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

[first mate]

P68, I don't think the majority of objectors were against change, it has always been about degree. Those closest will inevitably note the downsides, those further away are more likely to see the benefits and dismiss the former as a sort of collateral damage, and the latter will almost always be the majority view.

Yes, for most people having a convenient liquor and fast food store, open 7am 'till 12pm every day of the week, will certainly be seen as handy. There will always be customers for that. For those close by increased deliveries/ opening hours may impact on sleep etc.. presumably the rationale for earlier conditions. But hey,as you suggest, for the greater good.

[XIX]

Penguin, your assessment is a beautiful sweeping generalisation that conveniently glazes over so many issues and seems, if I've understood it right, to suggest we should all put our faith and trust in the hands of southwark and developers and businesses to develop the borough in the right way. I wonder, how do you think the Heygate residents feel about that????

What about abuse of processes by developers? eg getting round their obligation to affordable housing in underhand ways?

What about the malaise/incompetence of the local council/planning department?

Should we all just accept that in the vain hope that any development that happens is probably good, because it is change, as you seem to suggest above?

Surely we should aspire for better. Decent planning policies, well managed by a competent planning authority. your comment about centre point is not fair either - it is an exaggeration and misrepresents what has happened. A handful of very local residents have some entirely reasonable reservations about the extent of what is proposed and the conduct of the developer and southwark, and are trying to counter-act some of those excesses before they are set in stone. People should stand up and object to things they don't feel are right - isn't that what our democracy is about? this is not, as you and others have suggested so many times, because people are simply 'wedded to the past'.

In your assessment you suggest that southwark have a better vision for the future of the borough, implying therefore that their approval of this application is a deliberate part of a grander design. Again, this shows a profound misunderstanding of the history of this case, with its mismanagement (southwark's own admission), the council missing its own deadlines, and being fearful of the applicant taking it to appeal and the council having to fork out for costs. Your vision sounds lovely, but I fear bears absolutely no resemblance to reality.

Letting developers/companies do what they want in the knowledge that 'there are remedies to be had' is so na?ve. there is no guarantee any such remedies will be available, and may have to be extremely hardly fought for. An example is the agreement fought for by local residents and eventually put in place with Iceland on deliveries with the help of Tessa Jowell. So much time and effort. When actually with a dose of sense and balance such things could be easily decided at the planning stage with the needs of developers, businesses and local residents all considered. So much time, energy, anguish etc etc could be avoided.

[LondonMix]

James did you or anyone else raise the issue of this application clearly trying to circumvent the affordable housing requirement? I asked up thread but you seemed to have missed my query.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> If people object to the licensing application it

> would help stem this tide.

>

> I suspect they're seeking longer licensing hours

> than the planning conditions currently allow and

> will them go back to planning to have that

> condition amended to increase hours to the

> licensed hours. Otherwise why do it. Assuming such

> a planning application is refused the

> developer/M&S will appeal. These guys have deep

> pockets to keep wearing us down.

[Charlie Smith]

I attended this planning meeting last night along with Councillor Barber. We had 90 seconds each to make representations. This does not give very much time but I think between the two of us we were able to get over most of the important issues surrounding this application. As you all probably know this application was regarding the two additional flats for the new third floor. Permission has already been granted for 8 offices on the 1st and 2nd floors. I imagine that it won't be long before these 8 offices suddenly change into 8 flats. This will of course mean that as there will now be 10 flats on the development and a Section 106 payment would be payable by the developer. The senior officer at the meeting recognised this might happen and stated the developer would still be liable even at a later stage.We will have to wait and see.

We also argued about extra pressure on car parking in surrounding streets, the extra deliveries that M&S will undoubtedly generate and the increased risks to pedestrians using Chesterfield Grove.

East Dulwich has been designated as 'Suburban' and therefore is subject to certain conditions regarding height of buildings and density of buildings. We would not be doing our jobs as Councillors if we completely ignored these rules. We will keep objecting where a development appears to ignore the guidelines. If we don't our constituents will soon let us know.

Kind Regards

Councillor Charlie Smith

Labour Member for the East Dulwich Ward

[intexasatthe moment]

Charlie - so did you vote against the application last night ?

[Mick Mac]

its an aside from the housing issue - but when is it expected that we will see this M&S open.

[first mate]

Charlie,

It sounds like you objected. If so, thank you. If all the local Councillors of whatever party objected it feels worrying that those considered views could so easily be overridden by the opinions of those who do not know the area as well. As requested earlier, can we have the names of those attending and who voted for what?

[XIX]

Charlie, thanks for your message. What was the council's response on the issues you raised? What was their rationale for granting the application?

Many thanks

[rch]

It's really reassuring to see councillors uniting cross-party to represent the best interests of the community.

In the meantime, it will be interesting to see if the Appeal hearing now gets cancelled, as I suspect that this was a significant reason why the application was passed by the sub-committee.

Unfortunately, Licensing is different legislation and a different committee to Planning, so we'll all have to go through the objecting saga again, hopefully with cllrs uniting against extending the trading hours.

Bear in mind that the opening hours of the M&S on Walworth Road, which has far greater footfall than Lordship, are 8am-8pm Mon-Fri, 8am-7pm Saturday, and 8am-4pm on Sunday... so that should give us adequate ammunition to fight later opening hours selling alcohol on Lordship.

[fazer71]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Fazer, which other laws, policy and "political

> claptrap" do you think our council or politicians

> should ignore for the sake of expediency and

> commercial profit?

Every single one that restricts more homes being built and complicated the existing planning!

I am not saying that profits should be excessive I'd guess if these bonkers restrictions were removed and more homes were built within a stable system then profits might even be lower as more builders built more homes.

These restrictions simply add massively to the cost and the length of time it takes to build new homes.

BUT If there is no Commercial PROFIT you get NO homes !

What is it with this insane thought process that profit is a bad thing ... without profit there would be no work no jobs and no new anything !!!!! The logic of many people is totally Bonkers !

[first mate]

rch,

A helpful and informative post, thanks. If CS did object to this it shows he is prepared to put local interests before what might be a party line and that takes guts.

[fazer71]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Show some analysis that affordable housing

> restricts development.

>

> Everything else you are saying is just noise. The

> planning system needs to remove the loophole to

> avoid this circus but that is not the same thing

> as affordable housing per se restricting

> development.

Really do you honestly believe the "affordable" housing requirement equals more homes ?

Laughable ~!

[robbin]

Hooray! - we are finally getting the M&S.

Personally, I'm glad the nimbys lost. Most of them will probably come round to liking it too.

[BrandNewGuy]

Haven't we been here before with the licensing hours vs opening hours question for another development? Co-Op? Sainsburys Local?? It was quite a while ago (and my brain's getting old) but I recall an application went in for very long licensing hours, but the opening hours were unchanged, so the licensing hours permitted were effectively redundant.

[DulwichFox]

Iceland should of stayed and M&S replace the Co-Op.. Best of both worlds..

DulwichFox

[Earl Aelfheah]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Iceland should of stayed and M&S replace the

> Co-Op.. Best of both worlds..

>

> DulwichFox

Yep, or better still, M&S Food by the station (where the Morisson's is going to be [is it still?]).

[LondonMix]

Frazer you aren't putting forward any arguments. Affordable housing requirements neither increases nor decreases the amount of homes built. When implemented without exception, the only impact section 106 has besides the creation of affordable housing is reducing land prices- period.

Explain why you believe that isn't the case using an actual argument versus a declarative statement please?

You'll note that land price varies significantly to reflect what can be done /must be done with it so this is an established fact not a theory.

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> LondonMix Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Show some analysis that affordable housing

> > restricts development.

> >

> > Everything else you are saying is just noise.

> The

> > planning system needs to remove the loophole to

> > avoid this circus but that is not the same

> thing

> > as affordable housing per se restricting

> > development.

>

> Really do you honestly believe the "affordable"

> housing requirement equals more homes ?

>

> Laughable ~!

[first mate]

Robbin,

Objections were not against M&S but overdevelopment of the site by the developers in breach of Southwark Planning policy, attendant health and safety issues, and apparent attempts by developers to circumvent affordable housing quotas. The brand is a red herring.

[LondonMix]

Exactly First mate--

Robbin if you actually read the thread you'd know that people have concerns about the application that have nothing to do with M&S as a tenant but the residential development the freeholder (separate person) is doing in conjunction with the other works.

Take some time before throwing around baseless criticisms please. The objections being made in no way prevent M&S from moving into the retail component as intended.

[fazer71]

What you say makes no sense.

How does it affect land prices?

It's an added cost as with all added costs it increases price and sale time.

It's exactly this type of policy which forces prices up !

My arguments are clear every hurdle and every delay makes for fewer more expensive homes.

That's basic maths.

As is fewer homes means more expensive homes.

"affordable" is a nonsense affordable for who and subsidised why ?

My argument is simple if the site can accommodate X number of homes within the planning rules then X is what should be build on day 1 1st planning granted.

What this thread proves is X is eventually built after years of nonsense and any "affordable" home ends up costing what every other "non affordable" home costs by the time the development is finished.

It is absolute insanity.

How much clearer can I make my argument /././?

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Frazer you aren't putting forward any arguments.

> Affordable housing requirements neither increases

> nor decreases the amount of homes built. When

> implemented without exception, the only impact

> section 106 has besides the creation of affordable

> housing is reducing land prices- period.

>

> Explain why you believe that isn't the case using

> an actual argument versus a declarative statement

> please?

>

> You'll note that land price varies significantly

> to reflect what can be done /must be done with it

> so this is an established fact not a theory.

>

>

> fazer71 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > LondonMix Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Show some analysis that affordable housing

> > > restricts development.

> > >

> > > Everything else you are saying is just noise.

>

> > The

> > > planning system needs to remove the loophole

> to

> > > avoid this circus but that is not the same

> > thing

> > > as affordable housing per se restricting

> > > development.

> >

> > Really do you honestly believe the "affordable"

> > housing requirement equals more homes ?

> >

> > Laughable ~!

[LondonMix]

The way all requirements (including section 106) impact land prices is like this:

House prices are determined by supply and demand (not by how much they cost to construct).

In a competitive market, developers will value land by looking at their total costs and calculate their minimum acceptable profit. What's left over is the land value.

Land doesn't have an intrinsic value but rather a residual value based on what it can be used for.

For instance, an acre of land that gains residential planning permission's value goes up exponentially in the green belt. Its the same land but with a more valuable use. This change in value is well documented.

An acre of land that is granted permission for double the FAR (density) of commercial development than a equal sized plot beside it will trade for double the price.

If builder costs go up or down, all else being equal, land prices move correspondingly (with certain caveats like land can't be worth less than zero etc). There is plenty of academic research on this which if you still don't understand what I'm saying I will link for you.

Its fairly basic though-- houses are expensive in London because lots of people want to live here. The high price of housing makes land prices much higher in London than the rest of the country as building costs throughout the country are largely the same. Land values are residual values. When house prices drop, land values also drop. Its a well established relationship.

[LondonMix]

If the rules state on a plot of land 100 houses can be built of which 30 must be affordable, then that is exactly what will happen if the rules are applied without exception. It has no impact on how many homes are built as the land will be priced accordingly.

The reason this process can be slow is because developers (not planners) are intent to make multiple applications to abuse the rules as there are loopholes through which they can circumvent certain conditions to increase their profit. All of the complexity and delay is generated by the developers trying to circumvent the rules (including by deceit).

Removing the loopholes is the only means by which you can prevent developers trying to circumvent the rules, delaying their own developments by making multiple applications and asking for variations.

There is nothing about having planning requirements like section 106 that reduces the amount of housing and the slowness is the fault of the developers trying to break the rules. Your suggestion would be akin to abolishing taxes because some people invest a lot of time and effort in their attempts to evade paying taxes.

[Earl Aelfheah]

^this

[fazer71]

LondonMix

Yes that?s a long way of saying ? X Land value is based on what Y development would be worth once built on X land? so working backwards from Y you get the value of X including all factors costs etc etc.

So in your example of 100 homes 30 must be affordable X price of land value is the difference between 100 non ?affordable? homes and 70 non ?affordable? and 30

?affordable? which you believe will results in the value of X being lower (read below for why that never happens) what happens is either developer does not buys X land because it would be unprofitable = no homes or the developer sits on X land until 100 non ?affordable? homes can be build or an alternative makes a profit.

This thread shows the results = fewer more expensive homes due to a slower process.

WHY is this almost always the case ?

Answer Because of human nature the optimism with the developer ALWAYS results in developers paying X for Y100 non ?affordale? homes and NEVER paying X-30 for Y70 non affordable and Y30 the ?affordable? outcome.

Anyone who?s followed this thread will see that is exactly what happened here.

You conveniently discount this reality.

Send me all links to as many academic expert calculations and papers as you like the reality is once human nature is added into the mix house prices and land values take on a life of their own the result as we see in developments like this and others all over the UK always play out like this one.

If your academic studies worked we would live in a perfect world but we don?t we live in the reality of human nature and that human nature is to expect the best possible outcome so the developers out bid others and pay too much and that results in a need to get the most from the system hence the playing and long slow process.

You see it as developers playing for more.

I see it as a bad system at fault because it isn?t clear it creates confusion loopholes so allows developers to play the ?system? the system is a joke it?s open to manipulation blame the system along with the political BS that is ?affordable homes? pure political garbage. Its only purpose is to allow politicians another sound bite and deceive voters by masking reality.

Yes there?s an argument to say if it was freed up the developers would still want more and more. I disagree if the rules are clear more opportunity and more land would become available the confusion causes price increases and price spikes.

Yes ?houses are expensive in London because lots of people want to live here? also because there?s insufficient supply densities are low / land is inefficiently used.

Our Victorian terraced houses are inefficiently dense when compared to Parisian courtyards but they could be efficiently developed with allowances for extra floors and large extensions on flats and houses. What we have are restrictions and so less sq footage resulting in smaller and fewer homes on existing land. WTF is that about ?

I'm happy to agree to disagree as we see the issues in different ways but we can?t both be correct on this.

Every year that passes with this ?affordable? homes BS and restrictive planning system house prices rise and rise and the new homes targets are missed time and time again it looks like this system isn?t working.

Did they have an ?affordable? house requirement in Victorian times NO

Yet they were able to build hundreds of thousands of homes many we still enjoy today, maybe remove all this BS and get on with some simple rules and we?d have tens of thousands more homes and sensible prices?

We?ll never know if my alternative simple system would work because there are now so many vested interests in keeping the current system as it is.

Planners Architects developers and all the hangers on would earn less under my system though I?m confident we would build a lot more homes and the result would be home prices realigning with reality.

Don?t get me started on government / taxpayer supported over inflated rental system another mess of vested interests mismanagement sky high costs and wasted opportunity.

[LondonMix]

No Frazer, affordable homes do not cost more to build than they are worth-- there is not a negative cost to building them, they simply don't sell for as much as market rate homes, which is what reduces the land value like for like to be clear. There is no chance of zero profit in London for that scenario.

Developers build the maximum they are permitted to build including affordable housing. I'm not optimistic. When there are no loopholes, developers do not sit on land, they buy it aware of the rules and proceed accordingly. Affordable housing gets built (or contributions towards it paid to the state) without incident all of the world. Other major cities with similar housing problems like NY have clear cut rules that allow this to happen efficiently.

You are simply wrong on this. Some things are a matter of opinion and others are not. Empirically what you are saying is incorrect. I doubt you can admit that but that is a different issue.

You can suggest planning should allow for denser developments and that would potentially lead to more homes being built but that has nothing to do with allowing for section 106 to persist. More market housing would limit price increases and if done to a great enough degree would even lower prices but section 106 doesn't prevent housing being built so your argument against it is nonsensical which is why you constantly go off on tangents about other issues.