Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Funnily enough if you do fear for Lordship Lane then having 12-18 months of site closure and rebuilding would be the worst possible result.


I do not agree here James, where there is clear and positive economic activity going on which is seen as regenerating an area - even if it is meant-times disruptive this normally gives a positive boost - I am sure were the work to be going on it would be clearly flagged as new accommodation and a new 'attractor' store - so others would be positive themselves about investing in the area - it is closure and stagnation which creates a downward spiral.


Investment attracts investment - empty stores (or, I am afraid pop-up and make-weight charity shops) repel it.

At the moment the ED/ LL Charity shops look positive-ish - at least they don't look like a desperate 'any port in a storm' move by site owners.


If Iceland is (a) to close and (b) to be replaced quickly by a 'proper' retailer (whether that be a chain or a quality independent) that is good - but for instance a pound or 99p store wouldn't be - if what you want to see is a vibrant and economically active high street.

James Barber,


Despite your assertion that this application has been refused, according to the website today a decision on the application is still pending. There is also a documentent for an Amended plan A dated 21/2/2013.


Since you sit on the planning committee and it is stated that the decision rests with the planning committee, can you please tell us what is going on? Can you also explain what the Amended plan A document is?

Hi first mate,

I'm a reserve for the main planning and one of the sub-committees.


The email reply you've recevied from officers you've kindly forwarded responds to your spefic query - why werent you told a committee would sit and decide this application. The officer has given you a generic answer that you would be told when the decision goes to committee.


But this decision is no longer expected at committee but rather under delegated powers by officers.


east Dulwich councillors have read all the documents on the web portal this time and before. We requested this decision be decided by a planning committee IF officers were minded under delegated powers to grant permission.

Officers have confirmed in writing several times they are writing a report to refuse the application.


But I've asked again because it is taking an awfully long time for this to happen and this delay is causing concern.

James,


Thank you. Do you know what the amended plan AA is? I have tried and failed to access this document several times.


This document is listed at the top of the apllication as follows:


Amended plan 1121/P (--)154 REV PE - PROPOSED SECTION AA 2013-02-21

James,


Another week passed and still no sign of a decision on the M&S/Iceland site application (target decision date was early March it says on website).


I have still been unable to open the document dated end Feb, Amended Plan AA. I followed your instructions but to no avail.


It is odd that you keep being told that the 'intention' is to refuse but nothing appears. Is this a case of weasel words?


I'd love to know what the Feb document is also, as this must have been submitted by the developer after the consultation period.

if the owner of the site persists in putting in applications that are ludicrous (such as wanting to build on land he does not own) then, of course, it will be rejected. I cannot understand why m&s do not help him put together an application that would be passed without further ado this has gone on far too long. if m&s can't or won't step in, let waitrose, who also want it, have the site. enough, already

I guess the owner is entitled to put in as many ridiculous applications as they want.


They're not really losing out at the moment, because Iceland are filling the gap like an unwanted doormat boy/girlfriend hanging on until someone better comes along!


M&S or Waitrose have no obligation or even interest in helping them out - they simply want the right properties at the right price. Any interference is only likely to weaken their negotiation position.

Yes..

You don't actually need to own land to apply for planning permission for it.

This means you can apply for permission before deciding whether or not to buy a piece of land.


http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/howtoapply/whocanapply


Fox

e-d and dulwich fox


yes, of course, he/she/it can bung is many apps as they wish. doesn't alter the fact that it is all time-wasting BS. as councillor jim has stated, the apps are deeply idiotic. sure this clown could be excluded as a vexatious\ludicrous moron. james tells me he does not know this person's identity and neither it seems does anyone else. this sounds barking mad.

The Iceland site is an important part of LL - what store, if any, operates from that site will have a significant impact on ED residents - including the possibility of no store at all, if/ when Iceland leaves and there is no store to replace it. A decision has been announced in this forum, but not on any official Southwark site, it appears. Considering the extensive fuss and pother on this thread and many others about the retail future for LL, first mate's concerns do not by any means have to smack of suspicious partiality. We (actual ED residents who use this forum) all have an 'interest' (being ED residents, with some stake in the locality) in this.
I'm just curious as to what motivates first mate And some of us might be curious about why you are curious about first mate? You are insinuating that the interest being shown is somehow suspicious or motivated in non-obvious ways. 'Just asking' may not be a sufficient get-out here.

Chillaxed Wrote:

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

> first mate, just out of curiosity, why are you so

> engaged in this discussion? Good on you for

> keeping at it, but I assume you've some sort of

> vested interest in the application given your

> persistence?


Vested interest?

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...