LondonMix

I won't trade insults with you UDT. People have opposed the development based on concerns about parking pressure if you read through the thread. You are right that I can't see the case anywhere, including in the forward pasted below, for rejecting a planning application to shield existing businesses from shops like M&S. This is one A-1 retail unit replacing another A-1 retail unit. You are of course free to try and make whatever case you want to the authorities. Ministerial foreword The purpose of planning is to help achieve sustainable development. Sustainable means ensuring that better lives for ourselves don?t mean worse lives for future generations. Development means growth. We must accommodate the new ways by which we will earn our living in a competitive world. We must house a rising population, which is living longer and wants to make new choices. We must respond to the changes that new technologies offer us. Our lives, and the places in which we live them, can be better, but they will certainly be worse if things stagnate. Sustainable development is about change for the better, and not only in our built environment. Our natural environment is essential to our wellbeing, and it can be better looked after than it has been. Habitats that have been degraded can be restored. Species that have been isolated can be reconnected. Green Belt land that has been depleted of diversity can be refilled by nature ? and opened to people to experience it, to the benefit of body and soul. Our historic environment ? buildings, landscapes, towns and villages ? can better be cherished if their spirit of place thrives, rather than withers. Our standards of design can be so much higher. We are a nation renowned worldwide for creative excellence, yet, at home, confidence in development itself has been eroded by the too frequent experience of mediocrity. So sustainable development is about positive growth ? making economic, environmental and social progress for this and future generations. The planning system is about helping to make this happen. Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay ? a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision. This framework sets out clearly what could make a proposed plan or development unsustainable. In order to fulfil its purpose of helping achieve sustainable development, planning must not simply be about scrutiny. Planning must be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which we live our lives. This should be a collective enterprise. Yet, in recent years, planning has tended to exclude, rather than to include, people and communities. In part, this has been a result of targets being imposed, and decisions taken, by bodies remote from them. Dismantling the unaccountable regional apparatus and introducing neighbourhood planning addresses this. ii | In part, people have been put off from getting involved because planning policy itself has become so elaborate and forbidding ? the preserve of specialists, rather than people in communities. This National Planning Policy Framework changes that. By replacing over a thousand pages of national policy with around fifty, written simply and clearly, we are allowing people and communities back into planning.

This is based on official catchment map information for the schools including those who make it in via the waiting list. You can find out the information if you subscribe to the Good Schools Guide. Again, I emphasize that this is based on recent history (not including this most recent year) and catchments for all of the schools appear to be shrinking as more young families move to the area. Jessie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "I would suggest Melbourne Grove and its > surrounding streets. Melbourne Grove has > historically been in the catchment for the Dulwich > Village Schools (Village Infants and Hamlet), > Bessemer Grange and Heber Primary." Really??? Is > this a joke?? Bessemer Grange perhaps, but this > area is near Goose Green, and then I'd say Dog > Kennel Hill, two amazing schools. I'd eat my hat > if you got into DV or Heber from there. > > ETA I rent from Dulwich & Village Residential - > they manage my property - and I'd give them 10 out > of 10 for a job well done. I recommend them.

Welcome to the neighbourhood! If schools are your priority I would suggest Melbourne Grove and its surrounding streets. Melbourne Grove has historically been in the catchment for the Dulwich Village Schools (Village Infants and Hamlet), Bessemer Grange and Heber Primary. The Dulwich Village Schools are rated outstanding by Ofsted and have very high test score results. Bessemer Grange also performs academically and Heber seems to be a very popular choice amongst local parents. Melbourne Grove is also very near ED station and you can pick up the 37 to Herne Hill Station / Brixton which offers additional options. Denmark Hill Station is also easily accessible from these roads and will soon have the East London Line like Forest Hill. This area is close to the playground as well as most of the local amenities.

Agree, rch and I was responding to UDT anyhow. Thanks for the link to the additional information.

The idea behind the National Framework is not to eliminate competition for existing businesses. If you want to support small businesses then shop there. If you fear that M&S will offer more convenience and cheaper prices than existing small businesses and you are concerned that consumers will choose that option, those are not legitimate grounds for blocking a commercial lease agreement. There are concerns about the application- parking, delivery times, access routes etc that may or may not result in the planning authorities requiring an ammendment to the existing application. As a community, this forum allows us to debate the impact of the specific plans and share information so each of us can make an informed objection if we so choose. I have concerns about certain elements of the application (delivery times / accesss) that I do intend to raise. Other elements like the additional flats (which will only benefit the freeholder not M&S) I recognise will potentially increase parking pressure but I would like to discuss creative solutions to mitigate this to the greatest extent possible rather than suggest the flats should not be developed as I support the development of housing in general. Figuring out what would be acceptable for us and advocating for that is more likely to yield a better outcome for everyone involved. This obsession with M&S is not productive and many of the fears raised regarding people flooding the highstreet in cars in my view is far overblown and ill-informed. The format of the shop is a Simply Food (basically a convenience shop selling ready meals, salads and sandwiches). There is absolutely no need to drive to such a shop, though of course certain people will always choose to drive when its not necessary regardless of who the retailer is. The idea that the shop will attract substantial new business from outside the local area is also questionable. There is already a massive M&S in Brixton, 2 in Lewisham, two in the Kennington / Elephant & Castle area and elsewhere around South London. I find it highly implausable that people will start driving from miles around to shop at the convenience format of M&S when there are larger versions of M&S already peppered throughout South London.

I doubt Nicolas has read the planning application. I have read the national planning framework. Under that guise, one can push for the redevelopment of the shop/ flats to be as sustainable as possible on many fronts as well as push that the re-design is of high quality. However, making an objection solely based on your belief that the intended store to whom the premises would be leased would be too successful is not within the spirit of the framework and quite frankly runs contrary to its ethos.

Or, Nicolas, perhaps we should hope the freeholder can sign a lease with a shop that isn't particularly successful and won't attract additional business to the high street. Do you have anything insightful to say regarding the details the application? The freeholder can negotiate a lease with M&S if they choose to. What we are beings asked to consult on is the details of the planning application which includes certain contentious proposals.

I would suggest a night nanny. An Au Pair isn't appropriate for children below the age of 2.

Of course, though no matter how thoughtful a planning department is, its not possible to increase the population of an area without some negatives-- increased urbanisation, increased traffic and parking pressure etc. The goal is to do this in the best way possible that mitigates the negatives to the greatest extent possible while improving infrastructure and services to keep up with the increased demand.

No argument there. I was just giving context. I am in favour of increasing London's housing stock but not everyone necessarily holds that view. Even if you do, you still want it done thoughtfully and responsibly but you can't complain if it affects where you live.

What you say is true but South London is being planned for as an area for significant population growth. The two points aren't mutually exclusive.

So it will be like Earl's Court? That's disappointing...

London's population is growing and to relieve pressure on house prices and overcrowding more homes etc need to be built as well as the supporting infrastructure. The projections are currently that an additional 800,000 people will live in London by 2016 compared to 2010 and the city anticipates much of that population growth will be in South London which has relatively more space compared to other areas which have historically been more intensively developed. The transportation developments in South London go hand in hand with this agenda. Its an unfortunate reality that much of South London will lose its suburban / out of London feel as this progresses but its part of the evolution of a metropolis-- Fulham and Clapham were once out of town rural locations too. While I am sympathetic with your concerns I really don't see what this has to do with one chain replacing another chain of similar size. The planning application certainly has its issues that need to be addressed but the changes are not to accommodate a supermarket.

What concerns me is it is then another 7-10 min to Waterloo or Victoria excluding transfer and waiting times. I have friends who live in Clapham and use CJ to get to work. It is already so jammed that they've told me its impossible to get on the first train that comes in rush hour. Its already an extremely packed service and unless you are terminating in CJ, it is definitely going to be a lot longer. The extension will allow for an interchange with the existing ELL so if you were travelling to Victoria just to head west on the District Line or ultimately connect to the Notting hill area you will be able to take the ELL to West Brompton (about 17 min from Denmark Hill) or Shepherd's Bush (circa 30 min from Denmark Hill) following the ELL extension, which on balance should be better Losing direct service to Victoria for those who were actually terminating in Victoria or going east on the District line or anywhere on the Victoria line will really be worse off. On the other hand, anyone who was heading to London Bridge to get on the jubilee line going pretty much anywhere will have a good exchange at Canada Water and probably a quicker journey unless their final stop was London Bridge as there is less walking. It's really tough to weigh the pros and cons without knowing where everyone's final destination is... Still losing the Victoria line seems like a bad idea on the face of it as large parts of central London will be much more hassle to get to and I suspect these areas are more relevant to most people for work. Edited based on new info from Bic edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It will be 3 stops away (Clapham High street, > > Wandsworth Road and then Clapham Junction). > > Testing of the line has just begun but one > would > > imagine it will be in the region of 10 minutes > > give or take. > Thanks LM

AbDabs-- sorry for the multiple responses: I mention the freeholder as it is the freeholder that is putting in for the planning application. Part of the planning application discusses the times for deliveries so if you want to work something out on this point clearly that is who you will have to deal with at this stage. People who already drive to the high street will continue to do so. Those that typically walk will continue to do so. M&S Simply Food does not require one to drive as its a convenience store so it won't necessitate a change in people's existing driving habits per se. I acknowledge some people are lazy and already prefer driving within the local area even if they are just popping in for something small but if you don't need to and there is not parking, even those people are more likely to walk than if parking was an option. I'm not sure that the demographics of the store will influence driving patterns either. In my experience (limited and anecdotal I admit) car ownership is driven more by need rather than wealth (ie friends who have kids or who travel to different locations for work like my friends in the building trade own cars and those who don't can't be bothered with the expense and hassle of owning a car in London). I'm in the age demographic you mention and I would say less than 20% of my peers drive and those that do aren't the ones who earn the most. I would be interested to hear where these other residential developments have been as if the area truly has become more dense, I might change my stance on that element of the planning application. AbDabs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > FM, I agree. Have you spoken to the freeholder > > about the delivery times and lorry access? It > > seems like a viable compromise might be > possible > > on these very legitimate concerns. > > How is the freeholder going to be able to do > anything about it? Once he has granted a > leasehold, he doesn't have any legal interest in > the use (other than those things that might > directly affect his legal obligations). Also, why > would he care? The freeholder won't be the one who > has to respond to complaints and potential legal > action. > > > > The parking issues I have less concern about as > it > > appears the existing parking lot was not widely > > used even on weekends (most people seemed to be > > unaware it existed until the application) and > > given you can't do a weekly shop at a Simply > M&S, > > I think the concerns about people driving there > > more than is the case for Iceland are perhaps > > overblown. > > It is certainly true that the car park is not > fully utilised (From personal observation, I would > suggest that there is often half the spaces free) > but the intention is to remove the car park to > create a much bigger shop for a more affluent > target market who tend to have higher car > ownership. Whilst it may still be too small a shop > for the average family to do their weekly shop, > nevertheless, for the car owning young > single/couple, the temptation to 'pop into M&S' > will be immense. At least that's the response I've > had from 30 something friends when they hear M&S > is coming. > > > Regarding the flats, I am for the > > development of more flats in general. While I > > understand the parking concerns this poses, I > > think most people who buy flats near the high > > street and public transport (which these will > be) > > don't typically own cars as there is less need > for > > them. While its difficult to make this a > > condition of owning the flats, I think the risk > > that the new flats will considerably increase > > parking pressure is fairly remote. > > I'm afraid that the reason Mr Ricketts gets so > apoplectic is that there have been a number of > flat conversions in the streets close to > Iceland/M&S in the last 10-15 years and the level > of car ownership has increased dramatically > because of it. I'm afraid that whilst there are > some who choose not to buy a car, there is certain > evidence that many do. I do though tend to agree > that the level of pressure on car parking will not > be as high as some fear as there is a saturation > point which has generally been reached where > shoppers won't look for spaces. > What I do anticipate is a significant increase in > illegal parking (across driveways, on doubles > yellow lines etc) within the immediate vacinity as > drivers 'pop in' to grab supper. I hope that TFL > are ready for the disruption to the bus lane and > are quick to hand out fines.

It will be 3 stops away (Clapham High street, Wandsworth Road and then Clapham Junction). Testing of the line has just begun but one would imagine it will be in the region of 10 minutes give or take.

Elsewhere in this thread, it has already been discussed that the extension is for back of office space / storage space. Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > but the intention is to remove the car park to > create a much bigger shop for a more affluent > target market who tend to have higher car > ownership. > > Is this entirely true? - I had heard that Iceland > has (unusually) virtually no storage space - > presumably because initially (in Bejam days) > everything was frozen and kept in freezers > in-store - so much of the 'additional' space being > designed in is about back-shop storage rather than > solely expanding sales floor footprint. Stores > which nowadays don't have storage out-back (such > as the old 7-11s) rely on multiple daily > deliveries (up to 5 times a day) to keep stocked.

Interesting. Where have the other nearby conversions been out of curiosity? If there is an argument to be made that this specific area has already become too residentially dense relative to other areas, that would sway my view on this point.

DJ, I agree. The only real attempt I've seen is the previous government's decentralisation plan. A few gov't agencies (such as the Standards Board) were moved up north (a surprising number of the previous London employees moved up north to follow the institution). This has its limits though as certain bodies do need to coordinate with one another so a certain concentration in London is logical. There really is no easy fix. At the heart of it, London is fantastic and dynamic and more people want to live here than there is housing or development to meet that demand and middle and low-income people are feeling the squeeze. Personally, I feel we need to make sure that this reality does not turn London into a "rich ghetto", while ensuring that everyone including middle-income workers feel that policies are fair and balanced. In the end, everyone is likely to feel hard done by no matter what just because there is no realistic way to accommodate everyone. How to revitalise other areas of the country is key and should be a major focus of any government housing policy. Money generated in the capital needs to be redistributed to other areas of the country to support various business initiatives. Companies need to be given incentives to set-up outside of London and areas need to be revitalised so that companies know they can attract the talent they need when the locate outside the capital. Its all inter-dependent.

FM, I agree. Have you spoken to the freeholder about the delivery times and lorry access? It seems like a viable compromise might be possible on these very legitimate concerns. I share the concerns raised about those elements of the planning application but think a direct discussion with the freeholder in addition to formerly raising the issue with the council might yield a result that everyone could potentially live with. The parking issues I have less concern about as it appears the existing parking lot was not widely used even on weekends (most people seemed to be unaware it existed until the application) and given you can't do a weekly shop at a Simply M&S, I think the concerns about people driving there more than is the case for Iceland are perhaps overblown. Regarding the flats, I am for the development of more flats in general. While I understand the parking concerns this poses, I think most people who buy flats near the high street and public transport (which these will be) don't typically own cars as there is less need for them. While its difficult to make this a condition of owning the flats, I think the risk that the new flats will considerably increase parking pressure is fairly remote.

A super store is a bit of an exaggeration! Its a Simply M&S which hardly qualifies. first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MP, > While I agree with many of your points I am sure > you do not really buy the argument that because we > have overcrowding that is a good enough reason to > overcrowd even more. > > Your point that seems to suggest those who buy > close to small local shops should expect the > arrival of superstores next door any time soon, > seems to me excessive. I guess in part this is a > debate about urbanisation, do we want to maintain > the feel of ED as small scale and residential with > most shops being of a proportionate size, or do we > throw all that out and welcome in any amount of > chains and start building up and out everywhere? > > Many of us are clear that the brand is irrelevant, > again this is about scale and balance of needs and > interests.

I heard about that. What street in FH is considered the main high-street (apologies for my ignorance) and do you know about the exact plans? I've heard some of the ideas and the renovation of Forest Hill and Sydnahm's high streets sound really exciting. I live in ED but the more interesting things in the general area the better? Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Michael Palaeologus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It is NIMBY-ism. If M&S were opening in Forest > > Hill, nobody in ED would complain, because it > > wouldnt be in their backyard. > > I think FH would welcome a M&S in the town as > they've had problems in recent years getting > business into Dartmouth Road especially. However > they won funding from the Portas scheme in a joint > bid with Sydenham and with the soon to re-open > Pools, the problems they've had with retail units > may bring it up to ED levels. > > This was the same town that tries to keep the > chains in the town, they successfully managed to > persuade Barclays to stay when they were > considering closing their branch.

I thought the government was doing exactly that. Has there been a change in policy? right-clicking Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One option the Council/Government seemed to left > to the wayside , was to means test it's social > housing tenants, How many couples/families reside > in assisted housing whilst their pay-packets are > easily in the range of being able to afford a > mortgage? admittedly when they first started > residency they may well have been a just case, but > fortunes/careers turn around, Is it fair that a > couple on say ?60.000 joint income get to > enjoy/profit from cheap rent? The authorities > could remove some of their subsidies and bring the > rent up to near the LHA and use the income on say > (Gasp!) build more affordable housing? The people > whom are effected should from their own gumption > move on or pay the going rate, and free up some of > the existing stock. It is another way to help > re-distribute the enormous wealth that exists in > this country.

Entirely agree rahrahrah. I would imagine that developing the extra flats is something the freeholder wants more than any chain that would like to occupy the site. In fact, the freeholder may have thought it would help the planning application given the push by government to support more housing development in London (which we can all acknowledge is necessary even if you don't want it on this site). If the council objects to the development of the flats, this is unlikely to be a deal breaker for the rest of the redevelopment proposal in the mind of the freeholder or the shop they are negotiating with. The timing of deliveries and how the lorries will access the site post-redevelopment are of real concern though. Has anyone in the surrounding streets suggested to the freeholder that delivery times for the new store remain in-line with those for the existing store? Can the planning authorities make this a specific requirement of approving the application? Someone else has commented elsewhere on the forum that Iceland will be leaving the site within the next couple of months (they heard this from an employee). Does anyone know if this is true and if Iceland intends to leave the site regardless of what happens with the planning application the freeholder has put in as part of its negotiations with M&S? rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unless I am reading it wrongly, isn't the proposal > for an additional 6 flats (there already bring 2 > in the existing development). I am not sure I buy > the 'lots more people driving to M&S arguement. It > sells convenience food - the type you might pick > up on your wayhome.. its not the type of place you > drive to for your weekly shop. Also, how much is > the existing carpark actually used? Again, I would > question how many cars are actually going to be > displaced by its removal. As for arguements about > brand snobbery, its all pretty irrelevant to the > planning app and deeply subjective, so why bother > going there. > For me it comes down to whether or not the area > can cope with an additinal 6 flats and the > associated parking issues. My guess is M&S will > end up compromising and reduce the number.

Bic Bash-- What do you see as the alternative in light of the shortage of both social and private housing in London? That isn't to minimise the disruption and upset this must cause to individual families but I know many people who are contemplating leaving the city in the private housing sector due to affordability issues as well. Clearly London needs more housing in general but we can't only develop social housing without exacerbating the shortage of housing in the private sector and vis-a-versa. Its a difficult situation from an urban planning perspective. DJ- I am certainly in favour of job creation for a host of reasons but I don't think it would solve issues of affordability in London unless rent control was instituted in the private sector-- and even that might not work and is out of favour with both the Tories and Labour. If those that currently rely on housing benefit earned better incomes and moved into the private rental market, the increase demand for private housing would push up private rents. We'd quickly revert to a situation where private rents were too expensive for a significant segment of London's population. Building more housing (social and private)and boosting economic possibilities outside of London so that every young person in England doesn't believe that migrating to the capital is the only way to become successful, in my opinion, are the only long term solutions. Until building catches up with demand, affordability issues will continue to drive people out of the city (both those on benefits on those in the private sector).