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

[DulwichFox]

nxjen Wrote:

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

> I may have got a bit confused after 73 pages but I

> was under the impression M&S are not the

> developers. Also isn't planning permission still

> outstanding on some aspects?

If you were doing a new build or refurb for your business, would you not show a great deal of concern as to the

progress of your development.

DulwichFox

[Mick Mac]

I'm not an M&S shopper generally despite there being one at Victoria station, as their food is ready meal"ish", and their wine I think maybe overpriced, and being own brand you cant really pin it down for price comparison, but I still like to have one on the lane and i'm sure ill use it occasionally for upmarket jars of stuff. I'd imagine you could go in there needing nothing and still buy quite a few nice things.

[Penguin68]

If you were doing a new build or refurb for your business

I suspect that M&S will have no financial stake in this until it comes to final shopfitting - when presumably they will also start to pay rent. In current circumstances not rushing into a financial commitment might well be the right thing here, so it may well be that they in fact don't have any urgency to set-up. This is a very different circumstance than faced by a business where this might be their only, or main, or most significant trading site.

[DulwichFox]

It just seems a bit strange when so many people harp on about their readiness to pay ?80.00+ for a meal in certain local restaurants

which serve fine dining, fine wines and cocktails... and in the next breath going on about a new outlet specializing in sugar & salt laden ready meals...

Ironic.... but does expose the level of their knowledge of food..

DulwichFox

[LondonMix]

From last summer those involved said it would be opening in summer 2016. The pace of progress is as they have always stated.

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> nxjen Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I may have got a bit confused after 73 pages but

> I

> > was under the impression M&S are not the

> > developers. Also isn't planning permission

> still

> > outstanding on some aspects?

>

> If you were doing a new build or refurb for your

> business, would you not show a great deal of

> concern as to the

> progress of your development.

>

> DulwichFox

[Earl Aelfheah]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> It just seems a bit strange when so many people

> harp on about their readiness to pay ?80.00+ for

> a meal in certain local restaurants

> which serve fine dining, fine wines and

> cocktails... and in the next breath going on about

> a new outlet specializing in sugar & salt laden

> ready meals...

>

> Ironic.... but does expose the level of their

> knowledge of food..

>

> DulwichFox

Most fine dining experiences involve a fair bit of salt, sugar and fat. That's what makes them delicious.

I must admit, I'm not much of a fan of M&S's food offering, but that said, it beats the frozen donner pizzas of Iceland.

[Jeremy]

It's not really a fair comparison rrr... the Iceland ready meals are cheap. For instance, their "pizzas" are enormous, thick, bready monstrosities which will fill two bellies, and cost just ?1. It's not hard to understand why people might buy them (in fact, most things in there seem to cost ?1 or ?1.50)!

Ready meals... we usually have a couple in the freezer, for those times when there isn't really time to cook and wash up. Nothing to do with "knowledge of food", simply practicality (but yes, quite high in salt and fat).

[DulwichFox]

My Type - 2 diabetes probably developed some 14 years back and I wasn't aware of it..

I was doing shift work which involved 12-13 hour shifts... including week-ends and nights sitting

in front of 3 computer screens with no chance of a break as I was there alone.

14 years in all . not much exercise.

All I ate on nights was ready meals and the occasional curry delivery. Salt, Sugar, Fat..

Oh yes.. the donuts left over from the day shift when it was some ones birthday..

Foxy.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> It's not really a fair comparison rrr... the

> Iceland ready meals are cheap. For instance, their

> "pizzas" are enormous, thick, bready monstrosities

> which will fill two bellies, and cost just ?1.

> It's not hard to understand why people might buy

> them (in fact, most things in there seem to cost

> ?1 or ?1.50)!

>

> Ready meals... we usually have a couple in the

> freezer, for those times when there isn't really

> time to cook and wash up. Nothing to do with

> "knowledge of food", simply practicality (but yes,

> quite high in salt and fat).

It is a necessary comparison when discussing a preference for one or the other. I prefer what M&S offer, although I'm not massively enamored with either.

[MarkT]

Yesterday I received notification from the Director of Planning, Southwark Council, that Application 15/AP/2221 is to be decided by Planning Sub-Committee B next Tuesday 8th March. That?s the application to add a 4th floor comprising 2 flats with use of 2nd and 3rd floor as offices. The Officer?s Report is not available yet, but the Director writes that he is recommending it for approval.

I checked today with the HM Planning Inspectorate who confirmed that the Appeal hearing against the non-determination of that same application ? Ref APP/A5840/W/3065783 ? is set for 10th May with a deadline for comment 23rd March.

MarkT

[first mate]

Unbelievable. The current building footprint at ground level is massive. A fourth storey would be overdevelopment. What is planning thinking? Where is James Barber, he has gone very quiet on this despite repeated requests to comment.

[Jeremy]

Wasn't the police station over the road also four storeys? And there are other four storey buildings around too (e.g. on East Dulwich Rd, and many blocks of flats in the area). There is a precedent for buildings of this size, or larger. A couple of extra flats is barely even a drop in the ocean.

[fazer71]

I think we should build higher all over London

Five floors is the most efficient height to build the young and fit can easily manage five flights of stairs

Major European cities all have five floor buildings as standard

I say this application is too low they must ask for another fifth floor !!!!

This is underdevelopment !

[LondonMix]

Yes, I don't mind the extra flats. My main concern is that they don't skirt their affordable housing requirement by splitting it into the two applications.

The flats of course have nothing to do with M&S- this is all on the freeholder

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Wasn't the police station over the road also four

> storeys? And there are other four storey buildings

> around too (e.g. on East Dulwich Rd, and many

> blocks of flats in the area). There is a precedent

> for buildings of this size, or larger. A couple of

> extra flats is barely even a drop in the ocean.

[first mate]

I assume those commenting in favour have seen the scale of the development in person ( you need to see the back) bearing in mind those 8 offices on the lower floors will also become flats? It is not just about height it is the overall scale of the development.Yes we need more housing but it has to be proportionate.

Please note that the entrance has a very large bollard displaced by an Iceland delivery vehicle, indicating that there is not enough room to manouevre. What space there was has been further reduced by the massively increased footprint of the build. We are now piling in many more residents into this reduced area...Those who really know the site are genuinely concerned about safety. Deliveries will now be stepped up, plus there are plans to reduce trading limits for Sundays. The road and area around these proposed flats is going to be very, very busy.

LM, James himself has commented on the classic salami tactics of this developer. All those offices will eventually become flats and then they want the penthouses on top. Please remember that an earlier application for 8 flats instead of offices was made on the basis that there was no call for offices. Those offices have been unused for many years, because there has been no market for them.

For those who choose to frame the objections to this latest phase of the development as mere nimby/ anti progress/ fuddy duddyism, please think again.

[edcam]

Looks like a huge improvement.

[MarkT]

Re the comment from LondonMix, the application that will be decided by Planning Sub-Committee B next Tuesday makes no mention of the change of use from offices on the existing second and third storeys to eight flats, which has already been approved.

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.?

As the Director of Planning is recommending approval, he is unlikely to work hard at persuading Councillors to do their duty under that policy.

As regards height, and density, planning decisions are supposed to follow policy, not precedent. Southwark Council has designated East Dulwich as Suburban Zone. The Suburban (and Urban Zone) label comes from the London Plan and carries with it a definition limiting height and density (London Plan Table 3.2). For a mixed commercial/residential development in the Suburban Zone, this proposal is a storey too high and about double the limiting density.

The London Plan (Policy 3.4) states:

?Taking into account local context and character, the design principles in Chapter 7 and public transport capacity, development should optimise housing output for different types of location within the relevant density range shown in Table 3.2. Development proposals which compromise this policy should be resisted.?

As the Director of Planning is recommending approval, he is unlikely to work hard at persuading Councillors to do their duty under that policy.

If the Council does not adhere to its own policies, the result is chaos. The designation of East Dulwich as Suburban is restated in the draft New Southwark Plan. For those who wish for taller buildings and higher densities in East Dulwich, and that seems to include the Director of Planning, and all the Councillors who approve over-dense and over-height developments, the solution is simple: re-label East Dulwich as Urban Zone.

MarkT

[Jeremy]

first mate, you seem to be talking about two different issues. 1) Deliveries, manouvering space for delivery trucks, opening hours, noise - and 2) number of residential units.

I don't see how 1 and 2 are related. The first point seems legitimate enough, but I don't understand 2 - I don't see how it is a case of overdevelopment. You say it needs to be "proportionate"... but proportionate to what? It's a small development compared with many others locally. Is the density any higher than say the new buildings going up on the Dog Kennel Hill estate, or the former Warehouse site on Crystal Palace Road?

Is the main conern about parking space for immediate neighbours on Chesterfield Grove?

[KalamityKel]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

>

> Is the main conern about parking space for

> immediate neighbours on Chesterfield Grove?

Does the entire road and neighbouring roads class as "immediate"? Sorry I don't want to get into the parking debate which is always an ongoing grumbling issue with Chesterfield Grove. The development is just an added stress not the cause.

The issues, which have been gone over and over again remain the same - MarkT points out Southwark's policies versus "precedent" - What is the point of having any policy in place if it's always going to be ignored?

The site it not suited to the additional storey. If you have a look at the rear of the site you can clearly see what looked like a "small scale" extension in the application is nothing like it in reality.

Neighbours residential properties are experiencing all sorts of issues/problems/grievances where the development is sitting up to their property. The scale of development is nothing like to the plans - you only have to take a nosey to realise this.

It's just ridiculous.

Residents feel incredibly let down by the planning department and even by our councillors.

It seems genuine concerns expressed on many of the objections have been deemed irrelevant and not even addressed in any of the various applications. Why?

Yes development is a necessity but sensible and considerate, not just for this particular site but as a whole.

What is the point of having a planning department if anything and everything is passed?

[Earl Aelfheah]

If they've breached the plans, there must be recourse somehow? Have you reported any infringements?

[cl]

Jeremy,

I suspect (though FM will have to confirm him/herself), that he is meaning proportionate in relation to the space and immediate context in which it is located. In this case, I would imagine that he feels that 10 flats with no parking provision, on top of a new highly attractive and substantial food store which is double the size and will attract much higher footfall than Iceland, on top of the removal of the car park that was previously there, represents over-development and will likely have an impact on the amenity of those living in the immediate area.

And I don't think that is an unreasonable assessment (if that's what he means, of course!)

[Jeremy]

Kel, building something different to the approved plans would indeed be a serious matter, I agree. Still don't agree with the "overdevelopment" argument though...

[spider69]

Would this be your response if it was you living next to this development

[Jeremy]

spider69 Wrote:

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

> Would this be your response if it was you living next to this development

I think so, yes

[kibris]

Love it,its better then being a closed shop