Jump to content

Recommended Posts

That's really sad.


The last time I was in there I had extraordinarily good and cheery service from the person on the till. It made a really pleasant change. She was just being lovely to everybody.


And they recently had a notice in their window thanking everybody for their enquiries and concern and saying they didn't yet know what was happening.


Unlike the charming i*rate, I don't think the shop is ghastly at all, and I will miss it.


ETA: And to say "hurray" when people have been told just before Christmas that they are losing their jobs on 4 January, when in the present climate they will find it extremely hard to find employment, just beggars belief.

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> Sue - I think i*rate was being sarcastic and

> berating the iceland knockers


xxxxxx


Oh dear, sorry i*rate!! BLUSH :(


So does that mean it isn't true that it's closing?

i-rate, when you say they will lose their jobs "there" did they indicate they were being given the opportunity to transfer to other stores? It is sad. Hopefully, whatever becomes of the shop will generate at least equivalent new employment.

The freeholders has reapplied for planning permission 12-AP-3773:


http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=9547620


If you are for or against (and you'll need to give reasons acceptable in planning terms) contact the case officers - [email protected]


Please do copy me as a ward councillors any email or support or objection so we can be clear local views.

James - is there any summary of the changes from the previous application? I notice that the consultation period ends on 3rd January, which suggests they've tried to sneak this through while we're all rushing around with Christmas shopping/socialising/increased workload/holidays.

A quick look at the drawings and the issues that caused us concern don't appear to have changed at all.

Wow, that was quick...First I've heard of this. Consuktation ends 3rd January?? That doesn't give much time for objections. Again, the level playing field argument. Those behind the applications have the money, time and muscle to work on the application 100% We locals do not have that luxury. Yes, it sounds like they are trying to sneak it through. This is going to upset people.


Having had a quick look the footprint of this new application looks even larger than the last. They are suggesting removal of existing bollards at the entrance to increase room for the delivery vehicles- those bollards were pu in to protect private property from damage by delivery vehicles.


It is really cynical to present this application in the run up to Christmas, the developers know that significant time and energy of locals is necessary to mount objections. I note that "pre-application discussions" were underway with the council for this second application back in the summer, so the council knew this proposal was on its way. Why have none of us heard of it until now?

Locals need to move fast and I hope the architect who made the last detailed set of objections might be prepared to do so again. Presumbaly councillors who have anything to do with the planning side of things would have been aware of this application some time back?
On a very brief review, this doesn't look like it obviously/substantively addresses the objections re parking, access and deliveries, other than producing further reports (parking survey and delivery vehicle planning) to support the revised proposal. Can't see how they have resolved the right of way issue either, but assume that must be in there somewhere.

I thought the date applicatioin was received by planning was 6/12.


Anyhow, it says there was a 'pre-application meeting' between the developer and planning in July where promises were sought that this time round the application would be processed more 'expeditiously', last time people were off on maternity leave and so forth. Not implying something wrong in this, but it is some indication that people in planning knew the application was probably on its way and some councillors are much more involved with planning than others.

Sidhue,


It definitely needs someone with planning knowledge to read it and that is why I hope the architect who raised many of the detailed (and valid) objections last time sees this sooner rather than later.


I have had some difficulty accessing a number of the documents and keep getting a message that there is insufficient data to read it- so get a blank page. Don't know if this is my computer or a problem with the site. Would like to hear from others, since if there is a problem with the site that would stop interested parties from accessing key info.

I see, I was just curious. I think the planning dept is totally different to the cllrs and I don't think they get any specific heads up but I could be wrong on that. Robin as one of your passions is planning, it would be helpful if you chimed in. Also, I have beena able to access the docs okay-- printed them out but won't be able to read in detail until later and frankly don't know enough to comment intelligently anyhow!
Yes indeed Cora I totally agree. Iceland is the only shop in East Dulwich that the middle classes turn their noses up at but it supplies cheap staples that you wouldn't find in supermarkets such as Sainsburys and Co-op. These silly "Local" stores with their 25% price increases only serve to duplicate all other high streets in the country. What happened to individuality?
first mate, that's an known issue with adobe - could have been avoided in the upload but I have the same. Reduce the size of the doc on your screen from 104% to about 70% and you should be able to read it. Completely agree re getting a planning specialist to look at it. The transport statement (esp Part 2 of 4) seems particularly relevant. This concludes there will be reduced parking demand at the site and in surrounding areas with the new store, because of the removal of the office space above Iceland. However I don't see any information to support the conclusion that people using the offices are currently driving into ED, so I don't quite understand how that conclusion has been reached.

Because I can't access all the docs I cannot see if there is detail about vehicle delivery times and schedules, nor for types of delivery vehicle. I do see that opening times for the retail area are 7-10pm, with slightly shorter hours for bank holidays.


London Mix, I am sure you can make intelligent comments. Actually having sight of the docs is a bonus!

Actually, just to be clear, it looks like Southwark Planning received the application on 22nd November (the letter by the applicant is dated, 20th Nov) but the application was only scanned in by Southwark on 6th December. And the deadline for objections is 3rd Jan!
Anyone whould think they had murdered someone. What exactly is the problem with a shop replacing another shop with a slightly different (nicer) design and improved facilities? It will look better and your houses will probably increase in value too. Presumably you were aware that Lordship lane is a busy South-East London shopping street when you moved here? And has been since the Victorian times? We are not in some rural idyll in Berkshire or something. Thriving shops are something many parts of England would give anything for. Some people, I feel, would complain about anything.
I have no issue with M&S coming to Lordship Lane (said that many times). This is one chain replacing another chain which happens all the time despite anyone's personal preference. My only concern is that the redevelopment of the shop is appropriate from an access rights perspective etc. A poor redevelopment isn't good for anyone.

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 mentioned  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...