Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yes the M&S store applied for longer times to sell alcohol than their planning permission allows.

I objected to the licence application.

Pretty standard conditions have been added to the approval.


The key will be resisting if they ever seek a new planning application to amend that condition on opening hours to match the alcohol licence.


They've also submitted another licence application to revise the drawings they submitted around the self service tills. No substantive change.

Indeed, on what grounds? Deliveries? Sainsbury's and Londis don't seem to cause any disruption..


Otta Wrote:

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

> James Barber Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Yes the M&S store applied for longer times to

> sell alcohol than their planning permission

> allows.

>

> > I objected to the licence application.

>

>

>

> Why? (just out of interest)

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> I will be happy when it finally opens and we can

> all stop going on about the place..

>

> I'm sure people will be queuing around the block

> when it first opens..

>

> People round here like a queue. Moxons... William

> Rose ... Franco Manca..


and the Gelati, queues on a Sunday across the pavement, also often queues at the weekend outside TCC as people have not yet realised there is a Thai pop up opposite at the Duck Egg Cafe, which is good value. I doubt there will be queues outside M&S when it finally opens, although I imagine there will be queues at the checkout.

>

> DulwichFox

Otta wrote:


James Barber Wrote:

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

> Yes the M&S store applied for longer times to sell alcohol than their planning permission allows.


> I objected to the licence application.


Why? (just out of interest)



James - I think you answered the wrong question (or at least I thought you did). Why did you object to the licence application? (not why did M&S apply for longer times). I'm also interested in why, as a local representative, you objected to the licence application.

I don't know why or even if he did object to this licence application. It was due to be heard by the sub committee on the 10th of May. M&S originally wanted licensing hours to start at 6am. Before the committee met discussions were held with the police and M&S agreed the licensing start hour should be 8am. This is not unusual for applicants like this to apply for longer hours that they don't use. The Sainsbury's local in Lordship Lane has a licence start time of 6am but the store doesn't open until 7am. I suspect the M&S store will open at 8am for ordinary and alcohol shopping. I hope this is helpful.


Regards


Councillor Charlie Smith

East Dulwich Ward Member

M&S originally wanted to significantly increase opening/closing and delivery hours beyond those of the former incumbent Iceland. This would have resulted in disruption to locals as the delivery area is smaller than ever and the very large delivery vehicles not only block the street holding up traffic but also make a terrific racket as they inch into the delivery bay, beeping as they go. Part of the earlier planning agreement had M&S operating at similar times to Iceland.


The fear was/ is that M&S will use the alcohol licence to impose the extended trading hours they originally wanted and that were rejected in earlier planning applications.

Hi Robbin,

I objected as I didn't want M&S to have longer licensing hours than their planning permission.

I was trying to avoid them then coming back for longer opening times. I failed. We now run that risk.

The new M&S will already have much longer opening hours than the previous Iceland store.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, AFAICS, the "civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300" were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...