High rise ED (April 2015 M&S planning application)

[AbDabs]

Just seen a notice on the lamppost outside Iceland. Checked on the Southwark site and it's application Number 15/AP/1186. They want to slap another floor on top for penthouse flats. Oddly, after all the bleating that there's no need for office space, the existing floors will be offices. Going up another level seems like over development to me.

p.s it does say M&S Food Hall rather than Simply food. If it's proper shopping rather than ready-made won't that just mean more cars?

[first mate]

Of course it will and planning have just rolled over, with councillor' knowledge, and let it all happen. This developer clearly intend to squeeze every last drop of value (for them)out of the site, come what may...and, let's face it, who will stop them?

Actually just tried to find this application and it came up non-existant, how odd. Did you look at it on the planning site today?

[Burbage]

It's this one

It's not been decided yet - open for standard consultation till 15th May.

[Nigello]

Housing is needed; why not build up? It's better than digging down or spreading out. Whether it is for "penthouse suites" or average accommodation it's a good use of a small amount of space: an extra ten feet of height for two or three flats seems reasonable. (The maisonettes opposite, over the Co-Op pharmacy, are pretty high so there is already a precedent.)

[James Barber]

Cllr Rosie Shimell and I agreed last night to request this planning application be called-in for a decision to be taken by a planning committee. I've just made that formal request for us.

But I would urge people to object to this planning application - we think it would be a further over development of the site with all the issues of the previous granted applicatino as well.

To object please lick here - http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9559684

[monkeylite]

Not in my back yard.

[first mate]

Thank you James. I hope this time a smidgen of reason and proportion can be injected into the planning process for this site, I also hope that the Council do not find their hands tied by process once again.

[LD929]

I actually think the design looks quite nice and pretty appropriate given the street.

[bemusED]

I don't shop in either M&S nor Iceland so I don't have any allegiances to declare here but I have spent 10 mins comparing the drawings of this latest proposals against the consented scheme. I think some people are getting a bit carried away without checking the facts.

THIS IS NOT HIGH RISE

It is an existing 3 storey building on a major commercial street in zone 2 London which already has a plant enclosure on the roof. The proposal extends this roof top enclosure to create a volume which is set-back from the street to form a single storey roof extension with 2no 2bed flats. I doubt many people walking down Lordship Lane would be aware of this additional space at this level.

THERE ARE FEWER FLATS IN THIS APPLICATION THAN THE CONSENTED SCHEME

Much of the concerns raised of the original scheme was the demand that would be created from the proposed 8no flats. This latest proposal refurbishes the offices at first and second floor, so ends up with only 2no flats as opposed. The first and second floors are already offices with the same floor area, there should be no more parking demand than currently from this use.

THE PROPOSED FOODSTORE IS THE SAME SIZE AS THE CONSENTED SCHEME

The proposed foodstore is the same size and shape as the consented scheme at 8900ft2. Its the same configuration of front-of-house and back of house storage so the same amount of food on display. The branding change from Simply Food to Food Hall is not reflective of a bigger shop in any way.

[V511]

Looking at the office designs, it could be that they are planning live/work units for the 1st & 2nd floors, as the layouts are peculiar and inefficient for straightforward offices. Notice the size of some of the kitchens for example.

[Goose]

... Or more likely that the developers have adjusted their design for levels 1 and 2 only for this application so that people will think (as above) " oh well only 2 flats, that's not so bad". Then when permission is granted they revert to the 8 flats on levels 1 and 2 (using permission already granted). I think that is the most likely scenario as the 'office' layout is all rather odd and remember they argued that there was no demand for such office space in there previous application.

[first mate]

BemusED

The application is not creating more housing. The building already has two flats on the second floor, though this is not apparent from the application, but I know it to be the case as I have been inside them. So there will be a change of use if the second level is now to be offices only. It is also arguable that new housing is not being created but simply moved to a new, higher level.

Given that the last application only got through on an 'unforseen' technicality, despite significant and repeated local opposition, I think this looks like pure opportunism on the part of the developer. If you keep using the 'it's only one more level' approach we will end up with high rise ED. Perhaps you don't mind but many do.

Your point about parking does not hold since the offices have been empty for many years, on that basis it is impossible to know what extra parking pressure would be created if they are used, or, as us the strong suspicion, the developer reverts to residential use for 8 flats, plus another two on top.

Goose, you make a good point.

[Jeremy]

Building more housing? In London? When will this madness end?

[first mate]

No one is objecting to more housing, overdevelopment of a site is the point.

[Jeremy]

But surely more housing in London equates to greater density?

[DulwichFox]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> But surely more housing in London equates to

> greater density?

Yep. We are going to need more restaurants to feed them.

Foxy

[nxjen]

Are developers allowed to mix and match planning permissions in this way? I would have thought that planning permission is granted on the whole scheme and the whole scheme has to be adhered to. Perhaps James can advise.

Goose Wrote:

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

> ... Or more likely that the developers have

> adjusted their design for levels 1 and 2 only for

> this application so that people will think (as

> above) " oh well only 2 flats, that's not so bad".

> Then when permission is granted they revert to the

> 8 flats on levels 1 and 2 (using permission

> already granted). I think that is the most likely

> scenario as the 'office' layout is all rather odd

> and remember they argued that there was no demand

> for such office space in there previous

> application.

[first mate]

Jeremy, Greater density does not have to mean packing in as much as you can possibly get away with by playing the planning process. Or perhaps it does for you. No doubt you will applaud all the 'extra' housing that is expected to lie fallow in Nine Elms/ Hong Kong on the Thanes, safe in the portfolios of investment buyers.

[Jeremy]

Surely you can see the difference between a couple of flats above a shop, and the extensive development we're currently seeing in Vauxhall, etc?

You assume I'm in favour of properties lying empty, owned by foreign investors... because I have called for a little perspective. Strange conclusion.

[first mate]

Nxjen, what is interesting is that the second floor already contains two flats, and they are occupied, or were recently, yet for years that space has been up for rent, though not used, as office space.

[first mate]

It's a matter of proportion, Nine Elms is a large site being taken to the nth degree by developers, the same principle is being applied here, to a small site.

Moreover, if you want and are arguing for more housing why would you support a proposal that was passed for 8 flats to be superseded by one for two penthouses, and the existing flats on a lower level to be removed and replaced with offices, which the developer has formerly claimed are not viable?

[Otta]

I would have no problem with an extra floor for flats if they were going to be affordable. Bit the term "penthouse flats" just shows the sort of person they have in mind.

[first mate]

Otta quite. The cleaner, greener, community- minded rhetoric that has been used in support of these serial applications is a lot of sound and fury. The bottom line and the reality is developer profit by any means that just stays within process. There always were and still are safety issues around these applications in terms of access and proposed usage.

[Jeremy]

As you say, FM... a matter of proportion, and the proportion of this development is not really comparable with the large developments you're talking of. Even compared with all the blocks of small 600sqft flats which have been built in ED recently, this seems like a drop in the ocean.

Otta - yes I totally agree that we need more affordable housing, but that needs to be a government initiative. I don't think it's realistic to expect a property developer (or really any private business) to suddenly come over all altruistic.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Building more housing? In London? When will this

> madness end?

:-)