former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[Siduhe]

To be fair to Southwark, there is absolutely no mention in the application to lift the delivery conditions that this would lead to deliveries at the front - it's all drafted as if nothing is changing at all. But if the effect of the lifting is what the developer seems to think it is, someone really should have spotted it.

[first mate]

rch,

Thanks as ever for your considered response. I think you seem to have a real handle on the issues. If there are real dangers to pedestrains then certainly worth looking at but, and I think you are in agreement on this, the pavements are in an appalling state round here and repeated calls for a remedy seem to fall on deaf ears while councillors throw money at bike hangars and needless yellow lines. Bad pavements are a trip hazard and also a big problem for residents.

It is such an obvious thing to sort out, it benefits everyone not just a few so why do the local reps seem so slow out of the blocks?

[first mate]

Sidhue,

Many thanks for finding this and explaining. It does look as though planning are caught out nearly every time and I think many have very little faith in their ability to get a fair result. The Developer and M&S have behaved badly and you are right the long fought planning process, where they cycnically played the system with a long game will have cost us.

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

I can't guarantee that the imminent decision whether to place around 10km of double yellow lines wont be taken by the Labour councillor in charge of these things - we used to make these decisions locally and would have rejected them - and indeed that is our request - but very recently Labour in Southwark have centralised such decisions. So if they add lots of double yellow lines and that coincides with its then the current junction would have had them so the new junction would have them. Long winded way of saying definitely if local councillors get to say.

I can't give dates when we'll used devolved budget for fixing Melbourne Grove or Chesterfield Grove pavements. This year we allocated our funds to complete Landcroft Road, Landells some of its pavement and finish Rodwell Road. The annual budget is ?33,333. We will get asked in the summer for this years spend and all pavements and highway works not covered by the central core budget we will consider. We also need to look at Lordship Lane pavements which are a real pickle and Lordship Lane where it meets East Dulwich Grove as well at Friern Road where it meets Lordship Lane. Our highways and pavements are in a real pickle generally.

Hi rch,

I'm baffled why their would be any loss of parking. Officers are currently looking at this and when they have a view I'll share what I have. If they meet you on site that gets billed to the CGS funds so please don't spend that. IF their is a problem with the final design then a meeting on site might be required.

Hi Siduhe,

M&S have been at best disingenuous throughout. I had previously thought they were reputable company but boy...

So please do object to this latest planning application. I emailed local residents I had email addresses for a week or two ago about t his latest application.

[Abe_froeman]

If it helps your bafflement, James, why there might be loss of parking is because a local councillor sitting on the community council that seemingly approved the funding for the works on this junction himself can't guarantee there won't be new double yellow lines at that junction.

Is there any chance of Southwark or the Dulwich Community Council putting any documents relating to Project 694030 on the Southwark website for public srutiny at all?

[sally buying]

"Hi rch,

I'm baffled why their would be any loss of parking. Officers are currently looking at this and when they have a view I'll share what I have. If they meet you on site that gets billed to the CGS funds so please don't spend that. IF their is a problem with the final design then a meeting on site might be required."

Perhaps a silly question, If Officers are employed and paid by Southwark to do this job as salaried staff, why is their time charged? Their time is already covered.

Are they outside Consultants? as this always seem to be the case these days with Southwark

[James Barber]

Hi sally buying,

Yes salaried officers but council officers complete timesheets and time is allocated against project codes. This is pretty standard way of working in most organisations.

[first mate]

Hi James,

I guess a few of us might be wondering why you have not answered Abe_froeman's request. Is this because you genuinely do not know?

[rch]

This is a really useful exchange from my perspective, a lot of pennies are dropping into place. Multiple layers of complexity, I'll try to get to them bit by bit as I have time, but also don't want to write long convoluted replies which may confuse things more.

Firstly, one major question which may tie into something else that has come up (possibly positive, too long to type out)...

Had a look at Siduhe's useful links above (thanks, Siduhe!), so the question is...

What do the Chesterfield residents object to about M&S moving the deliveries to the front of the premises on Lordship Lane?

Is it the noise caused by M&S pushing the inventory around the corner on foot from Lordship into Chesterfield and loading into the back of the building or are they loading in the front doors on Lordship, away from the houses??

If they are pushing everything around the corner, then the shift to the earlier time will probably be disturbing, but if they are required to load in the front then would this solve the noise problem completely?

There's a method to my madness here, but I don't know if it will work out... so can you guys explain?

[Abe_froeman]

It wouldn't solve the noise problem though, it would just move it onto Lordship Lane. The lorries can't park outside the doors because of the pedestrian crossing and the parking /loading restrictions further along.

One problem it might solve though, is if there has been a slip up by a southwark employee in unilaterally approving a change to the planning condition on deliveries. If the council makes it impossible to comply with the condition by putting a build out on the Chesterfield / Melbourne Grove junction then an earlier utlra vires change to the planning would have to be overlooked.

[James Barber]

The proposed changes would allow deliveries disturbing many on Chesterfield Grove and Lordship Lane from 6am rather than current 7am.

6am would allow servicing by other vehicles - rubbish trucks etc from 6am via the delivery yard.

The opening hours also proposed to be increased putting greater parking stress for longer hours in the area.

[Siduhe]

rch, it's worth nothing that at least one of the objections on the Southwark planning site are from the flats above the M&S site who would be particularly badly affected by what is being proposed.

As I say, I'm not directly affected so my voice doesn't count for much in the planning process but the person who submitted this objection has exactly captured what I think about the whole process. Only, he/she is a lot more polite about it than I would be:

I object to this application as the variation to the opening and servicing hours will result in an increase in noise and disturbance. I live nearby and will be directly affected.

The current opening and servicing hours are part of the S106 agreement attached to 15/AP/2221. Their existence in the S106 is in order to protect the neighbouring premises and local residents. In the appeal to the original, refused, application 12/AP/3773, opening and servicing hours very similar to the ones put forward in this application were a factor in the Planning Inspector?s refusal to grant the appeal. The next application, 14/AP/0280, which allowed the extension to the retail use, was only granted as the applicant put forward the current opening and servicing hours as a way of getting the council to change their minds.

The applicant is now attempting to revert to hours that were unacceptable to both the council and the Planning Inspector in previous applications. This should not be allowed. As the application stands, I ask the planning officer / committee to refuse this application.

[rch]

Hmm, just piecing this together.

So, the main problem is the earlier time of 6am as opposed to 7am?

Will have to check, but my guess is that the earlier time will circumvent the operation of the bus lane in Lordship Lane. But 6am is certainly too early for Chesterfield. Granted there are residents on Lordship, but not as many and they are mostly higher up.

My general observation is that the developer crammed too much into too small a space, using the national appeal for more housing as a deal sweetener (we need to keep our eye on CIL payments as well). But now it appears that M&S are caught in the loop.

Sonia Watson is one of the better planning officers... I seem to remember the strategy of manoeuvring the deliveries to be moved to the front of the building away from residents being examined earlier on, so maybe this is part of a more strategic plan?

But, yes, Abe... the build-out at the Melbourne end of Chesterfield should definitely keep the bigger lorries out - now and for any future business that may unexpectedly come around.

So, the catch may be to keep the Chesterfield delivery timing at 7am but maybe agree 6am Lordship deliveries for M&S... although there will inevitably be services that need access to the back of the building to serve the offices and flats above the M&S, but if they are restricted to 7am then that shouldn't be as bad.

Hmmm... still thinking this through.

[rch]

Sorry, Siduhe, we cross posted.

So, I wonder if the bedrooms of the flats objecting are in the front or the back of the building? Would they be disturbed if there was only a 6am timing for Lordship, but not Chesterfield?

Will check the Lordship bus lane timings... it may be that M&S needs to get an exemption to the 7am bus lane enforcement from TFL, which may be impossible.

Will keep digging.

[bargee99]

first mate Wrote:

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

> rch,

>

> Thanks as ever for your considered response. I

> think you seem to have a real handle on the

> issues. If there are real dangers to pedestrains

> then certainly worth looking at but, and I think

> you are in agreement on this, the pavements are in

> an appalling state round here and repeated calls

> for a remedy seem to fall on deaf ears while

> councillors throw money at bike hangars and

> needless yellow lines. Bad pavements are a trip

> hazard and also a big problem for residents.

> It is such an obvious thing to sort out, it

> benefits everyone not just a few so why do the

> local reps seem so slow out of the blocks?

I couldn't agree more.

[rch]

I agree as well... the pavement repair fund approach isn't working, we need total repaving on Lordship at minimum, I'll explain why later.

I put in a CGS bid to pay for another section of paving on Lordship, but it wasn't approved.

Technically repaving shouldn't be done with devolved CGS funding, but the system is such a mess that I used to rock the boat with CGS so often when I was a cllr that the roads I whinged about got pushed up to the top of the list.

All you have to do is be persistent on justified works until the council allocates the funds to shut you up... instead devolved funding is being spent on stuff we don't need, so we're hitting dead ends.

[rch]

Quick M&S update... word on the grapevine confirms that the 6am loading request is indeed to circumvent the 7am bus lane restrictions on Lordship Lane.

But the loading times into the back yard on Chesterfield will stay at 7am, no plans to change that.

Basically, M&S wanted to divert their operations right away from disturbing the residents on Chesterfield, hence moving the loading to Lordship.

It appears to me that M&S are genuinely trying to integrate into the community, so thorough communication with planning should help.

Didn't dig any deeper than that... more soon on build-out technicalities (I am a highways geek).

[first mate]

Hi rch,

You may well be right. The only thing is that if the shop is, as it were, up and running at 6 am I just don't see how the noise won't permeate to the back. Don't forget the back is where deliveries are stored and no doubt there would be much clashing of steel trollies etc.. they use to move items around. I am not convinced yet. And once permission is given I would not be surprised if things slide around to the back too. After all who will police it and M&S have already shown how they have asked for a bit more and a bit more over time.

The other thing is are they also asking to extend closing hours? I had thought that was also on the agenda. Ages ago they wanted to extend hours in line with licensing, but may be irrelevent here.

[Abe_froeman]

If the shop opens at 6 I guess their staff will have to drive to work and park their cars in chesterfield grove because there are no trains that arrive at East Dulwich before 6 am.

[cl]

RCH - I'm a chesterfield resident and live right up at the M&S end of the road.

The issue for us is not deliveries - they happen at the front. Its the removal of rubbish etc from the back. At the moment it happens at 6am - they push their wheeled steel trollies full of rubbish out onto the pavement - the noise of them rattling over the pavement is significant - wakes us up every time, and can last for an hour. Happened over bank holiday weekend.

So my concern is that if opening times are earlier, will this activity at the back also be made earlier still? Its bad enough as it is.

On that basis I will be objecting strongly.

[James Barber]

Hi rch,

Road and pavements were repaired based on need from central budgets. Robin I really don't think council officers would chance their jobs doing personal favours for you by prioritising your past ward roads and pavements.

Need is now factored with interventions to stop roads getting much much worse over some of those worse roads.

We do have ?33,333 devolved budgets but as you know that doesn't go terribly far.

Repaving Lordship Lane. Yes. The section you proposed central Southwark funding had tried to repair but it needed all the businesses to agree and they didn't. Hence why that bid was refused.

Local businesses are extremely wary of experiencing the huge disruption the last time repaving occurred. I think it could be blitzed to minimise this but that isn't on offer. We need to solve this.

M&S. You are so wrong.

They have stated they can't use their delivery yard - the lorries can't turn around despite all their expert witness it would be fine. They are also applying for increase opening hours.

This has nothing to do with M&S trying to make life better for Chesterfield Grove residents. They are still under investigation for excess noise from plant not meeting the planning conditions disturbing residents. I enjoy M&S goods but they have repeatedly broken planning conditions and shown flagrant disregard for local residents.

Hi Abe_Froeman,

Yes staff will come earlier and parking stress will be increased for residents from increased opening hours - despite a planning inspector at appeal saying this should not be allowed.

Hi cl,

Please do formally object. M&S has been a particularly anti social business locally. I've been quite amazed, perhaps na?ve, that they would show such disregard for their supposed brand values.

[Penguin68]

I think it could be blitzed to minimise this but that isn't on offer.

Not while every job goes automatically to Conway's. I recall the complete disgrace of the work around Northcross Road and LL. Some competitive tendering with time penalties would be nice. Or proper T&Cs around a call-off contract. No doubt any paving needed would have to be sourced from Mars a slab at a time. And work would be started not when the slabs were in stock, but way, way, before they were even ordered. Just to make sure the disruption was absolute.

[first mate]

James, I see no evidence of Robin asking for personal favours. You do seem to go after her quite a bit.

If Lordship pavements cannot be easily fixed then why not use the money to do residential streets? There always seems to be some byzantine issue of process that stops the obviously necessary from happening but little problem with installing things like bike hangars on the basis of one or two requests in a street. How crazy is that? Everyone uses the pavement.

Can we please call planning, the developer and M&S to account on how the bloomin' obvious was weazled around for so long? You were closely involved with the gamut of applications from day one, so how come resident objections, oracle like in their accuracy, were not heeded by anyone in a decision making or influencing capacity?

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

Robin wrote this "Technically repaving shouldn't be done with devolved CGS funding, but the system is such a mess that I used to rock the boat with CGS so often when I was a cllr that the roads I whinged about got pushed up to the top of the list"

We are renewing residential streets. Rodwell, Landcroft and Landells have recently had either road or pavement works. Landcroft Road is going to be finished next week. But huge backlog of such works locally and across Southwark.

Local residents were not heeded because the decision making has been so centralised.

When local planning application's were decided by local councillors we would have stuck to our guns and not approved what was finally approved. That local decision making was removed by Southwark Labour.

I have repeatedly raised planning enforcement, called-in planning applications, called n noise enforcement.

[Abe_froeman]

I think you called in this application too originally but they still glt away with it.

Is it correct that southwark have approved a change of planning to allow m and s deliveries on lordship lane and is that why they are putting a build out in at the other end if chesterfield grove?