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

[Undisputedtruth]

rch Wrote:

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

> In order for an application to be referred to a

> planning committee, there now needs to be 5 or

> more "relevant" objections, i.e. objections that

> raise material planning considerations (it helps

> to cite relevant policies in your objections) or

> two councillors can ask for it to be referred,

> subject to agreement by the chair of the planning

> committee in consultation with the appropriate

> chief officer.

>

> Here's a link to the PDF document, if the link

> doesn't work try Googling "Southwark Planning

> Committee and Planning Sub-Committees":-

>

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s29008

> /Appendix%201%20Planning%20committee%20and%20Plann

> ing%20Sub-Committees%20Roles%20and%20Functions.pdf

Basically that document goes against grain of 'Localism' where people are unable to have a say in their local community. That is deplorable. Surely the way forward is to have greater transparency in planning decisions rather than hiding behind locked doors.

Furthermore when will Southwark ever be up to date with national policies?

[rch]

Welp, UDT, I voted against this change so technically one could say that we are in agreement. The discussion is complex... we can go into it if you like, but we'll inevitably end up in a political discussion and I hate politics!

For the record, I consider myself a representative of the people in the first instance and will therefore navigate policies to ensure the local people get the outcome that benefits the community the most (including the amenity of local people).

Technically Southwark is up to date, as all our policies have gone through all the various stages of approval.

On the other hand, the crux of the matter in Dulwich is indeed about Localism vs one-size-fits-all national policies, which is where the SPDs come in. We can go into this in detail, but I don't want to divert the discussion on this thread too much. Having said that, this discussion will become central to the Dulwich SPD consultation.

[Huguenot]

"As for class war, you could be right, it's the middle classes with bad taste/can't cook mob having a pre-empt strike in removing working class shoppers from their local high street."

I'm intrigued to hear your conspiracy theory about how the middle class have orchestrated a war on the working class of East Dulwich of which M&S is a pre-emptive strike.

Tell us about those secret meetings, the plans and the strategies.

Please do enlighten us?

[rch]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> A lot of people have expressed a lot of views and at this point, I believe one of the cllrs should step in and clarify how to make a formal objection and what grounds will be considered.

Hi, LondonMix.

Technically the consultation period on this application is now closed. The next step will be for the sub-committee to formally consider it at a public meeting in Tooley Street, probably in Sept - we're waiting to hear what exact date, probably the 11th Sept.

At the public meeting Objectors, Supporters, and Ward Councillors will get a chance to speak and be questioned by the committee.

My guess is that the grounds to be considered will boil down to the developers having a workable Transport Assessment followed by a detailed discussion on parking policies, which is why referred everyone to the Sustainable Transport SPD, as all the relevant specifics are covered in this document.

The Sustainable Transport SPD carefully defines the Suburban Zone in 4.2.9 as:-

4.2.10 This area includes Dulwich and is dominated by houses with gardens rather than flats, with development between 200 and 350 habitable rooms per hectare. There are some bus routes and railway stations, however the level of public transport is lower than in the rest of Southwark. Less development is going to happen in the Suburban Zone and we allow more car parking to a maximum between 1.5 or 2 spaces per flat or house.

It can be argued that Lordship Lane has a high level of access to public transportation but the fact is that Lordship Lane is only designated as a Neighbourhood Area, which is suitable for smaller scale development, specifically because while the access to public transportation (PTAL) is excellent running north to south, the interconnecting access routes east and west are poor, which is what makes Dulwich residents more dependent on their cars than in other parts of Southwark, which is in turn why we are allowed more parking spaces in new developments than Southwark saved policy 5.6 and the London policies allow.

In my opinion the debate is going to boil down to how to encourage growth and development along Lordship Lane while preserving the amenity of the surrounding local residents.

[Undisputedtruth]

rch Wrote:

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

> Welp, UDT, I voted against this change so

> technically one could say that we are in

> agreement. The discussion is complex... we can go

> into it if you like, but we'll inevitably end up

> in a political discussion and I hate politics!

I'm all ears.

> For the record, I consider myself a representative

> of the people in the first instance and will

> therefore navigate policies to ensure the local

> people get the outcome that benefits the community

> the most (including the amenity of local people).

Amenity is one thing but social inclusion is important too.

>

> Technically Southwark is up to date, as all our

> policies have gone through all the various stages

> of approval.

Yes, but things have moved on with the localism agenda and your document is a few years old.

> On the other hand, the crux of the matter in

> Dulwich is indeed about Localism vs

> one-size-fits-all national policies, which is

> where the SPDs come in. We can go into this in

> detail, but I don't want to divert the discussion

> on this thread too much. Having said that, this

> discussion will become central to the Dulwich SPD

> consultation.

To be fair, the one size fit all model ended quite some time ago. The Tories stole the devolution policies from Labour and rebranded it as 'Localism'. Local Area Agreements was Labour's response to the one size fit all national policy back in 2008.

I'll probably read up on the UDPs as well.

[LondonMix]

Thanks, that's helpful.

rch Wrote:

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

> LondonMix Wrote:

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

> -----

> > A lot of people have expressed a lot of views

> and at this point, I believe one of the cllrs

> should step in and clarify how to make a formal

> objection and what grounds will be considered.

>

> Hi, LondonMix.

>

> Technically the consultation period on this

> application is now closed. The next step will be

> for the sub-committee to formally consider it at a

> public meeting in Tooley Street, probably in Sept

> - we're waiting to hear what exact date, probably

> the 11th Sept.

>

> At the public meeting Objectors, Supporters, and

> Ward Councillors will get a chance to speak and be

> questioned by the committee.

>

> My guess is that the grounds to be considered will

> boil down to the developers having a workable

> Transport Assessment followed by a detailed

> discussion on parking policies, which is why

> referred everyone to the Sustainable Transport

> SPD, as all the relevant specifics are covered in

> this document.

>

> The Sustainable Transport SPD carefully defines

> the Suburban Zone in 4.2.9 as:-

>

> 4.2.10 This area includes Dulwich and is dominated

> by houses with gardens rather than flats, with

> development between 200 and 350 habitable rooms

> per hectare. There are some bus routes and railway

> stations, however the level of public transport is

> lower than in the rest of Southwark. Less

> development is going to happen in the Suburban

> Zone and we allow more car parking to a maximum

> between 1.5 or 2 spaces per flat or house.

>

> It can be argued that Lordship Lane has a high

> level of access to public transportation but the

> fact is that Lordship Lane is only designated as a

> Neighbourhood Area, which is suitable for smaller

> scale development, specifically because while the

> access to public transportation (PTAL) is

> excellent running north to south, the

> interconnecting access routes east and west are

> poor, which is what makes Dulwich residents more

> dependent on their cars than in other parts of

> Southwark, which is in turn why we are allowed

> more parking spaces in new developments than

> Southwark saved policy 5.6 and the London policies

> allow.

>

> In my opinion the debate is going to boil down to

> how to encourage growth and development along

> Lordship Lane while preserving the amenity of the

> surrounding local residents.

[fredricketts]

4.2.10 This area includes Dulwich and is dominated

> by houses with gardens rather than flats, with

> development between 200 and 350 habitable rooms

> per hectare. There are some bus routes and railway

> stations, however the level of public transport is

> lower than in the rest of Southwark. Less

> development is going to happen in the Suburban

> Zone and we allow more car parking to a maximum

> between 1.5 or 2 spaces per flat or house.

How can this apply, if they are doing away with a car park?

It?s not the whole communities, which this affects, it?s the local residents.

[first mate]

Some thoughts on localism- article by Griff Rhys Jones in yesterday ES, see link below:

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/dont-let-business-in-to-destroy-unique-fitzrovia-8069360.html

In terms of the proposed M&S application, we must remember that the primary aim of the application is to shoehorn much more into the same space- this makes absolute sense commercially and will no doubt mean more money for the planners/freeholders and store owners- but the impact on the community is less clear. Yes, a fave brand of convenience food is made available but what kind of precedent does the success of this application, in terms of scale and associated issues like parking, impact on direct neighbours, set for the future?

[the-e-dealer]

More money for the planners? how?

[first mate]

Well spotted ED. A slip- I meant developers, I was not implying back-handers!

[rch]

You've hit the nail on the head, Fred. If I was an objector speaking to the sub-committee, I would suggest that if the members were minded to refuse the application, paragraph 4.2.10 might give them sufficient grounds to do this, especially if the Transport Assessment and Travel Plan is flawed...

[Chillaxed]

rch,

Could you please clarify where you stand on the application? For or against, as currently drafted? If against, what aspects of the application do you object to?

Thanks,

Chillaxed

[rch]

Hi, UDT... nah, I'm pretending to be on holiday, so I'm more interested in painting my living room than discussing politics. Let's just say that, as an ex-company director, I tend to have a different view towards budget cutting and strategic financial management than most politicians do.

The Core Strategy was approved by Council Ass on April 6, 2011, so it's only just over a year old. It basically updates the Southwark Plan, which includes Policy 5.6, which is the policy that addresses car parking (which in turn is addressed in Dulwich by para 4.2.10 in the Sustainable Transport SPD).

We are now instructed to give the National Planning Policy Framework greater weight in planning committee decisions, but the whole lot works together quite elegantly when one regards the bigger picture.

Now if I could just figure out how to operate this mastic-squirting thing...

[rch]

Hi Chillaxed,

Although the legislation has now changed, I still don't think it's appropriate for me to express an opinion, especially as I haven't yet read the final officer's report and the attendant documentation.

However, councillors are allowed to inform and help residents to interpret the relevant policies, which is what I'm trying to do.

I'm not whimping out, I honestly think it's best for me to remain neutral - sometimes one can achieve more that way. Plus, sitting on the main planning committee, it's best for developers not to form an opinion that I'm predisposed towards certain types of developments, as each application must be considered on its own merit.

Planning is one of my passions, though, so I'm quite happy to help if asked. I'll probably try to attend the sub-committee meeting if possible, but as a resident, as only East Dulwich councillors will be able speak. I think the ED councillors have a good grasp of all the layers. The public discussion at the sub-committee meeting should be very interesting... I like transparency.

[first mate]

rch,

Great to know that you'll be attending the planning sub-committee as a resident- on that basis are you able to reveal whether you are for or against the current application?

As I said earlier, the applicant possibly has the advantage in that they can hire planning expertise to represent their interests- many local residents do not have that knowledge, or indeed, the time to acquire it. Given that planning is your passion and that you are also a local resident, I am hoping that you are minded to express the very real and fair objections that immediately local residents have to this application.

[the-e-dealer]

rch why is it "best for developers not to form an opinion?"

fm rch will not be able to speak at the meeting. But as she is not on the committee I cant see why she is doing a "liberal" ie sitting on the fence as usual.

[rch]

Nope, I'm not sitting on the fence, I'm following advice. Developers have told me that they follow my movements and my comments in planning meetings are often quoted in the press, so I don't want to prejudice my position on the main planning committee.

If anyone would like help in formulating objections or support, I'm very happy to help. I've already given key advice to residents which I believe could be crucial:- read the Sustainable Transport SPD. I've even quoted the relevant paragraph.

We can go into in more detail, but I only have a small window of time off with no meetings (although I'm still doing casework every day) and I really need to paint my living room...

[Chillaxed]

I think that provided you note that your opinion is given in your capacity as a resident and not a councillor or committee member, you ought to be able to declare without prejudicing your position as a committe member. It's a fine line though and I understand your postion.

Thanks,

Chillaxed

[the-e-dealer]

Chillaxed thanks for the legal advice but I think the Real Legal advice says keep your mouth shut!

[rch]

Thanks for the understanding, Chillaxed...

t-e-d, anyone who knows me can tell you that it's impossible to get me to keep my mouth shut, or even to politically whip me (although I do respond well to reasonableness). But I have a lot of respect for our senior planning officers, who are non-politically motivated, and their guidance has kept me out of trouble in the past.

In the meantime, it would be interesting to see if the applicants' agents are following this discussion and how they address the SPD in their presentation. I really wish that we could have invited the applicants to a Dulwich Community Council meeting for an open discussion on the community concerns during the consultation period, but unfortunately the timing didn't work out.

[DulwichGlobetrotter]

I am all for an ED M&S! Miles better than Iceland and it'll save me lugging M&S shopping back to ED on the train - embrace this!

[first mate]

Okay, you wnat the brand, but the subject really under debate is the detail of the application- the brand, in that sense, is slightly peripheral, and will not be the subject of the planning meeting or objections to the application.

[Undisputedtruth]

First Mate, do you actually expect M&S supporters to actually understand planning issues? They can't even cook.

[Zebedee Tring]

Insulting M&S supporters won't help you win your argument, UT, you'll just polarise people . I'm sure that M&S supporters can cook just as well as Iceland supporters, and no worse than them. And I'm sure that they understand planning issues just as much as Iceland fans.

The issues before the Planning Committee surely relate to the acceptability of the proposals in traffic, parking and housing terms, not the merits or otherwise of M&S and Iceland

[-Heinz-]

Cora Wrote:

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

> As a family with three young kids I do all my

> essential shopping in Iceland...Milk is ?1 for

> 4pints much cheaper than elsewhere......this will

> have a massive impact on my weekly shop...and with

> no car I won't be 'popping' to Peckham. People

> might not like the image of Iceland but it is a

> Well used community shop - the staff are always

> great and the queues managed well. Seeing it go

> would be another sad product of gentrification -

> the shops on Lordship Lane risk serving only one

> segment of the population....here comes Clapham!

Could not agree more, creating a middle class ghetto with all it's cliches of wonderful wholesomeness is ultimately just

as stuffy as vacuum packed octopede legs...Let not forget some people need to feed themselves before before thinking of

droning on about their favorite Tuscan vine....it it doesn't make them less interesting then the

Birkenstock/Bugaboo/organic dildo brigade.