LondonMix

James point blank-- do you support a Harris Nunhead school being opened on the Dulwich Hospital site despite there being a surplus of spaces in ED from 2016 onwards that could already meet a shortfall in Nunhead (if a Harris Nunhead didn't open in Nunhead), yes or no?

James you disagree that there is enough surplus places in ED to meet a shortfall in Nunhead without creating a new school in East Dulwich? The projections show no need for bulging in this part of the borough based on the current expansions and new schools. The shortfall from 2016 is in the north of the borough.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > You;ve stated that with Ivydale supersizing and > Harris Nunhead a surplus of 1/2 -> 1.5 FE but > without Harris Nunhead a shortfall of 1/2 -> > 1.5FE. James, I clearly stated that without a Harris Nunhead in Nunhead the projected shortfall for that area would be between 0.5 to 1.5 places. However, given there is already a surplus of places in ED of 2 to 2.5 entries by 2016, developing another primary school in East Dulwich to meet the Nunhead potential shortfall makes no sense. There are already more than enough surplus places in ED with the various expansions and new schools to meet projected shortfall in Nunhead without the creation of another new primary school ED. Therefore, locating a new Harris Nunhead in East Dulwich makes no sense and is a waste of tax payers money and a waste of limitted land resources. Do you disagree with any of that? As an aside, it is disingenuous for you to suggest the report says there is no secondary shortage. Borough wide in Southwark, the report shows a shortage across the borough from 2016 which becomes very acute by 2018. The report also acknowledges that when you look at local communities vs. the borough as a whole this area needs a secondary to meet more localised demand more quickly.

Thanks Samtopit for detailing the motion. James, what exactly in the above did you object to and why?

There are bigger M&S stores nearby (Brixton and Camberwell for example) so it really is serving a relatively small catchment. Talking about people driving to a small format convenience store (be it Morrisons or M&S) when the train station is also 5 minutes walk away and there is a bus stop right in front seems a bit of a stretch to me. M&S simply food is a convenience format store just like the Morrison's that will be opening . Its exactly like the mini Tesco and the mini Sainsbury that already are in the area. They will sell staple food, some frozen options and greeting cards etc. Who is driving out of their way for that-- you certainly can't do a weekly shop in one of them.

That wasn't my point actually. Being right by the station may be a better location in terms of footfall. However, the idea that people will drive to M&S but won't the Morrisons doesn't make sense as they are five minutes apart on foot. Same for the flats.

That's crazy. The station is 5 minutes walk from Iceland's shop. There really isn't any difference in that regard.

Not really Louisa-- The M&S that will be opened is a similar grab and go format rather than one of the more traditional stores. Also, there is much more housing being developed as part of that scheme. Not sure why this has been much less controversial...

Anna you signed up to the forum today to make that post? James, can you clarify how you voted on this matter as well as provide more details regarding the amendments your party wanted to make to the original motion?

There is no need for new primary schools in East Dulwich! That's borne out by the projections and the report produced in March by the council. What a shambles.

Why does it bother you? If you've bought recently, people can very easily estimate how much you had to pay. Are you thinking of re-selling it? That really is the only reason not to want people to know.

James, how can you expect Peter John to say he will grant planning permission for a scheme without having seen any indicative plans? If there are plans, please let us know. If Harris are serious about building on the Girls site, why don?t they as a minimum get plans to show its feasible? They will need to convince not only Southwark but also the mayor as it would require building on the equivalent of protected land. Gove?s letter is worrying as it suggests that the allocation of limited land resources should be solely on a first come first serve basis. The technicalities of application submission timing should not override the fact that a secondary school (without site sharing) is needed in this part of Southwark. There is no need for another primary school in East Dulwich. Anyone who can read the reports will see that with the opening of the Harris ED and Judith Kerr, the Dulwich area actually has a 2-2.5 form entry SURPLUS by 2016 (see page 3). http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southwark.gov.uk%2Fdownload%2Fdownloads%2Fid%2F10228%2Fcdi4_school_places_strategy_update_cabinet_report_18_march_2014&ei=Ia3GU_zsNs2myASlz4KIDg&usg=AFQjCNHE7VMfdZxd6sYOYyJHduqUgObO2g&sig2=Zuc-ZEysh4_v3sy8wHNBrQ If the Harris Primary were to open in Nunhead, based on current forecasts, there would be a SURPLUS of between 0.5 to 1.5 entries by 2016 as Ivydale is also expanding. Without a Harris Nunhead, the shortfall would be between -.5 and -1.5 form entries. Therefore, even if one were to use the logic that children in Nunhead should travel to ED for primary school (which is questionable), there already will be a large enough surplus of places in ED to absorb potential overspill from Nunhead by 2016 without the creation of an additional primary school in ED. Therefore, there is absolutely no need or justification for opening up a Harris Nunhead in East Dulwich and any steps to do so would represent a terrible misallocation of land resources and taxpayer money. You, Harris, and the DfE, having read the report from Southwark and having been briefed by local MPs and the parents group should be able to recognize this and acknowledge this without hesitation or qualifications.

Firstmate, I don't know how to drive so I am not the best person to judge if lorry driver will be able to squeeze in. I've literally got no idea! Probably why I am a bit more open minded.

first mate Wrote: > I also think that the claim that putting the > delivery hours on a formal and legal basis will > benefit residents is nonsense. Quite the contrary, > earlier delivery times and more frequent > deliveries will now be given a legal greenlight, > making them harder to overturn in future. > Well if Waitrose did take the site as is and decided to start delivering whenever they want as frequently as they want, there wouldn't actually be any legal recourse really to oppose what they were doing. By needing planning permission for the expansion of the site, the council has the opportunity to impose what it views as sensible limits on any new retailer for the site going forward. It's a bit of a stretch from the council to sell it as a positive but I can see their point. Given right now its technically a free for all, people should recognise that any conditions they impose should be seen as a positive. Anyhow, it will be interesting to see what happens at committee.

The truck access is a tricky one. I can understand why residents are concerned because Iceland deliveries have had difficulty accessing the site as is. However, I can't imagine M&S are being disingenuous. No retailer would sign up to a scheme if they sincerely doubted they would be able to get the deliveries they need to the store. M&S and the developer may be wrong but they also might have better logistics strategies than Iceland.

Hopefully! Have you informally reached out to her to understand her position? Given how quickly things appear to be moving on the Harris side, I don't think it makes sense to wait very long before understanding how these changes impact the overall situation.

Read through the planning report and this seems to be the gist-- The original decision which denied planning permission stated that on balance the benefits outweighted the cons until the additional noise disturbance was taken into account. The new application has required a later start time for deliveries on the weekend and the council seems to feel this adequately rebalanced the application towards approval. On all the other points, this seems to be their position: 1. The scale of increased parking pressure in and of itself cannot be grounds to refuse the application as a standalone issue. The parking point has been partially addressed by forcing the residential units to participate in car scheme as a planning condition for 3 years 2. That while concerns about truck access are important, the technical supporting information provided by the applicant hasn?t been refuted ? they diagramed out how the trucks will access the site using traffic software that showed that while its tight, its feasible and they have agreed that a member of staff will be onsite in a high-vis jacket to help direct the trucks in for delivery and servicing 3. Right now, Iceland can do whatever they want regarding deliveries etc and therefore the imposition of any new constraints is a positive for the nearby residents as it formalizes the situation and imposes legal limits on what goes on

Or perhpas its the difference in rent (not to mention other operating costs)... Renting space to run a cinema in Peckham may simply be much cheaper than renting space on LL. Similarly rents in the West End are bound to be more expensive than Lordship Lane. That the rents are different is also not bad or surprising. Anway, the painted hoarding is a clever way to advertise that the cinema is opening (not everyone reads the EDF)and is certainly better than nothing being there at all.

Yes, that would be great. Liaising with the Charter team so that as much support as possible can be garnered would be a good strategy. Hopefully all the local cllr in Nunhead and ED will get behind it.

Is there a specific petition that can be organised to show that the community is 100% behind the priorities set up by the steering committee? My fear is that they will simply say that primary school's support came first and shouldn't be scupperred by a later proposal. That line of argument is nonsense for various reasons but a very strong community backing (above and beyond those whose children will be attending the first few forms of either Charter or Habs) would really drive home the point that we are speaking with one voice against this nonsense strategy.

Agree this can't possibly have any impact on long term ticket prices.

Thanks Victor for posting the pics. I don't have facebook at work but have they indicated who the artist is? Its certainly better looking than a standard boarding which is nice.

Okay, now that Gove is out, what is the plan exactly? I imagine it is still important to petition to ensure the hospital site is squandered to create a primary school for Nunhead in the wrong location and that in fact is not needed.

Does anyone know how many deliveries Iceland makes per day and at what time they start? The fact they have asked for more deliveries than they initially did, suggests to me that they are now intending to use smaller lorries in response the the access issues raised. All articulated lorries are not the same size. I have not had a chance to read through the current proposal and do a comparison but from what people have said, I would imagine that might be something worth double checking before condemning the planning application. Also, if Iceland currently makes deliveries before 7am imposing heavier restrictions on a new trader would be inappropriate. If anyone has read the documents / is familiar with the situation it would be good to hear when Iceland makes its deliveries and if M&S are now proposing smaller lorries and therefore more total deliveries throughout the day.

Another thumps up for Alleyns Park Garden Centre-- which is one of the best garden centre's in all of London. They do local deliveries as well and are very friendly. http://www.alleynpark.co.uk/