New out of town shop on East Dulwich Road

[James Barber]

A planning application 12-AP-3604 has been submitted to turn the large ground floor of 41-43 East Dulwich Road from offices into a shop - probably another Tesco or Sainsbury's.

The planning documentation is very sketchy - which smells fishy. And the neighbouring residential block hasnt been consulted.

http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9547428

If you think a new shop away from our high streets should be stopped and/or that the parking is already a nightmare around the Dulwich Leisure Centre and this shop will make it much worse then please object by emialing council planning officer : [email protected]

Please copy me into any email so I canhelp coordinate objectors.

To me this is a landmark planning application about whether Lordship Lane is erroded away. What's very curious is that Southwark Council is the leaseholder (it used to be Dulwich Area Housing Office) so they must be party to this in some way.

Edited to correct council officers email address - thanks to Cllr Dolezal for spotting that and letting me know.

[dv1]

"A planning application 12-AP-3604 has been submitted to turn the large ground floor of 41-43 East Dulwich Grove from offices into a shop - probably another Tesco or Sainsbury's."

I think you meant East Dulwich ROAD,not East Dulwich GROVE - slightly different implications....

[DulwichFox]

East Dulwich Road already has a Tesco Express.

Fox.

[James Barber]

Well it looks like another such shop 20 metres from Crystal Palace Road could happen. As residents around there know parking is already a nightmare.

[DJKillaQueen]

Another shop which will provide much needed jobs James......

And nowhere does the application state what kind of retail unit so it's very naughty of you to assume it's going to be Tescos or Sainsburrys. Trying to appeal to an established dislike of chain stores by local residents are we, perhaps? I suggest, being a councillor, you go and find out what the planned retail use is first.

[dbboy]

Should be pleased a new business wants to open, far better than boarded up closed down shops.

[uncleglen]

Wasn't that the Southwark Council Housing Office? The papers yesterday said that Green Belt land was going to be developed for housing- politicians are only interested in your cross on the ballot paper- they are not interested in your quality of life.

[AbDabs]

Mmm, shall I be the first to suggest that perhaps M&S fancy having another (slightly more discrete) attempt at entering the East Dulwich marketplace? Sorry, maybe it's just a Waitrose.

[neilson99]

I don't think the parking is that bad to be a nightmare. I'm sure it won't help the situation but these things are always a balance. Additional choice, some extra jobs,help to upgrade some buildings that are unused and actually more convenience than the current crappy offerings from co op or tesco wouldn't go amiss.

And not sure it's a councillors role to be prejudicing planning applications by labelling them as "fishy" or a " nightmare" before all the facts are in, is it? Would you also help co ordinate supporters James? What if it's a cinema? A bowling alley? A new garden centre? Or the mythical Waitrose or M&S that it might be said you have otherwise championed elsewhere?

Still, being a Lib Dem doesn't really require an adherence to facts, truths or not going back on previously stated policy positions, does it?

[richard tudor]

How about reinstating iceland.

[LondonMix]

How is East Dulwich Road out of town development? Also, can you explain why you have no problem with the developer who wants to bring Waitrose in to the redevelopment of the Garden Centre (just up the road) but treat this with such hostility? I love Waitrose and hope they come to ED but your hostility towards other shops seems biased.

Comments like this in the M&S thread don't help:

Hi alice,

The freeholder who has applied for planning permission talks about M&S.

Seperately I know the Iceland lease is close to ending. I'd be amazed if Iceland would offer as much rent as M&S would/have.

I'm also clear that Waitrose would like the site as is without the extension - and I've spoken at length to them about options.

Hope this helps.

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

Regards [email protected]

07900 227366

Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward

[www.jamesbarber.org.uk]

[twitter.com]

[neilson99]

I think we could do with a mega size estate agent the nearest one is at least 100 yards away

[dimples]

a carpark would be good !

[Pugwash]

If it is the old Housing Office, there is space outside which was originally used for Housing staff's cars - albeit only a few if parked well

[maxxi]

Such a bleak building - glad it's to be used. Hope it's a Lidl - or a Chinese Supermarket like the one in Camberwell

[DJKillaQueen]

Don't think we'll see James back on this thread personally.......and neilson I agree with you entirely. A councillor using a local forum to promote his own prejudiced view of a planning application is very 'fishy'. That the same councillor tries to mislead those reading with comments like 'probably a Tescos or Sainsburrys' is definitely not on (not the first times James has been guilty of that on this forum or on his blogsite). But more importantly, I use the shops on East Dulwich Road frequently (being the nearest to me) and have never had trouble parking any time of day or night.......so no parking nightmare to behold either.

[toptotty]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> A planning application 12-AP-3604 has been

> submitted to turn the large ground floor of 41-43

> East Dulwich Road from offices into a shop -

> probably another Tesco or Sainsbury's.

>

> The planning documentation is very sketchy - which

> smells fishy. Please copy me into any email so I can help.

Think your morals are the sketchy thing here, and your purpose is the only fishy smell.

[edcam]

That building is hideous and some development would be welcome.

[peckhamboy]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> What's very curious is that Southwark Council is

> the leaseholder (it used to be Dulwich Area

> Housing Office) so they must be party to this in

> some way.

Not necessarily - the application form certifies that nobody has an ownership interest (including lease with more than 7 years to run) other than the applicant who is not connected with Southwark Council and that the site is currently vacant. So if Southwark is the leaseholder it has less than 7 years, isn't using the site, doesn't need to be party to the application and would probably be delighted if the lease could be ended and save us all money on the rent. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean there's a conspiracy.

[James Barber]

Hi DJKQ,

The local economy has a finite amount of cash. If people spend money in whatever new shop this could become that's less money to spend in shops on our high streets. The applicant has made a point to neither state the end shop or that they have not decided on an end shop.

But whatever the shop do we want money taken away from our high streets which is full of businesses saying they're on a knife edge?

Hi dbboy,

Ditto above. If it's a chain stor then much less of every pound spent stays in the local economy so if anything it could result in overall less employment.

Hi neilson99,

I'm delighted you dont have a problem parking around the corner of Crystal Palace Road with East Dulwich Road. Other residents have complianed they do find it hard to park around there. Until I spotted this application it would have been decided by council officials who appear to have decided to consult with no one - not even the residenital home next door. If nothing else people have a chance to make clear they support a shop there or object to it.

If it does go to committee if five people object and the council officials decide to accept the objections then a committee of councillors would decide and I wouldnt be on that committee as yes with the currently limited evidence I dont think it would be good for East Dulwich.

Hi LondonMix,

Out of town in that it's not on a regular high street or secondary shopping frontage. Out of town in that it risk sucking retail life out of our high street Lordship Lane and other secondary shopping frontages - the existing East Dulwich Road and Grove Vale.

The Garden Centre shop being replaced by another shop. That the new shop might generate footfall for the new library and anchoring that end of Grove Vale hopefully hleping all the retailers their to experience more footfall.

Hi toptotty,

I'm not sure how I'm being immoral for highlighting a planning application that was going to be decided with no community awareness. I never sit on planning applications I have a preconceived view. So what's the problem?

Hi edcam,

Yes the current builidng is hideous and by all means contact the planning officer and tell them you support the planning application. But the application doesnt include any images of how it is propsed to look. So it could be a visual improvement or make it worse.

Hi peckhamboy,

That's useufl thank you. Until 12 months ago it was leased by Southwark Council and they were entertaining discussions according to a Village ward councillor of housing the East Dulwich Police station. But if Southwarkhas any interests of any kind it should be decided by planning committee to ensure transparency.

[candp]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> A planning application 12-AP-3604 has been

> submitted to turn the large ground floor of 41-43

> East Dulwich Road from offices into a shop -

> probably another Tesco or Sainsbury's.

>

> The planning documentation is very sketchy - which

> smells fishy. And the neighbouring residential

> block hasnt been consulted.

>

> http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.

> exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&The

> Systemkey=9547428

>

> If you think a new shop away from our high streets

> should be stopped and/or that the parking is

> already a nightmare around the Dulwich Leisure

> Centre and this shop will make it much worse then

> please object by emialing council planning officer

> : [email protected]

>

> Please copy me into any email so I canhelp

> coordinate objectors.

>

> To me this is a landmark planning application

> about whether Lordship Lane is erroded away.

> What's very curious is that Southwark Council is

> the leaseholder (it used to be Dulwich Area

> Housing Office) so they must be party to this in

> some way.

James, this is absolutely outrageous. Agree 100% with Neilson99 and DJKQ. If I was the developer (be that Tesco or small ethical shops r us) I would be scouring Southwark's Code of Conduct (I think you've ignored 5 of the 7 'Nolan' principles and 1 statutory principle in your post) and shouting predetermination as loudly as I could. This post is ill-judged and poor behaviour from an elected representative not in command of the facts; classic Lib Dem - unaccountable, start a populist campaign with half a story and now you've been called to account you'll either ignore the thread or blame the Labour Council or adopt your "moi?" Miss Piggy stance. On a similar subject, we all know that you're waiting for the day when M&S or Waitrose come to SE22 for COMMERCIAL reasons when you will try to take all the credit (undeserved, unless you get a job in the Waitrose Commercial Department) - I look forward to the leaflet of you outside the new store and an unsubtle underlying message that the Lib Dems have put 50k on local house prices and provided better access to high-quality passata.

I know that's a rant but I've been watching you influence planning decisions on here for tooooo long.

[Cardiffgirl]

James

Can we also write to the planning officer if we want to support the application? I note you only state in your original post that we can write if we want to object?!

*note the sarcasm*

Seriously though, whilst it is important to protect the High Street, there is also a case to bring empty units back into use, which at the moment is a massively important consideration. It may be that there are no suitable large units on the High Street unit for this retailer. To accord with planning policy the applicant should in fact carry out a sequential assessment, so perhaps a more proactive approach would be to ask the Council to ensure it is satisfied that there are no suitable premises for the retailer on Lordship Lane. Once this has been done, as Cllr for ED you should then consider the positives such as additional jobs in the centre. Your argument about "finite amount of cash" is a dangerous one unless you look at the whole case, which I agree is not presented here but that does not really give you the authority to make such assertions. You could in fact try and find out more before asking residents to object?

It is disappointing that as ED Cllr you are quick to post this statement based on nothing more that your gut feel, and you don't try and think about ways of ensuring economic investment into the borough can be achieves in a way that benefits everyone.

[James Barber]

Hi candp,

How can I be predetermined for a decision I wont be called or expected to make?

I've broken no code of conduct or nolan principles. If you think I have pleasedo report me to the councils monitoring officer.

On this forum I'm one of the very few people who ARE accountable - every four years the first Thursday in May.

As a local politican I've expressed a view in a forthright manner. If you think its a good idea to encourage and have new retail development of off but close to Lordship Lane then submit your support for the council planning officer.

I think its a dangerous planning application risking the shopping vitality of Lordship Lane.

[LondonMix]

James, its a stretch to say that money in the local area that was spent at the Garden store will instead be spent at Waitrose.

Are our supermarkets on a knife's edge regarding profitability? How would the opening of another Tesco really impact the majority of traders on the high street?

New shops, like you say either attract more footfall or they don't. You can't have it both ways.

[James Barber]

Hi LondonMix,

I would anticipate a new shop where the Gaden Centre is possibly a special case in people undertkaing shopping they'd do at London Bridge instead at such a new shop also possibly taking custom away form Sainsbury's on Dog Kennel Hill. A small shop unit next ot East Dulwich station is unlikely to be destination in its self.

Whereas a much larger unit at 41-43 East Dulwich Road could become an alternative. The trouble is we don;t know who is behind this application. If it was a camera shop then that would be unique to the area and unlikely suck cash out of Lordship Lane. But if it were for arguments sake a Majestic it probably owuld decrease sales in Lordship Lane off-licences and potentially push one out of business. Lots of similar risks depending on what type of shop it starts as or could ever be. Shop unit classification is very broad.

hi canp,

Whoever is behind this planning application I would be opposed to the planning application. I'm not in love with M&S or Waitrose. I just don't want ot see lordship Lane how it was 15 years ago after Sainsbury's opened.

Hi Cardiffgirl,

Of course you can contact council officials to support this or any other planning application. Sadly few people ever bother to do this. If you live within 100m of the site and it goes to full planning committee you could also speak as a supporter for up to 3 mins to the committee and then answer questions about why you think a scheme is great fo the area.

Agree that bringing units back into use is good for the area. But we have shop units on the NW corner of Lordship Lane with East dulwich Grove being used a offices. For the area it would make better sense for those offices to move to East Dulwich Road and the shop units turn bakc into shop units. This takes time.

The alternative is we risk turning an office into shops, driving a lordship lane business/es out of business and then have empty shop units on Lordship Lane.

My working assumption from local businesses is that many are only just surviving at the moment and a shock to their business would finish them.