear elevation would result in an overbearing and visually obtrusive impact to the residential dwellings to the rear of the site. As such the proposal is contrary to the National Planning Framework Section 7 Requiring Good Design, Strategic Policy 12 Design and conservation of The Core Strategy 2011, Saved Southwark Plan 2007 Policies 3.12 'Quality in Design' and 3.13 'Urban Design' and The Residential Design Standards Supplementary Planning Document 2011.

2 In the absence of any information to the contrary the proposal would fail to demonstrate how the internal access and servicing area to the rear of the site would operate and allow for the movement of an increased number of pedestrians. As such the proposal would be contrary to Saved Policy 5.2 Transport Impacts

5.3 Walking and Cycling of the Southwark Plan 2007

3 The proposal fails to demonstrate how it would manage additional on-street parking demands resulting from the intensification of the various uses on the site. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to Saved Policy 5.6 Car Parking of the Southwark Plan 2007.

Statement of positive and proactive action in dealing with the application

To assist applicants the Local Planning Authority has produced policies and written guidance, all of which is available on the Council?s website and offers a pre planning application advice service. The scheme does not comply with guidance and no pre application discussions were entered into. The Council is ready to enter into discussions with the applicants to assist in the preparation of a new planning application

The local planning authority requested additional information from the applicant but these were not forthcoming.

Informative

In respect of reason 1 for refusal, the Council would be willing to accept a substitution of plans submitted under application reference 15/AP/2221which demonstrate a setback at the rear.

As the application is with the Planning Inspectorate for decision there is very little anyone can now do to influence the process. It is unlikely we will receive a decision until some time in December.

Kind regards

"

[fazer71]

Imho 1. Vague and wishy-washy. Set back who really cares they're still going to get the extra floor with our without the setback.

2. Lol really laughable.

3. Lol really the same all over London and every mega city in the world.

Hot air padding nonsense.

Proof the planning system is not fit for purpose ie creating homes,, only fit to keep people in work.

Ie Great job creation for the planning department

If you buy a home backing onto a high street what do you expect?

Farcical nonsense.

[Alex K]

James, I've told you this before, but it bears repeating.

You're a good man to have on our team. Thank you.

[fazer71]

Like I said the planning system is to keep planners in work and give local politicians a way to raise their profile and garner votes.

The planning system's primary purpose is NOT creating new homes or making homes which push out to their full potential.

It does the opposite it reduces housing stock and makes homes small.

It's a shambles. Run by clever people for their own benefit.

We're the mugs...

Who are sold a fairy tale.

Good job planners and local MPs.

Lol

[KalamityKel]

Fazer I'm not really sure what your beef is... I interpret differently - yes planning is a shambles but not for not wanting to create new homes.

Do you really think adding a couple of new units in this instance will ease the pressure on demand for the housing we are repeatedly being told is high?

It's not as is we're talking about a high rise block of flats.

The issue here, as it's always been, is the over development of a site that is not suitable for the ideals M&S development have in mind.

The planning department continue to fail to follow procedures (more so in the past), M&S are taking full advantage of this and many objectors to this proposal are hoping this will be dealt with properly.

[LondonMix]

Its not really M&S though is it. They are tenant rather than the freeholder and quite frankly have no interest in how many flats are being developed. All of that is down the freeholder wanting the maximise the value of his / her property.

[fazer71]

I thought I'd made my position clear.?

The planners only care about keeping their jobs so they string everything which is even slightly contentious along even when it merits the ok. The result is the proc is slow it results in fewer homes or homes which are not extended to their full potential.

The Iceland site is easily big enough to accommodate the extra floor and YES every new home built helps.

The political angle on planning is imho a disgusting circus side show which often raises hopes wastes peoples time often costs them and us the local tax payer money it becomes a political game when it should serve up more/better homes as I explained local MPs user it as a way to get votes regardless of the needs or facts i.e. even if it meets the planning guidelines, they win either way so they get stuck in regardless.

All in all a disgusting waste of time money and effort.

A Circus!!!

[XIX]

James, perhaps I've missed it above, but I'm still not clear on:

1. why this has gone to appeal? You said you had called this in for the planning committee to decide. What happened?

2. Even though it is acknowledged that public comments will be carried forward, there still does not seem to be any explanation why no-one received letters about this appeal, when they were quite obviously meant to. Although some might argue that it is a moot point now, it is an important principle.

The council, by its own admission, made a proper hash of the earlier application/decision; I really hoped/thought that might be set right for the remainder of this case, but it appears not.

Really grateful for any comment/clarification, thanks.

[fazer71]

There are only two ways of telling the complete truth--anonymously and posthumously.

1. M&S decided to appeal their decision.

2. See one of my previous posts.

[first mate]

XIX,

I second your request. I too want to know what has gone wrong in terms of process and where are the letters?

[Zebedee Tring]

The developers appealed against Southwark's failure to determine the application before the statutory deadline, which is usual eight weeks. This deadline has been in force as long as I can remember (I started working in local government 42 years ago).

[Abe_froeman]

Do you know whether such an appeal go into the merits of the original application or only consider the failure to meet the deadline? If the latter would planning permission be granted automatically?

[Zebedee Tring]

As I recall it the appeal would be against "deemed" refusal of planning permission and would therefore proceed as if the Council had actually refused permission, i.e. it would be on the merits of the original application.

[Abe_froeman]

Thanks. They may yet save face on this then!

[Nicholas]

Be careful what you wish for particularly if you live in neighbouring roads. I used to live close to a Waitrose many years ago and lot of shoppers were not so local,and it was bit like the school run at times. It will kill some of the local convenience not so trendy stores! Any large chain like this I can't see it working without designated parking.