New out of town shop on East Dulwich Road

[DJKillaQueen]

The Libdems also have a track record of deliberating misleading voters in their local election campaigns too, which doesn't help.

The planning application is simply an application for change of use from office to retail, so no, what kind of retail unit isn't a consideration. If the change of use is granted, then the retailer needs to apply for a licence to trade. It is in THAT process that the nature of business can be scrutinised and objected to (within the remit of four specific catagories). Change of use is not the same as building extensions, which have to satisfy various building regulations.

[DiD]

Yes, misleading is an issue -- but I agree with some other posters that James Barber is probably more accessible than other councillors, and puts himself open for discussion (and it seems abuse).

Re: the process, thanks for the clarification. So the real debate that we should be having is:

- do we want retail space there or office space? Correct? In that regard, I would agree with james that we have quite a bit of retail space already, most of which needs supporting. So on this basis, it should be kept as office.

And to put my cards on the table -- I don't vote libdem.

[Townleygreen]

DJKQ said "The Libdems also have a track record of deliberating misleading voters in their local election campaigns too, which doesn't help. "

Labour never does that, does it DJKQ?

Haha

[DuncanW]

Hi James,

Have you noticed that not one of the posts on this thread is in support of your original post?

Just saying.

D

[the-e-dealer]

oh Dear UKIP are taking over!

Hope they don't get elected then say "Sorry - you know that promise about leaving the EU. We've changed our minds!"

[James Barber]

Hi DuncanW,

I've been copied on a number of emails objecting to the planning application. That will count for more in the planning process than posting here.

Thank you to those that have expressed a view for or against this planning application. If it does go t ocommittee at least more of the facts will come out and a better cosndiered decision will occur.

Hi DJKQ,

What local election promises do you think I or my Lib Dem colleagues have broken?

(NB Labour was the first party to stand on a manifesto for no student tuition fees and break it so a little bit rich being lectured on it from Labour supporters however much I disagree with the trading the Lib Dems nationally did in coalition).

[DJKillaQueen]

DID...most councillors are accessible through a variety of means. A forum is just one of many means that councillors can use. Do not make the assumption that because James uses this forum that he is somehow more accessible and hard working than other councillors who don't.

Townley, not anywhere near the level of Local lib dem campaigns - including the most recent Walworth election, where they try to blame the lack of council owned homes within the planned Elephant and Castle development on Labour (and even though there are 2000 HA homes - more than the council rented homes they are replacing). Hilarious given that Nick Stanton an his former Lib/Con coalition cronies dream't that plan up and set it in motion (it is THEY who decided the affordable home make-up of the development). It's that kind of blatent misinformation that the local lib dems are shockingly guilty of.

All that's off topic though, yes the issue at hand is one of whether EDR should have another retail unit over an office unit.

[DJKillaQueen]

James...maybe I should scan and post the said document that was handed to me last night to look/ laugh at. It says and I quote....'Southwarks Labour Council is agreeing to new development at the Elepahnt without enough affordable homes.' You know as well as I do that Nick Stanton is the person that should be, and indeed was at the time, challenged on that one, as it is your former council that signed the plans off.

And I'm still waiting for the Labour council to sell of management of all of Southwarks Council homes to private companies....something that Lib Dems claimed would happen, in a deliberate attempt to scare social housing voters, at the last local elections.

On the whole, I find most of the Lib campaign material targetting social tenants, simple, childish and intellectually insulting.

[James Barber]

Hi DJKQ,

The draft agreement with the E&C developer was not signed before the May 2010 local elections by former leader Nick Stanton. That draft agreement was significantly revised by Labour upon taking office and signed that July.

They decided to apply a lower ratio of social housing than the previous draft agreement and not obtian a signicant capital sum for the council and overidge. I'm not legally allowed to tell you that sum although it can be found on the internet.

The latest E&C specific planning application have tiny proportions of social housing or none. So little that during the by-election current council leader Peter John suggested he wanted to use section 106 paid by developers to buy flats in the developments paying S106.

As for selling mgmt of council homes. That's what Lambeth did when they took power in 2006 and at the time of the 2010 elections Labour Southwark was telling us how fab Lambeth Laobur policies were.

Since then Southwark Labour have insisted upon paying ?100,000 for an options report into Southwakr Council housing and then rubbishing all the options. While at the same time paying for a newly created Director of Housing and paying for a part-time cllr to lead on housing.

With respect to poliical literature. It has to attempt to grab people's attention. However locally in East Dulwich my colleagues and I have on several occassions produced very detailed multipage letters to residnts which appear ot have been useful giving more background. And I'm keen despite professional advice to the contrary to keep doing this in East Dulwich.

NB. The chair of the council planning committee has agreed in principle to this decision being taken by committee but awaits the hed of planning to agree or not.

[Gimme]

What is wrong with James highlighting a change of use on a building on the forum? particularly where he sees potential issues!!!This is the gossip section and recently there has been far too little gossip....

More gossip, less personal grandstanding please.

[Fuschia]

I actually agree that a retail unit there would cause a problem. The stretch if road is very busy with the roundabout at one end and the awful junction at the other. There is already the tesco, the garage, the little parade of shops, the park and the corner with the swimming pool. It is also a route to and from the school. Crossing the road with children can be quite perilous as it is

[simonethebeaver]

I'm not remotely interested in the political argument but my eyebrows are raised at the description of that spot as 'out of town'. It's scaremongering if you ask me, and an annoyingly Lordship Lane-centric view. Lots of ED residents don't live that close to Lordship Lane. That spot is also accessibly to the cash spending of Peckham and Nunhead. Plenty of shops on Lordship Lane sell expensive inessentials. Why should they be protected if a shop selling things people need is opening up a few hundred metres away? Personally I end up doing most of my shopping on the Internet or in Bromley or Bluewater, which are a darned sight more 'out of town'. I do use Lordship Lane shops for specific things but surely no one thinks that all needs are catered for on there?

[LadyDeliah]

I don't have an opinion either way re change of use, except maybe to say that when I was looking for a small office in the area it was almost impossible to find one, but I do object to the way James has used hyperbole in his presentation of the issues.

This presents an overtly biased stance by James and has unhelpfully caused a level of polarisation which now makes sensible discussion of the issues more difficult.

[DJKillaQueen]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi DJKQ,

> The draft agreement with the E&C developer was not

> signed before the May 2010 local elections by

> former leader Nick Stanton. That draft agreement

....................

> has agreed in principle to this decision being

> taken by committee but awaits the hed of planning

> to agree or not.

Hi James, that may be so, by why is that? Because the Conservative/ Lib Dem government made major changes to PPI and almo funding that put the whole Elephant and castle development in jeopardy. There had to be revisions, and when you factor in cuts to local authorities and capital funding grants how on earth can any local authority find the money needed to reverse a development (or even honour one in it?s previous form) from HA housing to Council owned. Whichever way it is looked at?.the Lib Dems in partnership with Conservatives, both on local and national level, have been the puppet masters.

And the previous Lib Con attitude to council housing was so poor that any finger pointing at the current Labour council is extremely hypocritical. I still have Nick Stanton?s comment in mind (from the Politics Show) where he said (in reference to Elephant and Castle) that an area so close to central London should not be a poor one. This was in reply to Peter Tatchall?s accusation that the plans were cleansing the area of it?s existing social demographic for a preference of a more affluent community. I think Mr Tatchall had a more than a valid point.

To be fair though, housing is a difficult issue to address and one that ALL the parties have been struggling to solve.

On the Lambeth Housing management thing. I know exactly where the Lib Dems took this nonsense from. It was from a directive looking at whether some services on the border with Lambeth could be shared, to solve some cross border inefficiencies with things like repairs and refuse collection. It was never an attempt to consider giving blanket management of anything in Southwark to the companies managing things in Lambeth.

You also know very well that Lambeth had specific problems in managing things like Housing (being at the time one of the worst run boroughs in the country) which is why it turned to private management, in a much needed effort to genuinely improve things. To take that and then tell Southwark social tenants that Labour will hand over management of it?s housing stock and that rents will rise by 14% was a giant and underhand leap of a lie.

On campaign literature, grabbing attention is fine. But grabbing attention with misleading sound bites aimed to shock is just wrong. And it does the Lib Dems no favours. You are right to make sure your own literature is more informative and intelligent and HONEST. People aren?t stupid. They can see through the nonsense, and it?s a nonsense that many of your counterparts (certainly true of my ward) seem to think is acceptable. It didn?t work for the last local elections, and it didn?t work in Walworth either.

[DJKillaQueen]

There's nothing wrong with James informing of an application for change of use on the forum. It's just when his tries to garner support for his own objection by suggesting it's going to be a Sainsburrys or Tesco store, when know one knows yet.

So why make that kind of presumption? Because he knows there's a dislike of large chain stores by independent retailers, and a bias by some residents (and forum users) towards this kind of chain store or that....(Iceland vs Waitrose for example). It James playing politics.....but he is a politician.

Yes the 'out of town' bit is partisan and disrepectful to neighbouring communities and businesses but James, to be fair, did acknowledge in reply to one of my posts that he was having a off day when he started the thread.

Looking at the consensus of replies on this thread the objections seem to be outnumbered by those for though.

[James Barber]

Hi DJKQ,

Much as I love EDF it does always reflect what everyone in East Dulwich thinks. We're self selecting those that post with many times that reading and watching but not wanting to risk posting.

My email bags on this has seen no supporters of such an application but several objectors.

I'm happy to discuss others issues but it would takeover this thread even more. But I disagree with most of what you've written. Happy to have an email chat abut it.

[cosmonaut]

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't really see what all the fuss is about over the change of use application...?

Anything that goes in that spot (or any other piece of land in anywhere in London) is going to contribute to an increase in traffic to some extent, right? And as someone else said from what's in the document it doesn't look like they're removing the parking lot.

Lordship Lane can't be expected to absorb all retail for East Dulwich, it has limited space. What difference does it make if a new retail unit is placed on LL vs in some other part of ED? If anything, having more retail options is probably a good thing. As long as it's not another estate agent...

[Tarot]

Poundland is coming,

[LondonMix]

I very strongly support all our local shops but I think the real question is what type of retail use will be allowed (A1- A5). The expansion of some of the establishments in the area doesn?t suggest that the local business community believe the area has reached saturation point. The team behind the Palmerston and the Herne Tavern has opened a (very good) Vietnamese street food restaurant on Bellenden Road. The guys behind the Bishop and the Actress are the ones who are now running the Rye.

If it is another supermarket, I dare say that is more a threat to Sainsbury and Tesco than to the local independent retailers. You either shop at the butchers and the green grocers or you don?t. The opening of yet another supermarket is unlikely to influence that decision much.

I would be concerned if the intended use was for a business line in the area I thought was already struggling but what business person in their right mind would want to do that anyway. Hopefully, it will be something filling a gap in the market (while we have a lot, it?s not difficult to imagine a shop offering something new).

It is premature to assume the change of use is a bad idea. The more the area has to offer, the higher footfall it receives which is a boon for all the businesses.

[Mick Mac]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> You don't have to agree with everything James B

> says or does (I know I don't), but some of the

> abuse dished out to him on here is completely out

> of order.

Jeremy. I have not seen any abuse.

However the responses are evidence of peoples annoyance that James has once again tried to lead people down his preferred path.

He should present the application and allow a debate to develop.

Instead we see the first page of what should have been a healthy debate, being instead focussed on him. Perhaps he likes the attention.

We miss the opoortunity to see what the people of ED think of the planning application (before their views are influenced).

[DJKillaQueen]

James, of course you disagree with most of what I have written, because you think your party is beyond reproach. The only paragraph with subjective room for debate is the first one. All of the other paragraphs are fact, supported by example. I doubt the Lib Dems will regain countrol of the council anytime soon and on a national level, Nick Clegg is finished.

But yes, it is off topic and not the place to debate it.

Back on topic though...of course, the only people who are going to email you are those who object. But if you like I'll email you to support the application and urge others in support to do so too. Then maybe you'll have a more balanced outlook as to the general feeling about the application.

Totally agree with Mic Mac's post above.

[Michael Palaeologus]

James, you have to stop this. It is politico, rabble rousing at its most base.

You identify a planning application that could be used to whip up the NIMBY instincts of folk, you post on the EDF in a negative, partisan tone which is bound to get a noisy minority agitated, this then allows you to act as people's champion against the wicked developers.

As DJKQ notes, people who are unconcerned about the development are not going to email you, we have better things to do.

Your objection to the M&S development was primarily that it was not Waitrose, your preferred option. Waitrose would allow you to claim that you were responsible for bringing them into ED.

You presumably have your own idea as to what should be developed on ED road, what is your preferred option?

[bemusED]

just had a quick look at the planning application form.?

a couple of comparative facts for info:

- the application is for a retail unit would be 20% smaller than the current Iceland on Lordship Lane

- the shop would be less than half of the size of the extended unit which M&S wanted for a Simply Food

[James Barber]

The planning application for this has just been granted planning permission - please see attached. I'm amazed.

It probably means the planning permission for a new 120 place nursery wont now be used and one of the two major improvements to new nursery provision wont proceed. I hope my pessimism is proved wrong.

Hopefully if this shop unit does proceed it wont detract from Lordship Lane retail vitality.

[Michael Palaeologus]

Oh Good Grief James!! Don't be so mean minded. It is a peculiarly Lordship Lane-centric view that you have.

Why shouldn't other areas of ED not develop? We have shops on ED Road already.