LondonMix

Are you seriously suggesting that just because an active drug user wants to remain healthy and exchange needles their addiction will no longer hold sway over them and they will no longer be tempted to commit crime etc to fund their drug use? Are you saying that active drug users who want to stay healthy won't be tempted to get high locally when they receive their new needles (out of respect for neighborhood they are visiting)

Is it really ignorance and prejudice to be concerned about the impact providing a service that will cater to drug addicts late at night will have on the area? We can agree that NIMBY attitudes shirk social responsibility without pretending there won't be any downside to having this locally. If there aren't other late night exchanges in Southwark, its not unreasonable to assume providing this service will attract drug users from other areas to East Dulwich- if there are other services then why is this necessary here? Compelled by their addiction, drug addicts engage in behaviour that most people wouldn't want in their neighborhood including crimes of opportunity such as theft / robbery, drug-use itself, and unpredictable / anti-social behaviour when high. Instead of pretending that there are no issues, why don't we debate this honestly and say that if such a service is really needed and ED is the best place to provide it (not yet proven), what measures need to be taken to minimise the impact on the local community.

A narrower and narrower group of people will be able to move into the area the higher prices go which in my opinion will make ED a less interesting place but that's the clear downside of gentrification. The truth is, that narrowing has already been going on for years... There are still parts of South London that are as affordable as ED was 10 years ago before the schools improved and the place smartened up. You just have to be a brave first mover...

simonethebeaver Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We as a couple earn a very decent wage for > non-city types. We first bought over ten years ago > and had nine times our original deposit as equity. > We couldn't afford a 600k house without a mortgage > that would terrify us. We also have childcare > commitments that aren't much smaller than our > mortgage. I'd say anyone taking on these vast > mortgages would be an idiot. It would be nice to > think that non-idiots could buy houses. You don't have to be an idiot to afford a house of 600k. You need a joint income of circa 150-175k and a 25% deposit through having saved up and / or having created equity in your first home (flat) through mortgage repayments. That's the profile of who is buying family homes in ED. On that joint income, you can save that much fairly easily-- I know quite a few people who have managed that without help from their parents or massive increases in the value of their flats. Don't assume people are over mortgaging themselves because for a mortgage above a certain size the deposit requirement is very high (20% min in most cases) and interest only mortgages are no longer available. Just accept that people who earn more live here now...

We have to agree to disagree on the competition-- I'd be more interested to hear what the local business community on LL think. The limited comments so far on the EDF seem to be in favour. Iceland also sells unhealthy convenience food so I can't understand your argument there. Whether or not the less affluent have a legal right to keep less profitable stores on the high street seems questionable-- I say less profitable because I imagine the only reason the freeholder wants M&S is because they will pay more rent. If M&S don't believe its profitable to operate in Peckham, then it doesn't matter that transport links are better there. They are a business, not a charity and this is commerce, not social engineering. The planning application is not referendum on M&S. A commercial agreement between two private parties is not the . The objections should be made on the planning application, not M&S's suitability to operate in LL, which the shop clearly has as much right to do as any other legal commercial enterprise.

I don't think M&S Simply Food is in direct competition with existing independent stores. The M&S Simply Food format is convenience food. If M&S want the site under the planning application extension, its not for us to say that they need an even bigger site than what is being proposed. There are still low cost options within the area and an Iceland in Peckham (and many throughout Southwark in areas where your statistics are more representative than in ED). The site is near public transport and the plans don't allow for parking so I am not sure how this contracdicts M&S's policy regarding sustainability using public transport. Anyhow, none of this has to do with the planning application... The inconvenience caused by the new shop and flats needs to be weighed carefully. I would object to the delivery times, I wouldn't object to the flats (as despite the inconvenience, I think London is in desperate need of housing), and my views on the extension as I previously said depends on the factors I already mentioned. I have no ideological attachment one way or another. I don't shop at M&S or Iceland. Whatever is best for the high street! Off to bed :)

Undisputed Truth-- Iceland is a chain so M&S replacing Iceland does not increase the number of chains on LL. Also, Brixton has a huge M&S.... All of this is off topic though. I think the application has 3 issues that need to be addressed: 1. Delivery hours, which I believe can be objected to without objecting to the application in general 2. The creation of the flats which is unlikely to be important to M&S and probably of benefit only to the freeholder. Given the need for new housing development in London, I'd be surprised if this wasn't viewed positively. While we all recognise housing development increases parking pressure, the need must be met and on balance, I am in favour. 3. The extension of the premises which will eliminate 8 parking spaces- This is the most controversial bit for me. The question is how important this extension is for any retailer who could be interested in taking over the space. If only M&S want this while other retailers that could do at least an equal amount of trade could take over the premises as is, then on balance, I would object to this as unnecessary. However, others on the forum have already suggested that any retailer would need this extension. If this is the case, then I wouldn't object to this element of the proposal given the relatively small number of spaces lost. Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Alan Medic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I personally think the solution is to paint > > Iceland in a colour the locals are happy with > and > > leave the interior as it is. Perhaps they could > > drop the bargain signs from their windows > though > > or at least put the prices on the signs much > > higher to keep the riff raff out. > > Not sure Iceland would agree. Orange is their > corporate colour. > > Anyway, in the planning application there is a > letter where M&S has entered into a contract, with > a planning consent proviso, to open a store on the > Iceland site. Anyway, I won't be shopping there as > the shop is beneath me. I've got standards you > see.;-)

All First Mate has said is he is concerned about the parking and the delivery times, which are totally reasonable concerns. You seem to have a philosophical issue with M&S per se... Creating more housing in London will always increase parking pressure and that's something we have to live with as additional housing is needed to deal with population growth. Whether losing the car parking will have a significant impact on parking pressure is hard for anyone to say (we all have our views) but it?s not exactly clear cut. If a firm that can do the same volume of business as M&S would take the property without the alterations to the car park, I agree that might be preferable. But in my view we should to the extent possible in this recession, support businesses that can be successful in the area.

You didn't mention the car park in your question to me regarding why people who like M&S can't shop at the train station... I was simply responding, why should they have to when the store wants to open locally. From your other questions it sounds like you think people want an M&S simply because they believe it will make ED more upmarket and they don't like Iceland because they think its a down market chain. That's probably true of some people, which maybe makes them a bit snobby. Others probably genuinely like M&S and buy their goods already. Either way, its business not social policy. If you are annoyed by gentrification, you should lobby to have more social housing in ED, which would guarantee a more balanced economic mix and ensure that there was a large enough "less-affluent" population to ensure more diversity in shops in the area. But this probably goes far beyond what you really want, right? The impact of losing the car parking spaces should be considered carefully as part of the planning application but given that several people have reported back to the forum that they have not seen the parking full (neither during the week nor on the weekend), the impact of losing what is a nominal amount of spaces shouldn't be overstated. Also, those who seem to be claiming people will be driving for miles to buy convenience food to load into their cars seem to be misunderstanding the concept of the store. Most people just pop into an M&S Simply Food on a night when they want something more interesting than what they could throw together in 10 min. It's really not grocery shopping and driving out of your way for it kind of defeats the point of it being convenient, last minute fare. It's like suggesting lots of people would drive to the corner store for milk and a frozen pizza. M&S simply food is really the equivalent just substitute frozen pizza with duck in madeira sauce... For me the flats are the biggest concern but then again, most people I know who live in flats don't own a car but that's just my own personal experience, so I could be very wrong on that. Gidget Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > If enough consumers want to shop at a store > (m&s, > > wholefoods etc) and that store decides to > > competitively bid for space on LL, thEn it has > a > > right to open, and they the consumers have a > right > > to shop there. Simple, whatever the store. > You > > act like M&S and those who want to shop there > > aren't entitled to do business in the local > area! > > Nowhere did I say M&S don't have the 'right' to > open on LL. I am pointing out drawback to losing > the carpark, asking why people feel the need to > have an M&S and querying why Iceland is perceived > by many to be a bad store. Just because a company > has money to pay for an expensive lease doesn't > mean it benefits the whole community. > > I do not live round the corner from Iceland so the > loss of the carpark will not affect me on a daily > basis - either due to noise or extra cars on the > streets. It is a great and unusual amenity to > have in the area though.

I might increase overall business for M&S despite the fact people already shop for their stuff at certain stations. It's like Starbucks' business model. After a store is filled beyond a certain point, people, even if they want to shop there, won't go in. You can open another one that theoretically is within competing distance of the original store and actually increase trade. At the height of their success, I could stand on certain street corners in NY and see 4 Starbucks on each corner, each full to capacity. We'll see if M&S have got it right!

If enough consumers want to shop at a store (m&s, wholefoods etc) and that store decides to competitively bid for space on LL, thEn it has a right to open, and they the consumers have a right to shop there. Simple, whatever the store. You act like M&S and those who want to shop there aren't entitled to do business in the local area!

Sorry Jeremy! Meant to say jimmyay :-$

They can Gidget, but M&S can make money off of them in ED so why wouldn't M&S want to do that and why don't they have the right to shop for what they want locally? This is business and consumers, nothing else.

I am not saying that race doesn't belong in the description. Race along with all distinguishing characteristics do. All I am saying is that it only belongs with a full description that is actually able to apprehend someone. In the hypothetical scenario I mentioned, if the only thing someone saw was that the assailants were young, male and white, they would likely say they didn?t get a good enough look at them to give a description. The same should apply regardless of the race of the attackers for the reasons I have already mentioned. Jimmyay, I don?t think its racist to acknowledge that a disproportionate amount of the crime is committed by young black men but was that the point of the post? Is that the discussion we are having? *Edited to reflect the right name

Just agreeing with you that the youngins are most likely to fall prey. ;-)

I think a Waitrose would do better. But losing market share to Aldi etc is reflecting what's happening to the country's finances as a whole. While we as a country are getting poorer, East Dulwich's demographics are getting increasingly richer. Therefore, you'd expect a Waitrose or M&S to buck the trend here. I predict it will be packed. There are a lot of young single renters who work in the city who are desperate for this kind of convenience food living here now. ED isn't just young families anymore!

First, I want to let the victim know that she has my sympathy and concern and that I hope whoever did this to her is caught and severely punished. Second, I want to say that Atticus acted bravely and I am sure there was no intentional hidden agenda in the post. BUT Meister is correct even if he /she didn?t express it clearly. Just substitute the description with??A woman was attached by 3 white youths. Call the police if you see them.?- and it should be clear what?s wrong. The first question people would ask is ?what do they look like?? And the reason is 3 white / black youths is not a meaningful description to catch someone. The height descriptions Atticus gave helps, but putting out a call to catch 3 assailants without being able to give more than a very generic description (lacking weight, hairstyle, clothing, precise details of physical appearance) is simply a witch hunt. If the goal is to warn people to be careful rather than to apprehend (because you didn?t see the attackers well enough to give a meaningful description) then there is no need for any physical description of the assailants at all. The issue is, without intending to, a generic description like the one provided is basically saying, call the police and or be very careful if you see 3 young black men. That?s what people have an issue with because even though people of certain races and ages and genders commit a disproportionate amount of the local crime, the vast majority of young men and black people don?t and never have and shouldn?t be treated with suspicion or caution as a first response.

That's a fair complaint (unlike some of the previous ones). I don't like M&S clothes or food either but clearly there is a market for it here. Besides the very occasional ready lunch I never buy anything in there. I don't like Iceland either but its not up to me, its up to how people locally would like to spend their money and Iceland / M&S / Waitrose understand their consumers and where they should continue / begin to operate.

Exactly! People are conveniently forgetting that Iceland is a chain store... The local independents don't compete with M&S's convenience offerings so all those proclaiming the end of the our quaint highstreet are talking nonesense. The only thing about the high street that's changing is it is more gentrified. And like someone else said, people who don't like it are inverted snobs-- simple. It's unfortunate for those who feel displaced by this but it only reflects the changing reality of the area. Saying the more affluent residents in ED should go to Bromely's M&S rather than the decreasing percentage of less well off residents popping over to Peckham's Iceland is rediculous. Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > tallulah71 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > what I do have a > > problem with is people applauding the arrival of > a > > 'High Street' shop replacing another high > street > > shop which sells, basically, convenience food. > > That's what we already have. > > Agreed. We'll be replacing one shop which I never, > ever use. With one which I will probably use > occasionally. And a scruffy building will be > getting a bit of a facelift into the bargain. So > from my personal perspective, it's good news. > > One chain replacing another does not mean the end > of LL as we know it. In fact, I suspect that the > main losers will be Sainsburys Local and Co-op.

Why? Do you want to replace the CO-OP or Sainsbury or do you think ED needs another supermarket? I think the CO-OP's rubbish so would love to see it go!

Regarding the potential parking requirements for the flats, in my experience, many people who live in flats don't drive and those that own cars specifically look for flats that offer parking. Even if it is not specifically prohibited in the planning application, I am not sure the residential development should be a significant concern regarding parking. The M&S Simply Food format (which is what is being proposed) is not a supermarket and is not a place where someone can do a weekly shop. The Simply Food format is convenience food / ready made dinners / basic essentials which is why they are often located in train stations and motorway services. The idea people will be driving on masse to load up their cars with convenience food is a bit mad. With respect to concerns about the independent shops, convenience meals of the kind M&S will offer currently don't exist on LL (have to get it from your station on your way home) so I can't see how this will significantly threaten local business. The Little Waitrose format is very similar to the M&S Simply Food. Even if these shops were supermarkets, the Co-Op and Sainsbury rather than the independent shops should certainly feel more threatened. Either way, if Iceland felt there was enough demand for their offering, they'd be willing to pay the same rent as M&S and Waitrose. If they don't then its simply an accurate reflection of the current state of the market in ED.

I don't think I have insulted you but if I have then I apologise. Let's try to not make this personal and stick to the issue at hand. A simple question for you DJ-- what's the cut-off? If every unemployed person in the UK wanted to live in London and 100% of the housing stock therefore needed to become social housing to accomodate them, would that be okay, even if it forced the majority of people who work in London out of the city? In my view there simply needs to be some objective criteria beyond the existence of a waiting to list to determine the creation of social housing in London. And the decision needs to be taken in light of all of the good and bad consequences of the policy adopoted. I have already agreed with you on the impact central government taking a portion of certain councils' rents has so I have no idea why you are arguing with me about that-- (read my post carefully and you will see I mentioned that a portion of what is being creamed off is tranferred to other councils- i.e. certain councils susidise poorer councils not that social housing in itself is a subsidy which is a totally different discussion that I wasn't trying to provoke). I agree how social housing is funded is important, just that its is not relevant to if social housing should be built in London vs elsewhere. Where we really disagree is that as you state in your post, you believe it makes no difference if housing is built in London or elsewhere as it has to be built. I agree it has to be built. However, in London, given the demand pressure that already exists in the private housing market (not to mention the cost of land), building more council housing (where private housing could be developed instead) has a greater negative impact than it would elsewhere in the country. Demand for private housing is greatest in London vs. elsewhere in the UK. If you disagree with that, can you please explain why?

Agreee! Too much austerity too quickly can be counterproductive if it leads to a recession. We are getting close to that breaking point...

DJ- that response is so cynical. How can anything I stated suggest that I want London to become a ghetto for those above a certain income level? I said I strongly believe London should have social housing (18% of all housing in fact). I simply have suggested that there is no justification for London having more than its proportional share of the total national social housing requirement given the impact it has on private housing. Lot's of things affect the cost of private housing but supply of housing is certainly one of the most crucial factors. You are twisting these simple facts beyond all recognition simply because you have no rational argument against this that is based on facts rather than emotion. I understand your point regarding the government taking a portion of Southwark's rents. Part of what the government collects is used to subsidise councils whose rents do not cover their costs and like you've said the rest is diverted for other uses (though not housing benefit anymore). There are a host of reasons why many involved with funding decisions don't believe the model you mention can work for future social housing development. However, none of this has anything to do with the question at hand which is how much social housing belongs in London. If you want to move the discussion along to a new subject just say so and I will be happy to debate this with you.

You have a point. I certainly agree all banned rather than all allowed makes more sense. Cabs are essential as London does not have a 24 hour tube system. Private companies can shut down potentially. Still, perhpas, regulating the entire sector to ensure universal standards is better than giving black cabs perks.