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

[Mustard]

Couldn't find any there when last in. Maybe it's only online. The Iceland one is 89 pence.

[tomszekeres]

Iceland needs to go. They mistreat farmers, the meat is factory farmed, they essentially sell cheap and nasty nutrient-free carbohydrates instead of the protein and fats our ancestors ate. It's an inconvenient truth, but cheap, processed food is a false economy. In Mediterranean countries rich and poor all eat real food and the divergence in life expectancy is far narrower.

Stop apologising for Iceland as some kind of poor man's champion. It's offensive. They're preying on the poor, peddling obesity, diabetes, and other metabolic disorders. Good riddance.

[KalamityKel]

tomszekeres Wrote:

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

> Iceland needs to go. They mistreat farmers, the

> meat is factory farmed, they essentially sell

> cheap and nasty nutrient-free carbohydrates

> instead of the protein and fats our ancestors ate.

> It's an inconvenient truth, but cheap, processed

> food is a false economy. In Mediterranean

> countries rich and poor all eat real food and the

> divergence in life expectancy is far narrower.

>

> Stop apologising for Iceland as some kind of poor

> man's champion. It's offensive. They're preying on

> the poor, peddling obesity, diabetes, and other

> metabolic disorders. Good riddance.

Just like every other retail company... get real man *sighs*

[Jeremy]

"in Mediterranean countries rich and poor all eat real food"... remarks like this are becoming a bit of an EDF cliche...

[indiepanda]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> "in Mediterranean countries rich and poor all eat

> real food"... remarks like this are becoming a bit

> of an EDF cliche...

Yep, not convinced by this one. I recall going to Naples and seeing many more overweight people there than the rest of Italy, much like you would in the UK if you visit Glasgow. (Naples is much poorer than cities in Northern Italy)

[DulwichFox]

tomszekeres Wrote:

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

In Mediterranean

> countries rich and poor all eat real food and the

> divergence in life expectancy is far narrower.

>

> Stop apologising for Iceland as some kind of poor

> man's champion. It's offensive. They're preying on

> the poor, peddling obesity, diabetes, and other

> metabolic disorders. Good riddance.

Diabetes Facts and Figures in Italy

Morbidity and Mortality:

3,9 million Italian adults have diabetes, i.e., 8,8% of the total population.1

An additional 2,65 million citizens (6% of the population) suffer from impaired glucose tolerance (pre-diabetes).1

This situation will deteriorate in the future, with an estimated 4,48 million adult citizens with diabetes in 2030.1

27.393 Italian citizens die from diabetes every year.1 This is 3 citizens every hour.

Type 2 diabetes, accounting for 90% of all diabetes in Italy, decreases life expectancy by 5-10 years.2-3

According to the WHO, diabetes is the 4th leading cause of death in Europe.2

http://www.changingdiabetesbarometer.com/diabetes-data/countries/Italy/fact-sheet.aspx

Lets all go on a Med Diet..

DulwichFox

[KalamityKel]

Eye spy with my little eye... yet ANOTHER planning application has been submitted! ::o

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9560814

[first mate]

So still 4 stories high with penthouses on top and lots of, er, 'offices'; each office laid out with double toilets, separate kitchen area and general layout consistent with a small flat.

So is this the next tactic? Rather than have the former application called in- as James Barber said would happen- they just submit a new very similar one?

[yeknomyeknom]

Ive never seen a small flat with double toilets. A small office? Yes. Not a small flat. I have no comment on the application itself but let's not make up stuff so we have more to whinge about.

[edhistory]

yeknomyeknom Wrote:

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

> Ive never seen a small flat with double toilets.

> A small office? Yes. Not a small flat. I have no

> comment on the application itself but let's not

> make up stuff so we have more to whinge about.

Looks like a two two bog flats to me.

[yeknomyeknom]

Doesn't look like a small flat to me. I'm from London. That's a big flat.

[edhistory]

About 100 square metres.

[yeknomyeknom]

Huge, my whole 2 bed house (1 toilet) is 72sq metres.

[Jeremy]

KK's link not working... I can't see any new application on http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk

[MarkT]

I can't find it either, but looking on the map: http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/southwark.jsp?tooltip=yes I see nearby at 100 lordship lane application 15/AP/1847 for "Retention of reduction in size of retail space..."

That means the owners have already made a change use and are presenting the Council with a fait accompli.

The consultation officially closed yesterday but my objection was accepted on-line

MarkT

[Jeremy]

MarkT... I don't understand the connection with 100 LL..

[first mate]

yeknomyeknom Wrote:

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

> Ive never seen a small flat with double toilets.

> A small office? Yes. Not a small flat. I have no

> comment on the application itself but let's not

> make up stuff so we have more to whinge about.

With plumbing in place the space for two toilets is easily converted into a loo and bathroom- that's the point.

[LondonMix]

You guys are talking at cross purposes. EDHistory's jpeg attachment is of the 3rd floor level which is two large flats (as per the application).

The first and second floors are offices in the application. Some are questioning if the developer intends to eventually turn those offices into flats. Others have (validly) pointed out that the space looks like genuine office space given there are toilet cubicles as part of the design (i.e. 2 bogs in cubicles plus one wheel chair accessible unit rather than the two bathrooms in the flats edhistory posted).

[LondonMix]

Offices have to have toilets firstmate. The fact that the offices include toilets isn't any kind of argument that they are intended to be flats. In fact, by including cubicle style toilets and a wheel chair accessible toilet, the plumbing is far more complicated than it would need to be for a conversion to residential use.

[first mate]

London Mix, sure perhaps it is for offices but the original three applications were all for flats and a case was made that there was no call/market for offices but great demand for flats. I am also amazed that a change of use for the third floor has so easily been achieved, if that is the case, since I know for a fact that there were two occupied flats on that floor only last year, and at a time ther is such demand for housing.

[DaveR]

Could someone explain the basis of the objection to converting the existing office space to residential? Is the current office space occupied?

[first mate]

There is a limit to the number of residences allowed within a given space. James Barber said he would call in the last application as he also seemed to think they were aiming for loads of flats. They already had permission for 8 residences (I think it was) but then decided they wanted to add a 4th floor with two penthouses and this is where objections came in. So now they have submitted a 4th or 5th application keeping the penthouses but making the rest into office space. In earlier applications the case was made that there was no call for office space. Make of this what you will.

[KalamityKel]

The new application is 15/AP/2221

Refurbishment of the existing retail store at ground floor including a single storey rear extension with associated plant, Rooftop extension to provide two residential units, walkway to rear of existing office/residential at 1st and 2nd floor | 84-90 LORDSHIP LANE, LONDON, SE22 8HF

The link was working fine last night...

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9560814

[DaveR]

"There is a limit to the number of residences allowed within a given space."

I understand that. I just wondered why there was so much speculation that the developer was trying to sneak in more residential space, and whether there had been objections in principle to converting office to residential.

[first mate]

No, the objection is to the suspected number of residences the developer is aiming for and the fact that having got permission for 8 residences they have now reverted to an application to use that space for offices but seeking extra residences on top of those, making a three storey building into a four storey building. Also bearing in mind that a case was made that there was no market for office space when permission was sought for change of use to residential, though confusingly that space was already being used to let out two flats.