Revised new - M&S planning application to replace Iceland..

[Undisputedtruth]

Foxxy,

I thought Davidh's gift shop was THE pound shop along Lordship Lane but without a comprehensive, no quibble, refund policy.

[pipsky2008]

Carrots at Iceland today ?1 per Kg. Carrots at the Co-op today 90p per kg

[DulwichFox]

pipsky2008 Wrote:

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

> Carrots at Iceland today ?1 per Kg. Carrots at the

> Co-op today 90p per kg

Yes.. Could not move for Rabbits in the Co-op. :)

Fox.

[fredricketts]

When the residents of Ashbourne Grove went to Tooley street

to object to the late night opening hours of the bars in

Lordship lane, there was a considerable amount of objection put

in by local residents and James Barber attended for the residents,

and it was a waste of time as the licensing committee had already

made up their minds, that they would allow the late night hours,

and take no notice of the complaints. It?s now happening again with

this application for M&S. Consultation times so short and like all

there consultations only certain people are consulted

and the residents that it really concerns are not consulted

until it?s too late. Same thing happened with Somerfield?s car park.

And flats above. The developers broke their planning agreement by

not having any where to put there rubbish, and what

happened three years later, they still have nowhere to put their rubbish

they put it on the public footway. They also kept from the residents that the flats above were for people coming out of prison. Its business over residents and there is

no democracy. It?s about time the council did something for the rate payers.

[Mick Mac]

It's about time James Barber started acting for the majority (with reference to the wishes of the minority) rather than trying to be a hero.

[mynamehere]

1. Going after a councillor who makes a bigger effort than most to balance it and get it right isn't savy. I'd say most of us spend most of our time sharpening our teeth on the wrong people.

2. If you want to know what people think you do a statistical survey and analyse it. Either the survey is done correctly or not. Consultations are exactly what fire all of you up: they are inherently biased and can be manipulated to serve pre-existing (council or otherwise) positions

[fredricketts]

I am not knocking James, as I know he works very hard

For some residents,the fact that he is making sugestions

to the planning aplication ,sugests that he is in favour of it,

and probably knows,that no matter what objections go in,

it will be passed,as the Governmet need the money,to make

up for the money they have squander over the years and still are.

[the-e-dealer]

I don't see what money the 'Government' will get from this planning application?

Now the Council could make some cash by refusing and then taking money for a new application but the likelihood of a very expensive planning enquiry should stop them refusing "Just to save money"

Money for the Government? Sheer Fantasy

[nonpretentious]

That's good as a one off...I was talking about having to feed a family, and their mates who drop in after school, on a regular basis. 99p shop, Aldi or Lidl would have been much more welcome for a large population of ED. I can almost hear the colour draining from faces as I suggest such shops.

[fredricketts]

Money for the Government? Sheer Fantasy

The Government have their fingers in all the pies.

Especialy M&S pies they are twice the price of others.

Except for running the country properly.

More flats and houses for all the illegal imigrants

that they dont know are in the country.old saying in regards

to most MPs and councilers,"The working class can kiss my arse,

I have the charge hands job at last"

[Jeremy]

Is that a poem?

[the-e-dealer]

So how is it Money for the Government. How does this Scam work?

[James]

Where do we go if we want to show our support FOR an M&S in ED?

[DulwichFox]

It is not Proper for any Council / Councilor to show Support / Favour for any Commercial Enterprise

over another.

Fox.

[Penguin68]

I think, in fact, that councillors can speak in favour of an enterprise, particularly if they have no commercial interests with that enterprise, if they believe it will benefit their constituents. How otherwise would debate be possible when considering commercial tenders? However, where there is a commercial relationship councillors have to declare an interest and should excuse themselves from any formal participation (votes) in the matter. I suspect that if, for instance, a sex shop and a haberdashers were both to be seeking to rent retail property from the council we would be surprised if any councillor chose manifestly not to express an opinion about these two competing commercial interests.

[Penguin68]

I ought perhaps to remind people that there appear to be two separate arguments contained within this thread, one about the appropriateness of the type (scale and scope) of the proposed changes to the existing Iceland store (regarding building extension, loss of parking amenity, possible local disruption regarding delivery schedules) in which people living adjacent to the site clearly have a direct interest, outwith the retailer which will be sited there, and a second set of arguments about what sort of retailer should be there (M&S etc.)

WE CANNOT INFLUENCE THE CHOICE OF RETAILER - either by forcing Iceland to stay, or by arguing that M&S isn't a 'proper' tenant in Lordship Lane. The decisions (to go, to enter) will be being made by very canny marketing departments taking account of demographic etc. changes and long-term retail potential of the site, compared to other possible sites.

WE CAN make a case about the planning impact of the proposals. It is that case, not an argument about Iceland or M&S which will be being considered.

By all means express preferences for outlets here or elsewhere, but those expressions of interest are neither statistically valid regarding real local opinion, or will actually change anything.

We all know that the ED demography has changed in the 20 years that Iceland grew out of Bejam - and the commercial arguments which made it a good site for Iceland 20 years ago may no longer hold true (as also the commercial arguments which kept M&S out of ED 20 years ago).

[Ridgley]

It not just about the demographics, of the area or Dulwich as changed over the last twenty years or the argument about the size of the delivery vans and parking etc?. it simply about some people in Dulwich feel that Iceland lowers the tone for them and they want to feel good about themselves having an M & S is simple let be honest theses are the same people that go to Iceland and come out with an M & S bag so that there snotty neighbours are not aware they shop there.

[the-e-dealer]

Only if said Councillor is part of the planning process.

For example it would be perfectly proper for a Councillor to campaign against Mc Donalds or A bookies if they saw it damaging the community.

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> It is not Proper for any Council / Councilor to

> show Support / Favour for any Commercial

> Enterprise

> over another.

>

>

>

> Fox.

[LondonMix]

Finally something sensible being said by Penguin! Does anyone actually have an update on the process and timing of what is happening? Everything else that can be said has already been said in this 26 page thread....

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> I ought perhaps to remind people that there appear

> to be two separate arguments contained within this

> thread, one about the appropriateness of the type

> (scale and scope) of the proposed changes to the

> existing Iceland store (regarding building

> extension, loss of parking amenity, possible local

> disruption regarding delivery schedules) in which

> people living adjacent to the site clearly have a

> direct interest, outwith the retailer which will

> be sited there, and a second set of arguments

> about what sort of retailer should be there (M&S

> etc.)

>

> WE CANNOT INFLUENCE THE CHOICE OF RETAILER -

> either by forcing Iceland to stay, or by arguing

> that M&S isn't a 'proper' tenant in Lordship Lane.

> The decisions (to go, to enter) will be being made

> by very canny marketing departments taking account

> of demographic etc. changes and long-term retail

> potential of the site, compared to other possible

> sites.

>

> WE CAN make a case about the planning impact of

> the proposals. It is that case, not an argument

> about Iceland or M&S which will be being

> considered.

>

> By all means express preferences for outlets here

> or elsewhere, but those expressions of interest

> are neither statistically valid regarding real

> local opinion, or will actually change anything.

>

> We all know that the ED demography has changed in

> the 20 years that Iceland grew out of Bejam - and

> the commercial arguments which made it a good site

> for Iceland 20 years ago may no longer hold true

> (as also the commercial arguments which kept M&S

> out of ED 20 years ago).

[Undisputedtruth]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Finally something sensible being said by Penguin!

> Does anyone actually have an update on the process

> and timing of what is happening? Everything else

> that can be said has already been said in this 26

> page thread....

>

Penquin has been saying this for quite some time. Not only now.

[silverfox]

Penguin68 good point. Also, Ridgley, having thought about it, I think you have a general point in the sense that a number of people will happily go from, say, the deli, to pick up cheap items from Iceland - and let's face it there's nothing wrong with that.

But surely the real issue here after 26 pages of 'not-in-my-back-yard' v 'progressives' is if Iceland thought it had a real customer base here in East Dulwich that would contribute to the overall success of the company it would fight tool and nail to stay here and produce counter-development plans that may satisfy the nimbys.

Iceland is not a poor company and is more than capable of taking on M&S. However, perhaps it's more Penge than ED these days.

[KalamityKel]

That's not the issue at all!

Don't know how many times it has to be said - it's the application itself that is the issue. It doesn't matter who comes and goes, a shop is a shop and people will choose to shop in it or not.

It's a shame the focus is being pushed to who it is that wants to establish themselves in ED and not the effect the changes to the building, it's use and the impact on the surrounding environments. With this ridiculous focus I hope planning don't miss the real issues...

[first mate]

I also object to the use of the word 'nimby' or the phrase 'not-in-my-back-yard'. It's lazy thinking and the implication is that there can never be enough good reasons to object to something that is both close to you and may have negative consequences.

As a number of us keep saying, read the planning application and acquaint yourselves with the proposed site. The reasons for very local objection will be clear. Have a look at the link to photos earlier in this thread that show Iceland lorries so large they can barely move in the street, and then consider that the frequency of delivery is to be upscaled if this application goes through.

If for instance you object to proposed late licensing at the GE pub on the ground that it will cause late night noise and disruption then consider that those living close to the proposed site of this application will suffer very early morning noise and disruption along with a host of other issues.

[Michael Palaeologus]

Not lazy thinking at all. The arguements put forward are spurious .... more lorries, bigger lorries, more cars, more people ..... DOWN WITH THIS SORT OF THING!!

The Lane is a retail area, it has always been a retail area, Iceland is a shop, it and its predecessors have been there for alot longer than most of the local residents. Its much like moving into a house opposite a church and then whingeing about the bells ringing.

The Antis are making alot of noise and shoot down anybody that might actually welcome M&S, thus the Pros are little to be seen.

A few people making alot of noise, supported by one or two local politicos jumping on a bandwagon for a spot of point scoring, does not make a civic revolt.

It is NIMBY-ism. If M&S were opening in Forest Hill, nobody in ED would complain, because it wouldnt be in their backyard.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Unless I am reading it wrongly, isn't the proposal for an additional 6 flats (there already bring 2 in the existing development). I am not sure I buy the 'lots more people driving to M&S arguement. It sells convenience food - the type you might pick up on your wayhome.. its not the type of place you drive to for your weekly shop. Also, how much is the existing carpark actually used? Again, I would question how many cars are actually going to be displaced by its removal. As for arguements about brand snobbery, its all pretty irrelevant to the planning app and deeply subjective, so why bother going there.

For me it comes down to whether or not the area can cope with an additinal 6 flats and the associated parking issues. My guess is M&S will end up compromising and reduce the number.