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

[unlurked]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Louise,

> Waitrose when I spoke with them were very clear

> they would be delighted to move in ASAP to the

> existing shop footprint.

> They think it's fine and they anticipated the

> planning result M&S experts failed to foresee.

But you have always wanted Waitrose om the Lane haven't you JB? Did you not start a thread 3 or 4 years ago trying to generate support for your plans? My memory tells me that you were slated on that thread for assuming this forum is representative of ED as you did not do any other 'consultation'. What is it about Waitrose that you have been pushing for it for years?

[Louisa]

OK Waitrose for the Iceland store, and M&S will wait for the police station. Sorted. Can we close this thread now please?

Louisa.

[Mick Mac]

James Wrote:

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

> So that means we might get a Waitrose?

>

> *AGOG*

No - Someone will find a way to prevent it happening.

[Mick Mac]

jonsuissy Wrote:

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

> Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > My view (and no i don't know any of the detail)

> on

> > this is that a large section of ED people who

> > could have benefitted from an M&S have lost the

> > opportunity in order to protect the rights of a

> > small group of households/concerns in the

> > immediate vacinity. Shame.

> You'd say the same if you were one of that small

> group right?

No - But i'm not.

What's happended here is like a reverse democracy.

[first mate]

It's balancing the needs of a smaller group of residents to get a decent night's sleep and to be able to park their car on or close to their street against a larger group of individuals' rights to buy tasty snacks and ready-made meals. It's tricky.

[Earl Aelfheah]

What is this right to be able to park a car in front of your house. Does this 'right' end with a car, or does it extend to a lorry, or a plane? Why is someone's ability to park a private vehicle on a public street a planning consideration?

[first mate]

I don't think anyone has said there is a right to park a car in front of your house- the point was being able to park on the street you live or in another street close by, more regularly than not- not the same thing at all.

[James]

Well there's one argument that says if you choose to live right next to a main shopping street...

[first mate]

James, yes, that old chesnut. Of course, one riposte goes if M&S snacks are so vital to one's quality of life why not choose to buy your house in an area that already has one? I guess the choice of location/you reap what you sow argument cuts both ways.

Anyway, it was not a single factor decision and the lesser known point re boundaries and land ownership, is one that would probably have made the scale of the application unlikely to succeed, whatever the planning decisions.

[Jeremy]

Underground parking on the former cop shop site. To be shared between M&S/Waitrose/Picturehouse.

[spider69]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Underground parking on the former cop shop site.

> To be shared between M&S/Waitrose/Picturehouse.

And iceland

[Jeremy]

Maybe an Iceland Local on the site of the old "Golden City" takeaway, after they get booted out of the LL site.

[spider69]

It could be a niche shopping experience with only 2 people in the shop at any time. A shopping advisor on hand to sell the very limited but exclusive stock carried.

Just what ED needs.

[tomk]

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> James Wrote:

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

> -----

> > So that means we might get a Waitrose?

> >

> > *AGOG*

>

> No - Someone will find a way to prevent it

> happening.

Already happening. My money is on either a Poundland or a Cashconverters when the landlord/developer gives up and moves on.

[Goose]

Rahrahrah - I think resident's have a reasonable expectation to park in their road (except where restrictions exist e.g. Lordship Lane). You could argue, why do shoppers have an expectation to park for free on residential roads?

I am local to Iceland and used to be in favour of the M+S application. However the longer this has gone on, I really am not so sure now. I would def. use it more than Iceland but it is expensive and good for sandwiches or last minute dinners but not regular shopping. Also concerned the effects it would have on local cafe's etc - equally I am totally opposed to Starbucks and would much prefer to use local shops for coffee etc.

I also feel the greed of the land owner/ developer doesn't help their application. Why put 8 flats with balcony's overlooking the neighbours on top of the development? They are not concerned about local housing just making money for themselves. Why not use the upstairs for storage for the downstairs store and keep the small car park.

If I were the developers I would involve the local community in their plans for design etc. If they had their support it would be much easier to convince the council planners. Whilst they quote the car parking issue for rejection there were so many problems with the application I suspect it was always doomed.

I bet we are still having this debate in 2 years time!

[KalamityKel]

No doubt it'll be appealed yet again demonstrating further their lack of consideration and interest in the local area (it's neighbours!). I't just greed on their part really *shrugs*

[James Barber]

M&S were VERY specific that their shop would not generate more car journeys. Their experts stated the aresa currently didnt suffer parking stress.

The Planning Inspector was clear that the M&S/freeholder assertions were likely to be wrong.

Based on the evidence and the inspector seeing fo themsevles the aresa DOES suffer parking stress the appeal was refused.

It was good work from Southwakr COuncil Planning Officers - well done to them - and local residents objecting. East Dulwich were delighted to play our part in this.

After a refused planning application has been refused their is no further appeal process. An applicant can only take such a decision to court IF they think they can prove the prccess wasnt correctly followed.

We know Waitrose are happy to use the Iceland shop as is when the Iceland lease ends January 2014 (Iceland don't want to pay the proposed rent increase).

Worst case for those that want such a shop M&S walk away and we get a Waitrose in the New Year. Most lilkely scenarios is M&S accept the site as is.

[Mick Mac]

Woohoo. Happy New Year.

[HelBel65]

When will we find out James?

[unlurked]

unlurked Wrote:

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

> James Barber Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Hi Louise,

> > Waitrose when I spoke with them were very clear

> > they would be delighted to move in ASAP to the

> > existing shop footprint.

> > They think it's fine and they anticipated the

> > planning result M&S experts failed to foresee.

>

> But you have always wanted Waitrose om the Lane

> haven't you JB? Did you not start a thread 3 or 4

> years ago trying to generate support for your

> plans? My memory tells me that you were slated on

> that thread for assuming this forum is

> representative of ED as you did not do any other

> 'consultation'. What is it about Waitrose that you

> have been pushing for it for years?

You seem to have missed this, James.

[James Barber]

Hi unlurked,

NO I asked whether others on the forum agreed with people on the doorstep that the ares would benefit from a Waitrose or M&S.

East Dulwich even on this forum was very divided.

[HelBel65]

When will we find out?

[KalamityKel]

James Barber Wrote:

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

>

> After a refused planning application has been

> refused their is no further appeal process. An

> applicant can only take such a decision to court

> IF they think they can prove the prccess wasnt

> correctly followed.

>

And what about an entirely NEW application? The whole thing will start all over again.

[rch]

From a purely planning perspective, this was an important result as it will give us a local precedent to protect the area from over-development in the future... something that could be an issue on the police station site, for instance.

The Dulwich wards are designated as "suburban" in the London Plan, giving us criteria to deploy to protect us from knock-on effects from developments that would be more appropriate in an urban city centre.

However, thinking strategically, what would help the developers in this case would be to look at buying up the strip of land where the car wash (which could be relocated as a condition) is located which could provide parking and a turning ratio so that deliveries could be made from Lordship Lane. The cost of this would probably make the development financially unviable, but it gives an idea of how creative solutions will need to be found in the future in order to maintain a balance.

[Calsug]

You're kidding me right? Maybe I am missing some "grander thinking" point but surely any development in this economic climate is a good thing - why are these stores seen as a threat instead of increasing footfall and pulling people away from the larger supermarkets like the Sainsburys which is "out of town"? What are you protecting the area from?? If you don't try to proactively manage the high street by having a combination of chains and independent stores then all you will be left with is Estate Agents and betting shops

It is not a case of protecting but pure nimbyism

rch Wrote:

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

> From a purely planning perspective, this was an

> important result as it will give us a local

> precedent to protect the area from

> over-development in the future... something that

> could be an issue on the police station site, for

> instance.

>

> The Dulwich wards are designated as "suburban" in

> the London Plan, giving us criteria to deploy to

> protect us from knock-on effects from developments

> that would be more appropriate in an urban city

> centre.

>

> However, thinking strategically, what would help

> the developers in this case would be to look at

> buying up the strip of land where the car wash

> (which could be relocated as a condition) is

> located which could provide parking and a turning

> ratio so that deliveries could be made from

> Lordship Lane. The cost of this would probably

> make the development financially unviable, but it

> gives an idea of how creative solutions will need

> to be found in the future in order to maintain a

> balance.