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

[LondonMix]

Interesting. Where have the other nearby conversions been out of curiosity? If there is an argument to be made that this specific area has already become too residentially dense relative to other areas, that would sway my view on this point.

[Ridgley]

Kalamity Kel

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

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...

Yeh right keep telling yourself that.

[Penguin68]

but the intention is to remove the car park to create a much bigger shop for a more affluent target market who tend to have higher car ownership.

Is this entirely true? - I had heard that Iceland has (unusually) virtually no storage space - presumably because initially (in Bejam days) everything was frozen and kept in freezers in-store - so much of the 'additional' space being designed in is about back-shop storage rather than solely expanding sales floor footprint. Stores which nowadays don't have storage out-back (such as the old 7-11s) rely on multiple daily deliveries (up to 5 times a day) to keep stocked.

[Earl Aelfheah]

27 pages

[LondonMix]

Elsewhere in this thread, it has already been discussed that the extension is for back of office space / storage space.

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> but the intention is to remove the car park to

> create a much bigger shop for a more affluent

> target market who tend to have higher car

> ownership.

>

> Is this entirely true? - I had heard that Iceland

> has (unusually) virtually no storage space -

> presumably because initially (in Bejam days)

> everything was frozen and kept in freezers

> in-store - so much of the 'additional' space being

> designed in is about back-shop storage rather than

> solely expanding sales floor footprint. Stores

> which nowadays don't have storage out-back (such

> as the old 7-11s) rely on multiple daily

> deliveries (up to 5 times a day) to keep stocked.

[Undisputedtruth]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> but the intention is to remove the car park to

> create a much bigger shop for a more affluent

> target market who tend to have higher car

> ownership.

>

> Is this entirely true? - I had heard that Iceland

> has (unusually) virtually no storage space -

> presumably because initially (in Bejam days)

> everything was frozen and kept in freezers

> in-store - so much of the 'additional' space being

> designed in is about back-shop storage rather than

> solely expanding sales floor footprint. Stores

> which nowadays don't have storage out-back (such

> as the old 7-11s) rely on multiple daily

> deliveries (up to 5 times a day) to keep stocked.

M&S has entered into a contract with the freeholder but this subject to increasing the retail space. If you look closely at the application itself there are no plans for customer parking and they make a case that customers will travel to the store by foot or public transport which of course is total poppycock as they'll be an influx of cars to the area.

[DulwichFox]

I think most people must of missed the Small Print..

The bit about the Proposed M&S Helli-Pad for the Super Rich to 'Drop' in..

Now that really would be impressive.

Can't see Icelands up-staging that one.

Fox.

[Ridgley]

Good one Dulwichfox:)

[Undisputedtruth]

Should M&S ever move into Lordship Lane then I'll be campaigning for a Waitrose as I consider M&S to lower the tone of the area!

[LondonMix]

AbDabs-- sorry for the multiple responses:

I mention the freeholder as it is the freeholder that is putting in for the planning application. Part of the planning application discusses the times for deliveries so if you want to work something out on this point clearly that is who you will have to deal with at this stage.

People who already drive to the high street will continue to do so. Those that typically walk will continue to do so. M&S Simply Food does not require one to drive as its a convenience store so it won't necessitate a change in people's existing driving habits per se. I acknowledge some people are lazy and already prefer driving within the local area even if they are just popping in for something small but if you don't need to and there is not parking, even those people are more likely to walk than if parking was an option. I'm not sure that the demographics of the store will influence driving patterns either. In my experience (limited and anecdotal I admit) car ownership is driven more by need rather than wealth (ie friends who have kids or who travel to different locations for work like my friends in the building trade own cars and those who don't can't be bothered with the expense and hassle of owning a car in London). I'm in the age demographic you mention and I would say less than 20% of my peers drive and those that do aren't the ones who earn the most.

I would be interested to hear where these other residential developments have been as if the area truly has become more dense, I might change my stance on that element of the planning application.

AbDabs Wrote:

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

> LondonMix Wrote:

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

> -----

> > FM, I agree. Have you spoken to the freeholder

> > about the delivery times and lorry access? It

> > seems like a viable compromise might be

> possible

> > on these very legitimate concerns.

>

> How is the freeholder going to be able to do

> anything about it? Once he has granted a

> leasehold, he doesn't have any legal interest in

> the use (other than those things that might

> directly affect his legal obligations). Also, why

> would he care? The freeholder won't be the one who

> has to respond to complaints and potential legal

> action.

>

>

> > The parking issues I have less concern about as

> it

> > appears the existing parking lot was not widely

> > used even on weekends (most people seemed to be

> > unaware it existed until the application) and

> > given you can't do a weekly shop at a Simply

> M&S,

> > I think the concerns about people driving there

> > more than is the case for Iceland are perhaps

> > overblown.

>

> It is certainly true that the car park is not

> fully utilised (From personal observation, I would

> suggest that there is often half the spaces free)

> but the intention is to remove the car park to

> create a much bigger shop for a more affluent

> target market who tend to have higher car

> ownership. Whilst it may still be too small a shop

> for the average family to do their weekly shop,

> nevertheless, for the car owning young

> single/couple, the temptation to 'pop into M&S'

> will be immense. At least that's the response I've

> had from 30 something friends when they hear M&S

> is coming.

>

>

> Regarding the flats, I am for the

> > development of more flats in general. While I

> > understand the parking concerns this poses, I

> > think most people who buy flats near the high

> > street and public transport (which these will

> be)

> > don't typically own cars as there is less need

> for

> > them. While its difficult to make this a

> > condition of owning the flats, I think the risk

> > that the new flats will considerably increase

> > parking pressure is fairly remote.

>

> I'm afraid that the reason Mr Ricketts gets so

> apoplectic is that there have been a number of

> flat conversions in the streets close to

> Iceland/M&S in the last 10-15 years and the level

> of car ownership has increased dramatically

> because of it. I'm afraid that whilst there are

> some who choose not to buy a car, there is certain

> evidence that many do. I do though tend to agree

> that the level of pressure on car parking will not

> be as high as some fear as there is a saturation

> point which has generally been reached where

> shoppers won't look for spaces.

> What I do anticipate is a significant increase in

> illegal parking (across driveways, on doubles

> yellow lines etc) within the immediate vacinity as

> drivers 'pop in' to grab supper. I hope that TFL

> are ready for the disruption to the bus lane and

> are quick to hand out fines.

[fredricketts]

I'm afraid that the reason Mr. Ricketts gets so apoplectic is that there have been a number of flat conversions in the streets close to Iceland/M&S in the last 10-15 years and the level of car ownership has increased dramatically because of it

This is not the only reason Mr. Ricketts gets so apoplectic, I get apoplectic, mainly because of the over population of East Dulwich, and the stupid planning laws which seem to change every five minutes in favor of what the Government , Councils and developers want, not what the people who live here want. It seems any bit of open space now is free game to build on, why? I have lived here for 49 years and seen the changes to East Dulwich and they are not for the good of East Dulwich. Urbanization of East Dulwich has now become realality. As one person on here said ? I would like to see more big shops in our town? East Dulwich is not a town and never was, it used to be rural area, its going the same way a Peckham where I was born and no longer wish to visit.

Sainsbury?s used to be open fields, where cricket and football was played, now they are trying to build more flats there. If I want to go for my weekly shop I go to Sainsbury?s where they have a big car park, and I don?t interfere with anybody. As Another person said on here? do we want to maintain the feel of ED as small scale and residential with most shops being of a proportionate size, or do we throw all that out and welcome in any amount of chains and start building up and out everywhere?.That?s how East Dulwich used to be small scale and residential with most shops proportionate size. And that?s how I would like to keep it.

I have seen the Councils give longer drinking hours to the wine bars and clubs in Lordship lane without any consideration as to what the local resident rate payers want, I have seen their consultations, with bits of paper put on lamp posts where no one see them, and they only consult two people in a road, I have been to Tooley street on behalf of residents and found that it was a waste of time because their minds where already made up.

I hope allot of these people on this site who are not concerned about the changes around this area actually live around this area.

Cars will be here until the oil runs out and you will not change that, nearly every household in the Country has a car, and to expect people not use them, is stupid, I once believed that the companies that built big shopping centers with big car parks, did so for the reason to elevate the pressure s of car parking in residential areas, it?s obviously not the case anymore.

[LondonMix]

London's population is growing and to relieve pressure on house prices and overcrowding more homes etc need to be built as well as the supporting infrastructure. The projections are currently that an additional 800,000 people will live in London by 2016 compared to 2010 and the city anticipates much of that population growth will be in South London which has relatively more space compared to other areas which have historically been more intensively developed. The transportation developments in South London go hand in hand with this agenda. Its an unfortunate reality that much of South London will lose its suburban / out of London feel as this progresses but its part of the evolution of a metropolis-- Fulham and Clapham were once out of town rural locations too.

While I am sympathetic with your concerns I really don't see what this has to do with one chain replacing another chain of similar size. The planning application certainly has its issues that need to be addressed but the changes are not to accommodate a supermarket.

[Undisputedtruth]

While it's true London population is projected to grow, most of the houses are being built in the Thamesgateway region. This is partly the reason why the Olympics was bidded for in order to attract investments from the private sector.

[LondonMix]

What you say is true but South London is being planned for as an area for significant population growth. The two points aren't mutually exclusive.

[Undisputedtruth]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> What you say is true but South London is being

> planned for as an area for significant population

> growth. The two points aren't mutually exclusive.

It all comes down to housing targets set by Southwark, London Plan and central government. However, just because the population of London is projected to get bigger it doesn't mean that people living near such developments should put up with detrimental effects.

[LondonMix]

No argument there. I was just giving context. I am in favour of increasing London's housing stock but not everyone necessarily holds that view. Even if you do, you still want it done thoughtfully and responsibly but you can't complain if it affects where you live.

[Undisputedtruth]

London's housing will have to increase to meet population demand. That has been the thinking for the past ten years which no one disputes. All developments must adhere to planning policies which ensures people are not affected detrimentally by living close to developments, ie noise, safety, privacy, etc.

[LondonMix]

Of course, though no matter how thoughtful a planning department is, its not possible to increase the population of an area without some negatives-- increased urbanisation, increased traffic and parking pressure etc. The goal is to do this in the best way possible that mitigates the negatives to the greatest extent possible while improving infrastructure and services to keep up with the increased demand.

[Undisputedtruth]

Planning policies have mitigated the effects of urban traffic and car parking spaces for the best part of the last decade. What I don't accept is where people should put up with compromised planning to meet housing targets rather than sustainable living.

[the-e-dealer]

NO. Sainsburys used to be overgrown fields where no-one was allowed to go.

[Longboy]

Why dont they just move the iceland to Peckham? Lets face it, they're all gyppos down that way and Iceland is right up their street.

[Undisputedtruth]

You're well behind the times, Londboy. Peckham was mentioned as one of the coolest place in London. You wouldn't know what cool is and let's face it M&S will never be cool.

[Nicholas]

M&S is anything but cool. I think an M&S on the lane would be a bad thing, because on a Saturday afternoon it's gridlock down there. Although I don't shop at Iceland, my observation is that most people that use that store travel on foot and are most probably fairly local. I think an M&S would attract people from neighbouring areas, and would undoubtedly travel by car, hence increasing the traffic flow, as well as making parking difficult and increasing pollution. Not to mention some of the local food stores would suffer from the competition. If Iceland do pull out, due to the size of the building, I can't see what would replace it, because no doubt the rent would be extortionate. Flats, potentially, or maybe a few small shops? Time will tell, and undoubtedly this debate will go on. If it's not M&S it will be Waitrose.

[the-e-dealer]

Maybe we should ban people from driving there? If we removed all the parking that would do the trick.

[LondonMix]

Or, Nicolas, perhaps we should hope the freeholder can sign a lease with a shop that isn't particularly successful and won't attract additional business to the high street.

Do you have anything insightful to say regarding the details the application? The freeholder can negotiate a lease with M&S if they choose to. What we are beings asked to consult on is the details of the planning application which includes certain contentious proposals.