Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Have just been to Iceland.. It was packed out. Ironic.


Lots of talk about the closing and oddly enough not many people knew it was going. ?


There are far more people in East Dulwich than are on EDF.


It would seem most if not all staff are being located to other stores. I.E. Old Kent Rd. / Walworth Rd.

So that's good people are not losing their jobs.


I suspect M&S will do well even without my patronage... I don't think they will miss me.


DulwichFox

Bermygirl, the primary objection is not to M&S. Some people would have preferred Iceland to stay but I don't think anyone is losing sleep over it.


The issues are with the scale and density of the development above the retail space. There are also real and valid concerns about increased delivery times by extremely large vehicles, less turning space/ access and safety re the last point. If you visit the site and view the damaged bollard that sits at the entrance, you will have a better understanding about those concerns.

Sundial Wrote:

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

> Fantastic we need a Marks and Spencer in lordship

> lane.



Why do we actually 'Need' one. (M&S) ?


We have all survived for ever without one. No body died.


DulwichFox

Grrr man stop it! Anyone taking the application as an objection seriously is not referring to which ever company moves in to the site! It is he development proposed plain and simple.

Attitudes like yours are irrevelant and just tiring

  • 2 months later...

There has been a lot of very noisy activity on the old Iceland site today.


Does anyone know what happened with the penthouse application?


The people living in the flats must have gone, but it should be noted that those floors cannot be used as office space as they have been inhabited for the last few years.

Yes, M$S fine, no quibble with that but the proposal to add another story plonk a penthouse on top is somewhat different, if as many if us suspect, the aim is to avoid a social housing quota. James Barber had said the last application would be called in and so. I am wondering if this has happened or what the latest is?
  • 3 weeks later...

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Well the roof is now off.. and the back of the

> store demolished...

>

> Looks like there will be further floor/floors

> added..

>

> This isn't going to be a quick job even in

> Conways aren't involved..

>

> 12 months + ??

>

> DulwichFox

James Barber said the additional floor application (taking it up to four stories) was to be called in. He has not declared on the forum if this has happened yet and if it has qhat the result was; if it has not when is it to be called in.


He said it was to be called in quite some time ago but silence since.


It would be good to know if a fourth floor with penthouses is to be a added to the existing floors and whether the application for the other floors to be offices will stand?


Note an earlier application was passed for 8 flats in the area that on the current application is marked out for offices (thereby giving housing in the form of two penthouses only).


So 8 flats on three floors has been passed over by the developer in favour of two penthouses on four floors, with floors 2 and 3 for offices.

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

    • Politician's moving from one party to another, especially when local is worth discussing. You have to wonder what they are driven by, and particularly in this instance, as their new party is moving in strange directions.
    • To be fair to Sue, she doesn't have to explain or justify why she supports or wants to vote for any party. That is the same for everyone. We are free to decide which party best reflects what we think is important to us. Discussing the stances/ policies of parties, in a general discussion, can be done without targetting anyone commenting here. Politics is just a point of view at the end of the day.  Different things are important to different people, often for very valid reasons. Let's be respectful of that.  My opinion is that if say the Labour Party wants to understand why it is losing supporters to the Greens, it needs to listen to and understand the reasons why. That theme has been explored in this thread a little through the discussion around councillor McAsh. The same is true of the Tories losing support to Reform and the Libdems. Let's not also assume that every member of every party is completely on board with every policy of the leadership of that party either. You only have to look at how backbenchers have forced u-turns from Starmer's cabinet on things like Welfare Reform and WFA to see that. 
    • As a compromise I'd be prepared to trial the reintroduction of dog licensing. The annual licence fee would be the same as road tax for Range Rover (same carbon emissions as a dog) and would require owners to pass a responsible dog ownership exam, the dogs would need to pass training and a behaviour exam and their DNA would need to be kept on record to identify the owners who leave dog shit all over the pavements, so that they can be jailed.  
    • Yeah  Ban people, that will solve all the planets environmental issues over night  Leave the dogs as they aren't the problem, its normally bad ownership and management that leads to badly behaved dogs. Spartacus  Ps Cat Rule 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...