former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[bargee99]

I don't think Robin was for a moment suggesting that anyone had done her any favours. Surely her experience had taught her that those that complain the loudest get things done just as a few of the residents of Melbourne Grove have demonstrated over the last year or so.

[first mate]

bargee99,

Exactly.

James,

Could any of the CIL on the M&S build be used to improve paving on the residential streets close by?

[KoolBananas]

cl Wrote:

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

> 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.

cl I'm sure you're aware deliveries ARE also made to the rear - it's not just the rubbish cages that are dragged through the rear of the site and along the pavement up to the end of Chesterfield Grove/Lordship Lane.

It happens late at night (well after 11pm) and at ridiculous times first thing in the morning. I think one recent one was at 5am! M&S will obviously blame the drivers for turning up outside agreed hours but strange if that is the case that there are staff onsite to receive the lorries...

Extending the hours will just mean residents can expect to be disturbed at any time of day or night.

James, realistically, how likely is it that Southwark Council Planning will actually take any notice of the serious objections being made? Past objections to the many other applications to this site have always been ignored.

[James Barber]

Hi koolbanana,

Please record any details of deliveries outside the allowed hours.

Southwark Planning should take note and reject because what M&S are asking for is contrary to what the planning inspector refused. So incredibly easy for the council to reject and win at appeal.

Hi first Mate,

CIL is meant for strategic issues. Local paving wouldn't meet that criteria.

Hi Bargee,

After 11 years as a local councillor I've not seen any roads or pavements repaved by making the loudest or most noise. I think Robin got carried away in what she wrote. Can you imagine the chaos if the council prioritised based on councillors making the most fuss. 63 councillors trying to out shout each other for attention. The opposite of good governance - it would also make the council extraordinarily partisan.

[first mate]

James,

Do we know how much CIL was raised from this development and what" strategic issues" it has been spent on? What are strategic issues, it would be good to have a few examples and useful to know how funds like this are spent by the council? Do local residents benefit in any way whatsoever, given they carry the burden of the impositions from the development?

[bargee99]

"Can you imagine the chaos if the council prioritised based on councillors making the most fuss. 63 councillors trying to out shout each other for attention. The opposite of good governance - it would also make the council extraordinarily partisan."

I think you have summed up the situation most of us feel is the case admirably James. Thank You

[James Barber]

Hi rch,

I understand you may be trying to get M&S to make lavatories available and you appear to want to go easy on M&S.

As an East Dulwich councillor I have seen many complaints about M&S current behaviour - both from Chesterifeld, Ashbourne and Lordship Lane residents. What is proposed is simply unacceptable. M&S current behaviour and ignoring of planning conditions is unacceptable. I can't turn a blind eye whatever the appeal of maybe lavatories from M&S.

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

You can see details of Section 106 and Mayoral CIL para 87 & 88 in this report - http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!WLifyEsVJxByQH0917qAsg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d

You can see about London Mayoral CIL here - https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/implementing-london-plan/mayoral-community-infrastructure-levy

[first mate]

Thanks James and I do have to agree with you that the mighty M&S have behaved very badly indeed and, like many, I am really beginning to wonder if there is any role for council planning.

[edhistory]

I went to find the Valuation Officer's measurement of the 84-90 Lordship Lane ground floor footprint.

This was to:

a) compare the measured footprint with the planning permission

b) calculate the amount of the car park built over

This is what I got:

https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/view-my-valuation/cca/detail/342908075

[first mate]

edhistory,

Can you explain?

[edhistory]

You would expect to find a previous valuation with measurements like this:

https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/view-my-valuation/cca/previous-properties/valuation/18019914000/12364289000?uarn=2332381000

along with a current valuation with measurements.

But they are not there for 84-90 Lordship Lane.

[first mate]

edhistory,

So are you saying that the developer/M&S or both, have managed to avoid paying tax?

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

Planning Enforcement does work it's just they don't have the resources to fight everything brilliantly. They also need more teeth. They should b able to close a commercial business that flouts the rules. That would ensure much quicker and helpful compliance.

Great example - on the side of the Londis is an advertisement for a local solicitors. It is illegal. Enforcement have concurred. But they have chosen not to fight it. Presumably because a lawyers could give them the legal run around. So a local law firm knowingly is breaching advertising law and just doesn't care.

So we will get traction eventually withM&S but it will be a long drawn out battle for reasonable behaviour.

Attached s latest photo of M&S breach - deliveries just before 6am and not after 7am.

[first mate]

James,

I know of many, many cases where planning have chosen not to enforce clear breaches of policy for fear of legals etc, both residential and commercial cases. Therefore, little point in planning, it is a complete farce and paid for by the taxpayer.

Glad M&S will be pursued and hoping, this time, for a result after 5 years of stating what was wrong with the development seemingly falling on deaf ears.

[Rosetta]

How will they be pursued? Genuinely curious.

[rch]

Attached in the photo that I took this morning at 6.30am.

I had a useful conversation with the guys who were loading... they said that they were definitely not using the back entrance on Chesterfield now with a view towards head office getting permission to only load in at the front at 6am. They were very courteous and apologetic about any noise issues, stressing that they will only load from the front from now on.

From what I can observe from my perspective, I think the problem is actually overdevelopment of the site by the developer, which has caught out M&S.

The problem will not only be about coming to a compromise, but I strongly suspect that the development of the Londis site across the road will also become an issue if this existing development is cited as a precedent.

The other problem is going to be that Lordship Lane is now designated as a Destination area, and I could see other shops were also loading at 6.30am, so it could be viewed by planning as a reasonable request to limit the loading to the front while pushing the time back to 6am in order to open the shop at 8am.

As James says, there will be a lot of negotiating to be done...

One way forward that strikes me is that there used to be a planning committee option to request a monitored face to face meeting between the applicant and the objectors/residents... I don't know if this is still an option in the current set-up, but I think a good way forward would be to request an open community meeting with planning, councillors, and residents to discuss the situation and possible compromises.

[rch]

I would also encourage residents to repeatedly report any noise issues or breaches of permission in order to build a dossier to submit to planning, as that may help to support the view of loss of amenity.

[Sally Eva]

They should make their case to the Solicitor's Regulatory Authority if they feel the firm has done something wrong.

http://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page

[Pugwash]

Hi James,

Just been talking to an acquaintance who has received the random census sent out by Government. Apparently Southwark has been chosen for this random census and thousands of forms have been sent out. My acquaintance is elderly and started filling it in then grew suspicious. She checked with staff at Dulwich Library who have advised her that many people have been to see them about these forms . Since she did not complete the form and returned it by the given date, she has been bombarded with letters seeking returned forms and also people turning up at her address (they left a card).

Why have Southwark Council not mentioned this census - all they needed to do was to get an article in one or both local press. Do you know anything about this James.?

[James Barber]

Hi Pugwash,

I wasn't;t aware of such a mini census being issued to some residents.

It stands little chance of being a success under such circumstances. I had one resident call me about this and I concurred with their suspicions.

Sorry I know nothing more than you.

I received such a census it would go in the recycling. I would not fill a form in with lots family personal details outside the normal census years without being very convinced I wasn't being taken for a mug.

[Siduhe]

It's a test for the new online census to see how the new online system works in practice and what problems people have filling it in.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/news/news/testingforthe2021census

We got one with a cover letter that gives a number to call if you have concerns.

[Pugwash]

Thanks James,

My friend did call the number on the letter and was told that she had to complete it, she explained that she thought this was voluntary but the person on the phone disagreed. She has had several letters asking why she has not returned the form and she told the person on the phone that she was being harassed.

[Jacqui5254]

I'm really annoyed with myself as I answered the door a couple of weeks ago to a woman asking if I had completed my census forms as they hadn't received mine. I said I always complete the census and had no memory of a form. She asked me to call a number to request a new form which I duly did. The woman on the other end of the phone sounded a bit surprised.

A few days later I sent the forms off, with some trepidation as they contained personal information and were in a well-marked envelope. At no point did anyone say that this was a 'test', that it was a voluntary activity, and also that I was sending the forms AFTER the closing date!! I'm usually quite vigilant but now I feel a fool.

[James Barber]

Hi Jacqui5254,

I'm sure it will be fine. But I am sorry you were a little hood winked.Assuming it is a test you will have helped ensure the 2021 census goes that such better.

I'm not convinced by 2021 we'll all be more trusting of the internet and personal data security! I will be aiming for a paper copy to reduce chances of personal data being hacked.

Regards James.