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

[XIX]

Hi James,

Very grateful for a response to my questions above,

Many thanks

[healey]

Are people still fighting about this? The car wash causes more traffic than the M&S ever will.

As for all the fouth floor fuss, there's already a large plant level on the current building that I bet few have ever noticed. Im all for protecting heritage and public environments, but the level of nitpicking NIMBYism on this issue is ridiculous.

Take a look at the plans for the railway cottages, now these really ARE unacceptable.

[KoolBananas]

healey Wrote:

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

> Christ are people still moaning about this? The

> car wash causes more traffic than the M&S ever

> will.

Added together...

Sheesh use your brain!

[healey]

It's a high street. There's been a retail outlet with car park on this spot for decades, longer than many of the current generation of residents have been living there. What do you expect, fields?

KoolBananas Wrote:

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

> healey Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Christ are people still moaning about this? The

> > car wash causes more traffic than the M&S ever

> > will.

>

> Added together...

>

> Sheesh use your brain!

[KalamityKel]

healey Wrote:

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

> It's a high street. There's been a retail outlet

> with car park on this spot for decades, longer

> than many of the current generation of residents

> have been living there. What do you expect,

> fields?

>

>

>

> KoolBananas Wrote:

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

> -----

> > healey Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Christ are people still moaning about this?

> The

> > > car wash causes more traffic than the M&S

> ever

> > > will.

> >

> > Added together...

> >

> > Sheesh use your brain!

You are simply demonstrating your, and many others, lack of understanding of the plans, site AND history of all of this.

I wonder how many people have caught on to another application to the site (15/AP/3994) for a free standing substation to be position right near housing - surely this should have considered on all the other plans?

[first mate]

yes, I saw that. What the heck? They really are taking the p now but, no doubt, planning and Councillor hands will be tied by some bit of small print.

On another note, I do wish those that thise that pass comment, dismissing objections, would at least try to look at the detail and history behind this series of applications. Again, there is a pair of huge metal bollards, over 6ft high one of which has been wrecked and bangd out of line by one of the old Iceland delivery trucks, because there has never been enough room for them to properly navigate the very small entrance. Note a resident had their wall wrecked, and another had the side of their car taken off by one of these large vehicles.

There will now be more delivery vehicles, many more people using the site than before, and having reduced available space once they now intend to reduce it further by adding in a substation. A RIBA architect amongst others has signalled that there are major health and safety issues attached to earlier applications, let alone this one, yet what do Southwark and our Councillors do? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

[fazer71]

There's little they can do.

Other than give you false hope.

The planning system is, not fit for purpose.

Too vague too political and more complex than is required.

Its all about job creation.

[KalamityKel]

Fazer did you receive info of this:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1mDmNmG3RjPLLdS0X749JyGtqmhpT3nYq06x_7kTRgLA/viewform

[Angelina]

and when the carwash site gets developed....? or is everyone thinking it will stay that way for ever....

[fazer71]

KalamityKel Wrote:

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

> Fazer did you receive info of this:

> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1mDmNmG3RjPLLdS0X7

> 49JyGtqmhpT3nYq06x_7kTRgLA/viewform

No.

For the record I don't think a planning system which is driven by neighbours jobsworth planners and local politicians is fit for purpose.

Planning rules should be designed clearly to remove confusion and fantasy.

[first mate]

Perhaps a general discussion about the parlous state of the planning system should have its own thread, but can we keep duscussion here to this specific site, there are serious issues around this.

What is James Barber's view about the latest addition of this substation?

[Angelina]

well, the underlying motivation is money. Development for the benefit of the community comes as part of the package to help seal the deal, that's all - and really is secondary. If it can be avoided it will be.

[first mate]

Angelina, yes the car wash is unpopular and a real pain...it also uses one heck of a lot of water, as you'd expect, as well as seriously blocking the street with cars oarked up waiting for service ( often on yellow lines, but there is a 'close' relationship with parking wardens who are regular visitors). Thus far the car wash owner has been unwilling to sell, it is a prime spot after all. However, once the retail unit is up and running no doubt the owners can name their price.

[James Barber]

Hi XIX,

The decision didn't go to committee quickly enough. That's what has happened.

Hi fzer71,

Southwark and the UK have huge numbers of new homes with approved plans. The developers then sit on those approved scheme until they choose to build them. The problem isn't with the planners. The problem is no land taxation. So land banking in a rising house price market makes more sense for many developers than actually building them.

Hi KalmietyKel,

The new substation is surprising at this stage. I've seen something like this where a new lift was installed. So I suspect the extra lift provision to the proposed new additional floor is driving this.

[fazer71]

James

I disagree in London it's the planning.

Outside the m25 you may be correct.

[fazer71]

Imagine if this was a "housing association" development.

It would be several floors higher as ugly as sin and be backed by the local politicians and planners to the hilt!

The local objection would be buried.

Double standards.

Planning joke!

[first mate]

James, so what was the reason for the decision not going to committee quickly enough?

This is a long- running saga. I cannot imagine planning and councillors were unaware, especially since you and colleagues had asked for it to be called in. How can something like this fall between the crack?

You were all caught out last time, it looks bad that something similar has happened again. Is this an 'accident' to spare blushes when the thing gets through, so everyone can say that although the application breaks planning policy and is dodgy around health and safety that it was taken out of your hands by glitches in process?

It could almost be read that the application will get through by the back door, just like the last one did and perhaps that was always the plan?

[XIX]

Many thanks for your response James.

But is that it? just, 'that's what happened'? I'm sure you can appreciate that for those affected by this development these things are extremely frustrating. It feels like your response above is pretty dismissive/uninterested and its a surprise for you to be so unforthcoming, given that previously you have been so vocal/active/helpful on this issue.

And what about the letters of consultation that were seemingly never sent? Has any explanation been given as to why this did not happen?

Thanks

[geh]

James

Land banking is a myth. Developers don't sit on land to capitalise on notional value increases, they build and more importantly sell, which enables further land purchases.

[robbin]

XIX Wrote:

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

> >... The council, by its own admission, made a proper

> hash of the earlier application/decision; I really

> hoped/thought that might be set right for the

> remainder of this case, but it appears not.

>

>

Why did you think the Council/Councillors would set anything right?

[XIX]

Because some expressed a degree of contrition for the way that the case had been handled when the previous application was approved and I therefore assumed that they would wish to ensure that it is handled properly from that point on.

But what has happened here is really quite bizarre.

James, grateful for a response on my questions above, thanks.

[XIX]

Hi James,

I'd be grateful for a response to my questions above.

Thanks

[DulwichFox]

There is now much steel work in progress at the rear of the old Iceland building covering most of the old car park.

The new store is going to be almost twice the size of the old store.

The concern will now be to some that shoppers will try parking in Chesterfield Grove.. More congestion.

DulwichFox

[first mate]

DF, of course there will be but this will lead to CPZ which, let's face it, is what our Councillors have always wnated, so the whole thing has played out very nicely from their perspective.

[Abe_froeman]

I suspect that is inevitable anyway once the North Dulwich CPZ is implemented first mate.