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

[mikeb]

Well said Londonmix. In passing, I would note that everything you've written applies to Hadley and its purchase of the land under DHFC for more than it's worth with the restrictive covenant, with the expectation that they will be able to remove the restrictions and build flats. The value of the land depends on what can be built there, as does the rent that should be paid for the land.

[fazer71]

Ffs that's exactly what I said !!!

Developers will always pay more!!!;;!!!

mikeb is that a sarcastic will done Londonmix for saying the opposite??

Bizarre

[fazer71]

Yea let's make the planning system really really complicated let's charge a section 106 a section 706 and a section #bonkers3464567755

Add some extra level of extra complication

That will result in more homes.. Not .

No wonder we're struggling .

All the proof anyone with any common sense "hard to find on here" need do is see the timeline of this thread and work out what that has meant for more homes and you get your answer.

😁 keep living your parallel reality.

[fazer71]

4 years and it's not built !!!!!!!!!

Great stuff

[edhistory]

Meanwhile...

What are the names of the councillors voted in favour of this development and which wards do they represent.

John K

[fazer71]

Labour councillors using "affordable" homes as political clap trap fake promises housing crisis Sadiq Kahn for mayor all complete blocks all created to sound good get votes.

Hahahaha

Sheeple

[XIX]

Fazer, Londonmix,

enough! you've had your fill. this thread is meant to be about M&S. Please start an alternate thread on affordable housing if you wish. There are still people who want to engage on M&S and each time they post a question it gets lost amidst your increasingly lengthy debate.

Thanks

[first mate]

Like Ed History, I'm keen to know who was on the planning cttee, which wards they rep and which way they voted.

[rch]

Here's the link to the committee attendance that night:-

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgMeetingAttendance.aspx?ID=5100

There's no recorded vote, but James said that the two Lib Dem cllrs voted against. To be fair to the rest, I genuinely suspect that Legal advised to approve because of the ramifications of the Appeal.

In future, if you go to the council website, click on "What's On" in the menu across the top of the page, then click on "meetings calendar" at the bottom of the next page, you come to a Calendar of Meetings with all the meetings set out by days of the month... when you click on the meeting link you'll get the attendance list, the agenda, and all the reports for each item which are posted one week before the relevant meeting.

[edhistory]

Thanks Robin.

Councillor Cleo Soanes Chair Present - Peckham - Labour

Councillor Maria Linforth-Hall Vice-Chair Present - Cathedrals - Lib Dem

Councillor Sunil Chopra Committee Member Present - Nunhead - Labour

Councillor Nick Dolezal Committee Member Present - The Lane - Labour

Councillor David Hubber Committee Member Present - Surrey Docks - Lib DEm

Councillor Eleanor Kerslake Committee Member Present - Newington Labour

Councillor Leo Pollak Committee Member Present - South Bermondsey - Labour

[BrandNewGuy]

mikeb Wrote:

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

> Well said Londonmix. In passing, I would note that

> everything you've written applies to Hadley and

> its purchase of the land under DHFC for more than

> it's worth with the restrictive covenant, with the

> expectation that they will be able to remove the

> restrictions and build flats. The value of the

> land depends on what can be built there, as does

> the rent that should be paid for the land.

With erefernce to the 'restrictive covenant' at DHFC, have you seen sight of it? I've seen it mentioned in passing but given the complicated nature of the DHFC-Kings College-Sainsburys shenanigans in 1992, I'd like to know the status of this covenant. This, of course, is separate from the designation of Metropolitan Open Land.

[edhistory]

This is the Land Registry entry for West of Greendale.

I don't have a copy of the Land Registry entry for East of Greendale.

That will cost someone ?3.

John K

[LondonMix]

Whether it is important to you or not, the sole reason this second application was made was to circumvent affordable housing requirements. Having an informed public debate on the merits of ensuring the developer does not get away with this manipulation of the system is entirely relevant, not just for this application but for all applications. This is too often overlooked and dismissed. With more political outrage their might actually be some public pressure that re-balances the system to close the loopholes.

XIX Wrote:

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

> Fazer, Londonmix,

>

> enough! you've had your fill. this thread is meant

> to be about M&S. Please start an alternate thread

> on affordable housing if you wish. There are still

> people who want to engage on M&S and each time

> they post a question it gets lost amidst your

> increasingly lengthy debate.

>

> Thanks

[intexasatthe moment]

Another who favours a seperate thread on affordable housing for those keen to debate .

[BrandNewGuy]

edhistory Wrote:

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

> This is the Land Registry entry for West of

> Greendale.

>

> I don't have a copy of the Land Registry entry for

> East of Greendale.

>

> That will cost someone ?3.

>

> John K

Many thanks, John.

[first mate]

Post removed as inaccurate.

[LondonMix]

Regarding what councilor Charlie said: "The senior officer at the meeting recognised this might happen and stated the developer would still be liable even at a later stage.We will have to wait and see. "

What is the likely mechanism for this and how can we keep both the developer and the council accountable for adhering to their own statements and policies on such matters, rch?

[mikeb]

@ Fazer71 - no, you have misunderstood: I completely agree with LondonMix. The value of the land is determined by what the community decides can be built there, not the other way around. We need to stand firm on 106 / CIL otherwise developers will buy land at inflated prices expecting to overturn these obligations and develop land at the detriment of local communities.

BNG - yes I have the restrictive covenant deed for DHFC which I obtained from King's under freedom of information laws. I need to work out how to post it to the forum as it is too big to be an attachment. It also contains some interesting obligations on Sainsbury's re St Francis's Park.

[rch]

Hi LondonMix... I'm assuming that the developer will have to formally apply for Change of Use if the offices are to be used as flats, which means there will be another notification and consultation in the run-up to another planning committee meeting. But I'm guessing that the cost or parameters of any future conditions are already being built into the scheme with the creation of the "penthouse" flats.

BTW, I noticed that there was already a recommended ?44,000 s106/CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) charge attached to the fourth floor extension, so any charges incurred by Change of Use on the other units will be in addition to this.

I actually think a decent office space would be really useful on Lordship Lane, so hopefully people will rent the blasted units out, which will give us a different kind of mixed footfall.

[LondonMix]

Hi RCH- would a change of use application be needed even though there is an existing permission for change of use of the offices to flats in the first (approved) planning application? That's the bit that's not entirely clear for me.

[rch]

Hi... short answer is that I'm not sure either. It looks like they are planning to use the units for offices in the first instance (but this could indeed change). I guess that there would at least have to be some kind of notification that the permission to use the units as residential would be implemented, in which case other financial liabilities would be implemented...

What I've seen happen in the past is that the permitted residential units are sold/let first and then the office units are "marketed" for a "reasonable" amount of time... if they can't be rented out, then the developer will claim that they need to convert to flats. So, we need to get businesses queuing up to rent the offices...!

Anyway, hopefully the minutes of the March 8th planning meeting will be published soon, there may be something in there that a cllr or resident can follow up on.

[LondonMix]

Thanks rich

[first mate]

Rch,Let's not forget this process has already happened once and spun out over 4 years, as the orginal permission for 8 flats was made on the basis that their was no demand for offices. It's like groundhog day.

[XIX]

For anyone intending to object to M&S's application to extend licensing hours, below is the response they sent me after I sent an objection.

So, RCH, Walworth Road hours irrelevant and wont work as an argument. Likewise the fact that opening hours granted as part of planning permission are shorter also irrelevant.

"Your representation cannot be considered in its current form.

All representations received must directly relate to one or more of the four licensing objectives which are:

? the prevention of crime and disorder;

? the protection of public safety;

? the prevention of public nuisance and

? the protection of children from harm

Any representation must state specifically which of the licensing objectives it relates to.

The fact that the current planning consent in respect of premises may not correlate to activities sought in a premises licence application is not a relevant concern as licensing legislation and planning legislation are separate. Therefore a premises licence could be granted even if current planning permission does not correlate to the activities sought in the application, and similarly, planning consent could be granted to allow activities that would require a license at premises even if a premises licence hasn?t yet been granted. It is advisable that suitable planning consent is in place prior to a premises licence application, but not obligatory.

Although the applicant has applied for hours in respect of the premises licence that are outside the trading hours permitted by the current planning consent, a breach of planning legislation would only be being committed if the trading hours permitted by the current planning consent are not complied with ? the premises licence application in itself doesn?t comprise any breach of planning legislation. For your information, the planning department are consulted in respect of all premises licence applications.

In addition to the above the operating hours sought in an application are not in themselves grounds to object to an application unless it is posited that the proposed operating hours would undermine any of the licensing objectives.

Although this service cannot influence the content of any party?s representation in regards to an application, you may wish to amend your representation and submit it in respect of the prevention of public nuisance, further explaining what you think the effect of the proposed licence may have in respect of causing nuisance."

[first mate]

XIX,

Ok so it sounds like those conditions of hours of operation need to be checked and set in stone.