Abe_froeman

I am though mildly amused by the second response to this thread, almost five years ago to the day...

: M&S planning application to replace Iceland

Posted by first mate 09 May, 2012 08:39

This could have a huge impact on Chesterfield, Ashbourne and Melbourne Grove parking, and not in a good way. The carwash puts enough pressure on the street as it is. If this development goes ahead it'd open things up for the CPZ lobby all over again.

The other point is for a large shop like M&S where is the loading on and off lorries going to happen and what are the access points? Iceland juggernauts already cause enough of a problem; resident walls as well as cars have been badly damaged over the years.

The development looks to be huge too. If there are any architects around could they say how much higher than the existing structure the proposed development is?

....

Ugh. Reminded of what a farce this whole thing has been.

I wonder if southwark is now too big and complex for the council to manage this sort of thing competently any more and if there should not now be a new independent london borough of dulwich and peckham and the north of the borough can keep the current team in tooley street?

Hi Blanche how do you know relatives have not been asked?

I think you called in this application too originally but they still glt away with it.

Is it correct that southwark have approved a change of planning to allow m and s deliveries on lordship lane and is that why they are putting a build out in at the other end if chesterfield grove?

If the shop opens at 6 I guess their staff will have to drive to work and park their cars in chesterfield grove because there are no trains that arrive at East Dulwich before 6 am.

It wouldn't solve the noise problem though, it would just move it onto Lordship Lane. The lorries can't park outside the doors because of the pedestrian crossing and the parking /loading restrictions further along.

One problem it might solve though, is if there has been a slip up by a southwark employee in unilaterally approving a change to the planning condition on deliveries. If the council makes it impossible to comply with the condition by putting a build out on the Chesterfield / Melbourne Grove junction then an earlier utlra vires change to the planning would have to be overlooked.

If it helps your bafflement, James, why there might be loss of parking is because a local councillor sitting on the community council that seemingly approved the funding for the works on this junction himself can't guarantee there won't be new double yellow lines at that junction.

Is there any chance of Southwark or the Dulwich Community Council putting any documents relating to Project 694030 on the Southwark website for public srutiny at all?

What a shambles

It would also help if the documents relating to Project 694030 were available to the public. I can't find them anywhere on Southwark's website.

So the changes to the junction of Chesterfield Grove and Melbourne Grove are to be instigated entirely on the initiative of Southwark Council, and not at the behest of the MGTAC?

Will the changes to the junction be financed through CGS money and if so which applicant was that money awarded to?

Are the works on that junction part of " Project 694030 Traffic Calming Melbourne Grove (south) ?15,000"?

James , please can you provide details of where (1) the Melbourne Grove Traffic Action Group application for CGS funding and supporting documents can be found, (2) the details of any consultations in relation to that application can be found, and (3) any other documents relating to the approval of that application by Southwark?

Your answers seem inconsistent on what the redesigning of the junction is about. Initially it was because there was too much speeding in Melbourne Grove, now it is to stop lorries turning there. I think it would be very disingenuous of the council to do the latter on the basis of money applied for to prevent the former, but presumably all the above documentation would show this is NOT what is going on.

Posted by James Barber March 26, 11:13AM

Hi bels123,

Sure. It is expected to use this to normalise the junction of Chesterfield grove with Melbourne Grove. Currently it is designed to maximise speeding.

Posted by James Barber March 31, 02:48PM

Hi P68,

The problem is speeding. But you raised the risk of CPZ. I responded to you and then you asked whether the problem was speeding or parking.

For clarity the problem reported on Melbourne Grove (south) is speeding by a large group of residents.

Neighbouring street report parking as a problem - I used to get complaints from those neighbouring street about speeding but installed speed humps and now I just get complaints from those streets about lack of parking.

Posted by James Barber Yesterday, 02:13PM

"CGS ?15,000. Over the years we had numerous complaints from Chesterfield Grove residents about Iceland lorries.... So we want to block this delivery route for 18 wheelers once and for. Hence the proposal.!

Posted by James Barber Yesterday, 02:13PM

So the current junction is designed to allow 18 wheeler lorries to turn left from Melbourne Grove and access what is now the M&S shop. A normal junction would not have such a huge curve - swept path - to allow such long lorries.

It looks like they were using one around that time from their facebook page....

https://www.facebook.com/TheGowlett/photos/a.198868396851671.49568.187970474608130/1444434118961753/?type=3&theater

You can';t be that surprised James. Southwark loves going over old ground again and again - see the non-issue of traffic on Melbourne Grove for starters...

Are you not standing this time James?

Think of all the ??? council tax southwark could make if those sites were converted into executive apartments!

it is the stated aim of Southwark council to stop people owning cars altogether Rendel. That's part of their 'kerbside' program.

James Barber also effectively confirms that on this page: "Cycle parking ... reduces car ownership..."

Will the bar still be open during your strike?

Most of those houses (even the ones divided into flats)have front gardens in which those much lower cost and much more space efficient bike storage sheds could be placed, but that wouldn't achieve Southwark's aim of stopping people from owning a car.

Did you catch up with them chick?

According to this the pay at ED picture house is ?9.65 an hour (based on ?9.05 an hour for an 8 hour shift which includes a 30 minute paid break), (that is 10p less than the london living wage) plus ?1 commission for every Membership sold or renewed and ?2 for every Member Plus Membership, plus an additional ?1.30 will be paid for every Membership sold to be shared amongst the team in each cinema and pro rata in line with hours worked in the same month as the bonus is calculated. Adding between 10p and 25p per hour for all front of house staff.

https://www.picturehouses.com/Contact#jobs

That is before all the other perks are added in and seems to me to be more than fair and a lot more than one might expect in any other cafe in SE22.

How do the Picture House wages and hours compare to jobs in the other bars and restaurants on Lordship Lane?

I would guess some of that cost is to pay the contractor to install the hangar. It's a lovely round number.

Hi James,. I'm still trying to find details of the proposal that has been approved for Melbourne Grove but can't see anything. Are you or Charlie Smith able to assist at all please?

All I can find is this list which doesn't include Melbourne Grove: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=44143

It does include some rather odd sounding projects for the council to be involved in such as "Posts and Chains" in Dulwich village (which I would think might be the responsibility of Dulwich Estate) and "Bus stop repairs" which I would think TfL should be on the hook for.

Is there a way to find out more about the CGS expenditure Dulwich Community Council approves?

Relieving parking pressure is a red herring. What is under consideration for the CGS spend is to rebuild the chesterfield grove junction to appease the MTAG on gheir perceievd speeding issues.

The only thing Southwark knows how to do at junctions is put in an enormous build out surrounded by double yellow lines.

James has sajd on this thread he will not guarantee no new doubke yellows around this junction. So if work goes ahead you can be sure 3 or 4 more parking spacrs will be lost.

I guess this is part of southwarks plan to acheive their stated aim of reducing private car ownership.

Charlie, where would one be able to find details of the proposed project / works and the consultation please?