M&S on Lordship Lane

[Louisa]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> ".. it's not zoned as a lorry loading bay"

>

> Not yet. Watch and see.

Exactly KK. Give it a few months, this will be the next planning application. It amazes me how people 'overlook' things when they get what they want. If this were a small independent business having big deliveries outside their shop people would be up in arms. But bow people are getting their posh ready meals it miraculously becomes the acceptable face of capitalism. Like it or lump it mentality.

Louisa.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Was this not discussed as part of the planning application? Where are the lorries meant to be pulling up (genuine question)?

[DulwichFox]

No Background Music.. ??

Well if you are going to have music at all... why not CRANK IT UP to 11..

Bat out of Hell.. Paranoid (Black Sabbath)

Foxy..

[Elphinstone's Army]

When I described, on only 22/8 that we would have a large and powerful organisation on LL (on the Maria's Shop thread)

(is that a pun?) I was told not to exaggerate.

On Saturday afternoon there was a full length lorry parked outside, facing north, as though in a designated space.

Crossing at the lights is then dependent on the green man flashing, and not as an act of faith, as to see left would mean

stepping into the road and peering out behind the rear of said lorry which is a hazard.

[worldwiser]

Hang on a moment, isn't loading from LL exactly what people were calling for so as not to burden the people of Chesterfield Grove? Sounds like we got what most people asked for. Result!

[singalto]

.

[Louisa]

I quite like background Muzak or back in the day up-beat saxophone lift/elevator music. Very relaxing when you're "going wild in the aisles" as Dale Winton once famously said.

Louisa.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I'm confused. Where are the delivery lorries meant to be parking?

[Louisa]

I was under the impression delivery lorries had time and size restrictions and had to back into the very narrow former car park at the rear of the building?

Louisa.

[Siduhe]

The planning application was made on the basis that deliveries would be the back of the building, where the car park was, accessed via Chesterfield Grove. Several residents pointed out that this was unlikely to work because of the changes to the layout of the car park, the size of lorries etc, including an amazingly professional traffic analysis by someone. The developer (and I think M&S was involved) convinced the Council that deliveries could be made to the back of the site, including by using smaller lorries and more frequent deliveries and this was incorporated into the planning permission I believe.

So yes, it's good for the residents of Chesterfield Grove who have been proved right and are not getting large deliveries in large lorries which scratch up cars or block the road. But the point is that permission wouldn't necessarily have been granted on the basis of deliveries at the front of the store, not least because TFL would have to have been involved because it's a bus route. It can't be right that a development gets permission on a particular basis (deliveries at back) and then turns round and says "oops, doesn't work after all" when they have vociferously argued that it does in order to get the permission in the first place. It makes (even more) of a mockery of the process.

[DulwichFox]

There was a Large (long) Co-op lorry parked up outside Yamo Momo and a few other outlets last night.

It was closer to M&S than the Co-op. Probably awaiting it's 'Designated' time slot ??? at the Co-op.

foxy

[Earl Aelfheah]

Thanks for the clarification re. deliveries. Clearly, if it was a condition of the planning application that they deliver tot he back of the store, then this is what they should be doing. Has anyone questioned this with M&S yet?

[ed_pete]

Join me and boycott M&S until they start putting their lorries where they're supposed to.

[Siduhe]

It's an absolute b***er to find any of the original docs as Southwark has moved to a new planning site, but I think I've found the right ones but they are too big to attach. The relevant bit of the permission says:

3a) Prior to the commencement of the retail use (Class A 1) hereby permitted, details of the delivery servicing arrangements, including site specific measures, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

From reading the officer's report, it appears that the permission was done of the basis of deliveries to the back of the store, "using transit vans and 10.2m articulated lorries, which are the same size as those currently used by Iceland and up to 6 deliveries per day are anticipated".

I'm now starting the Kafkaesque process of trying to see if what was approved by Southwark in accordance with the permission is also publicly available.

[Elphinstone's Army]

singalto Wrote:

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

> Why is relying on the green man to cross the road

> a problem?

I didn't say it was

[Siduhe]

Either I'm getting better at searching for this stuff or I have managed to mindmeld with the Southwark Council website (a scary thought). The approved delivery arrangements can be found here:

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=15/AP/2896&system=DC

The arrangements that were proposed and approved can be found at Appendix C of the Transport Statement. It's all about Chesterfield Grove deliveries, nothing about deliveries on LL.

In particular it says

As stated above, all servicing and refuse collection will take place via the existing access off Chesterfield Grove, utilising the existing loading bay within the site. There will be no need for any reversing activity on the public highway or across the footway.

Edited to add, finally, that M&S were clearly involved/aware at some level of the delivery arrangements because their delivery info and code of conduct for deliveries formed part of the application pack and approval was subject to that being complied with.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It does seem that the planning process is a bit of a joke.

[Siduhe]

It must be incredibly frustrating for immediate residents. They said that the delivery arrangements didn't work, provided a lot of detailed analysis as to why, and ultimately their views were overcome by a whizz bang consultants presentation which has been ignored by the developer once they got permission.

As I understand James Barber's recent post, Southwark are seeking enforce the original delivery arrangements at the back of the store - but if these really don't work in terms of size/access, the real losers will be the residents of Chesterfield Grove who will get their cars clipped and the road blocked by deliveries.

And if Southwark don't enforce, then the developer gets away with it again, and those of us who regularly take buses down LL will be held up by M&S deliveries. Either way, it's us who lose out. I wasn't/aren't pro or anti M&S but I am massively frustrated that this entirely foreseen issue just wasn't dealt with properly at the time by the planning process. *end rant*

[Earl Aelfheah]

If Iceland were able to deliver to the back of the store though, surely M&S shouldn't have any problems?

[Siduhe]

@rahrahrah - based on comments from residents of Chesterfield Grove at the time, it didn't always work with Iceland, lorries occasionally got stuck and hit cars. The concern in 2012/2014 was that M&S wanted to up the number of deliveries to up to 6 a day so there were lots more opportunities for deliveries to go wrong.

The other thing is (again from recollection) that the layout of the back car park has changed so the way that deliveries turn into the delivery area has to be different from what Iceland was doing - and it was this new layout that residents said didn't work based on their own traffic mapping report.

[New Girl]

On a completely unrelated topic to the current discussion, I've just been in and there are loads of reductions to be had. Not sure if it's a good sign but a bargain to be had all the same!

[Rosetta]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> If Iceland were able to deliver to the back of the

> store though, surely M&S shouldn't have any

> problems?

Hasn't the space at the back shrunk considerably? It used to be a car park.

[XIX]

The issue is that they have removed the Iceland car park which previously provided space for vehicles to turn. Anyone who walks into the rear service area of the site can plainly see that it is impossible to drive a lorry in forwards, and then turn it so that it can drive back out forwards (which was the planning condition). Even the small lorries can barely get in at all, either forwards or backwards. The developers would have well known this as they were developing the site - they have obviously sought to squeeze every single extra square foot they can out of the site for more money, knowing they would walk away once it was built dumping the problem on someone else. The delivery survey conducted at the time of the planning application showing it would be possible to deliver to the rear was challenged and questioned by chesterfield grove residents, but the council did not listen. Two days ago a delivery driver described the situation to me as an 'an absolute nightmare'. Given they cannot get into the site, they have mainly been stopping on chesterfield grove to unload on the pavement - this has obstructed the road, blocked the pavement, caused loads of noise and is clearly not an acceptable long-term solution on a residential street. The only viable option now is for deliveries to the front via lordship lane - it is up to the council to unpick the mess they have created (or allowed to be created), by re-zoning a delivery area, moving a bus stop, pedestrian crossing etc - if any of that is required. But clearly in principle it is entirely feasible and acceptable for deliveries to the front, with co-op being the obvious precedent.

James, you always supported deliveries to the front - is that still the case and can you do anything to help achieve it?

[LondonMix]

Small businesses both on LL and on Rye Lane do do this!

Anyhow, I think this might be a compromise solution that has been agreed with residents of Chesterfield Grove based on some posts on one of the (many) other M&S threads.

I'm aware that the freeholder has violated certain elements of the planning application though some of that seems a bit cloudy based on recent rulings.

Louisa Wrote:

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

> KidKruger Wrote:

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

> -----

> > ".. it's not zoned as a lorry loading bay"

> >

> > Not yet. Watch and see.

>

> Exactly KK. Give it a few months, this will be the

> next planning application. It amazes me how people

> 'overlook' things when they get what they want. If

> this were a small independent business having big

> deliveries outside their shop people would be up

> in arms. But bow people are getting their posh

> ready meals it miraculously becomes the acceptable

> face of capitalism. Like it or lump it mentality.

>

> Louisa.

[LondonMix]

Just caught up on Sidue posts- I think the lorries were using that back and Chesterfield residents asked them to stop. I'm not sure why but they seemed to reach an agreement for street deliveries instead. I agree a formal approved amendment to the original planning application should be made and approved with new conditions as required by TFL etc.