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

[first mate]

Cl thank you and Jeremy, Mark T and KK have laid out the issues in regard to planning and process and James Barber seems to have disappeared.

There is a relationship between increase in traffic, space for vehicles to reverse out etc.. and increase in residential units that will share the same entrance/service area. Those residents and perhaps their children will also have to get in and out of their homes. Seriously, what with the car wash too, there will be so much going on within an inadequate (extremely reduced delivery space) that there are real safety concerns. One of the more knowledgeable objectors, a RIBA architect, has raised this over and over again, but it falls on deaf ears.

Owners of those same ears choose to ignore reasons for the seriously damaged bollard at the delivery/service entrance (which will be shared with the flat owners). Planning claimed that it could not conclusively be proved that the damage was caused by a delivery vehicle. Go and have a look and make up your own mind. The bollard is huge, the large scrape marks on the side (Iceland delivery vehicle red)seem pretty conclusive to anyone with an ounce of common sense.

Of course parking pressure on all the surrounding roads will be massive. We've got up to 10 new dwellings, a larger store than envisaged, two new schools opening very close by and a very busy car wash that likes to park customer cars up and down the street outside. I doubt all the new residents or parents getting kids to school, will be cycling. The Council wanted CPZ and that is probably what will happen...it was always a long game.

Mark T I guess if there are enough 5 storey builds of the type Fazer cherishes then perhaps the designation can simply be changed to urban anyhow..? I forget what the criteria are but once there are enough up then anything goes, I guess.

[rupert james]

Posted by James Barber February 07, 05:25PM

Cl thank you and Jeremy, Mark T and KK have laid out the issues in regard to planning and process and James Barber seems to have disappeared.

"Thanks ITATM for helping while I've been focusing on a fab new day job."

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

Regards [email protected]

07900 227366

Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward

Skype cllrjamesbarber

[www.jamesbarber.org.uk]

[twitter.com]

[MarkT]

First Mate,

I did say that the solution was simple - to redesignate ED as Urban - but the process would require full and protracted consultation. The current policies have been in place since 2007.

Jeremy,

I think that anything that exceeds the policy definitions and guidelines is, by definition, overdevelopment. Policies are arrived at through a defined thorough and lenthy process, giving every statutory body and interested party a chance to contribute. They therefore can take account of every aspect of infrastructure - road capacity, public transport, energy and water supply, education and health services etc along with local history and the collective wishes of residents.

Of course the policies leave scope for balancing one factor against another, but the London Plan specifically states that all other requirements should be satisfied within the defined densities.

If individual developments are considered strictly in accordance with policies, they can rightfully be approved speedily with minimal consultation.

Through repeated rounds of consultation, through generations of policies, the Council maintains the designation of East Dulwich as Suburban and therefore the London Plan definition applies. If there are good arguments for applying Urban heights and densities in East Dulwich then they should be put forward in the preparation of the New Southwark Plan, and subjected to full statutory consultation.

MarkT

[fazer71]

If this was a housing association JOB

It would be 10 floors high regardless of the policy

The UK planning system is a total shambles

This is 100% underdevelopment !

Edit

If you can't build 5 floors on a high street WTF can you build 5 floors ????????

[first mate]

Mark T, thank you for your helpful and insightful post.

[edhistory]

I went to see with #1 eye ball.

How are the (any) retailer's artic lorries now going to get in and out of what is now a virtually non-existant car park?

John K

[fazer71]

They won't they'll park on the main road in the bus lane and wheel everything in as all the other shops do.

Red herring included .

[first mate]

F71, you may be right but that will cause a heck of a lot of holdups on the Lane as there will be lots and lots of deliveries. Poor people using buses as primary form of transport at rush hour. Imagine too if part of Melbourne is closed off to traffic...the mind boggles.

[first mate]

Edhistory, oh it's all okay, the computer tracking proves it, somehow those lorries, the same that smashed the bollard to one side, will be able to easily and safely get in and out of the considerably smaller space. Planning magic.

[LondonMix]

Aren't the deliveries in the early morning? I could be totally wrong but I remember that from the planning application as some people were complaining they were too early / noise. I'm not sure though.

first mate Wrote:

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

> F71, you may be right but that will cause a heck

> of a lot of holdups on the Lane as there will be

> lots and lots of deliveries. Poor people using

> buses as primary form of transport at rush hour.

> Imagine too if part of Melbourne is closed off to

> traffic...the mind boggles.

[first mate]

LM, no that was about ensuring that daily deliveries do not begin too early in order that people are not woken at an unreasonable time. Deliveries will take place at various points of the day. Because the shop is much bigger than Iceland there will be much more produce to deliver. It is reasonable to expect there will be more deliveries.

[LondonMix]

ok, got it

[Abe_froeman]

If they had applied at the outset for planning for four floors and ten flats (2 or 3 of which might have been 'affordable') does anyone think they would have been knocked back by the council?

[fazer71]

Yep

The planners want to stay busy so they refuse anything they can to stay in a job.

Planning is part job creation part confusion they are very skilled in being busy.

Department managers want bigger departments dealing with more complex issues.

It's a mess because it's about job creation, not about creating homes.

It's another reason we have such huge a housing problem.

[tiddles]

I don't think that everyone in the planning dept can actually read plans. There are a number of recent developments which have been built (so I assume approved) that do not comply with Southwark regulations (min outside Space etc) it is this hotch potch approach coupled with their lack of organisation that ensures developers can slip thru what they fancy.

[richard tudor]

I suspect the truth is Southwark has lost many experienced officers in their reorganising to save money and are employing cheaper less experienced staff.

This could be happening right across the Council.

How many very experienced senior officers have gone?

[KalamityKel]

I doubt it has anything to do with the "experience" of any officer regardless of rank as these things have been going on for years.

[Abe_froeman]

The agenda pack and the basis of the decision is set out on pages 15 to 33 here

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g5100/Public%20reports%20pack%20Tuesday%2008-Mar-2016%2019.00%20Planning%20Sub-Committee%20B.pdf?T=10

"Whilst the proposal is below the affordable housing threshold, there is an extant permission for 8 flats on the first and second floors of the building, demonstrating (should this proposal for 2 flats at roof level be permitted) that at least 10 flats could be created here were a future scheme to come forward proposing residential again at first and second floor. It is therefore considered necessary that a S106 agreement is required here to ensure that the cumulative number of residential units at the site is considered, should future proposals come forward, against the Council's affordable housing policy."

[first mate]

Abe this submission is totally disingenuous.

Key factors: density, conflict between servicing vehicles and resident/pedestrians, parking, are all considered mitigated because the submission at this stage is for two floors of offices with two further residences on a fourth storey. But it is crystal clear that once the penthouses are built that an earlier submission, granted by planning, to convert the 8 offices to residences will be activated thereby re-instituting all the earlier conflicts which planning would object to were a submission made for 10 residences now, and that is without including the further but important issue of affordable housing.

I see that the planning say that if and when this happens they will seek some sort of legal constraints but do not state what these are. It is difficult to know what these might be and how they will help since once all 10 flats are up an running the damage will be done and it will be irrevocable. I can well imagine planning may seek some kind of financial redress/ fine which they will cali. As salve for the community but will not help those directly impacted by this over developed site.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Wow, that does seem pretty sneaky. Surely Southwark won't now grant the creation of 10 flats? I dont' know that much about it, but from your post first mate, it does appear the developer may be playing the system somewhat.

[first mate]

Rahrahrah,

Well I am no expert but have watched the progress of this thing over the years and am quite dumbfounded. Again I would ask anyone who doubts what I say to visit the back of this development to see just how large it is already, without a further storey.

[fazer71]

The extra floor / story is recessed so penalty not all that visible from ground level.

It's a problem for pigeons and anyone in a helicopter .

Could be a deal breaker if royalty fly over ED with any regularity

;)

[first mate]

Disagree Fazer, not visible if standing right next to building but very apparent if a little further away. Anyhow, all conjecture until decision is in.

[rch]

first mate... why don't you and MarkT register as objectors and speak jointly at the planning meeting?? If you email the clerk on Monday, you should be able to get assigned a slot.

At least this way, you'll get to have your voice heard...

It probably won't make much difference to the decision to grant, but you may be able to get some stricter conditions inserted.

My guess is that the timing of this meeting is being set to pre-empt the appeal. I'm not in a position to get to the bottom of why the application wasn't decided on time, but am guessing is that it fell between the cracks during the reorganisation of the planning dept.

But Simon Bevan, the new head of planning, and Sonia Watson, the officer in charge of this application, are actually both really good officers, so I suspect that this is the best that they can do to legally salvage the situation.

But it definitely wouldn't hurt if a group of residents went along and protested...

Power to the People, etc!

[first mate]

Rch,

Unfortunately I would be unable to attend but if Mark T and another were able and willing that would be fantastic.