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

[Penguin68]

I know the planning application has been put in by M%S, but I do not believe (happy to be corrected) that they own (or intend to own) this site: I suspect this is a quid pro quo with the ground landlord - they will develop the site to give him extra flats to rent out if he agrees to let them develop the site at all. For M&S and the Landlord this would be a win:win. It is quite common for supermarkets moving into sites to undertake beneficial development for the site owner as part of the deal (and often the development done as part of a major re-build has a quite low marginal cost).

[James Barber]

Hi P68,

No, the planning applicatino has been submitted by the freeholder. They state that their intended client is M&S and provide images alnog those lines.

In planning terms it is agnostic about who will use an approved scheme. The occupier gets us all fired up because we all care passionately about our patch but in planning terms it irrelevant.

IF M&S had bee nmore involved then the suggested errors probably wouldnt have been made. Appliying for the flats to be accessed across the service yard for example. Assuming access via land the freeholder doesnt own beign another.

[first mate]

MP, For the arguments to be spurious they would have to be empty, based on falsehood. It is a fact that the current lorries have caused significant damage to vehicles and property in the street. You speak about the 'lane' then let the lorries deliver on the 'lane'. Though residents living on the 'lane' would not be best pleased I am sure.

The sidestreets are residential the fact that they are close to a main street with shops does not mean that they are also automatically commercially fair game and should just be treated as an extension of the shopping area. This is an argument about scale. The scale and ambition of the propposed application is out of keeping with the immediate area.

I fully accept that many would like a large M&S but it is perfectly fair and right to argue that this is probably not the best site for what is proposed.

[Undisputedtruth]

@First Mate,

I fully agree with what you said. Unfortunately, it's not the first MP have shown his inability to give an hollistic view or a detailed understanding of all the issues at stake. His fixation with M&S food skews his judgment.

[LondonMix]

Entirely agree rahrahrah. I would imagine that developing the extra flats is something the freeholder wants more than any chain that would like to occupy the site. In fact, the freeholder may have thought it would help the planning application given the push by government to support more housing development in London (which we can all acknowledge is necessary even if you don't want it on this site). If the council objects to the development of the flats, this is unlikely to be a deal breaker for the rest of the redevelopment proposal in the mind of the freeholder or the shop they are negotiating with. The timing of deliveries and how the lorries will access the site post-redevelopment are of real concern though. Has anyone in the surrounding streets suggested to the freeholder that delivery times for the new store remain in-line with those for the existing store? Can the planning authorities make this a specific requirement of approving the application?

Someone else has commented elsewhere on the forum that Iceland will be leaving the site within the next couple of months (they heard this from an employee). Does anyone know if this is true and if Iceland intends to leave the site regardless of what happens with the planning application the freeholder has put in as part of its negotiations with M&S?

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Unless I am reading it wrongly, isn't the proposal

> for an additional 6 flats (there already bring 2

> in the existing development). I am not sure I buy

> the 'lots more people driving to M&S arguement. It

> sells convenience food - the type you might pick

> up on your wayhome.. its not the type of place you

> drive to for your weekly shop. Also, how much is

> the existing carpark actually used? Again, I would

> question how many cars are actually going to be

> displaced by its removal. As for arguements about

> brand snobbery, its all pretty irrelevant to the

> planning app and deeply subjective, so why bother

> going there.

> For me it comes down to whether or not the area

> can cope with an additinal 6 flats and the

> associated parking issues. My guess is M&S will

> end up compromising and reduce the number.

[Penguin68]

Hi P68,

No, the planning applicatino has been submitted by the freeholder. They state that their intended client is M&S and provide images alnog those lines.

James - thanks - I was reacting to an earlier post that 'M&S might act to reduce the number of flats'

On the flat numbers, whilst I understand the immediate local worries about increasng local housing density, as a general view increasing domiciles, particularly in London where shortages are driving up rental and sales prices surely has to be a socally good thing? That it should be done sensitively (and legally) is also obviously right. I haven't looked at the plans, but giving up a 'corridor' in the shop space onto Lordship lane to allow access there to steps to the flats (rather than at the back) might mean a re-design of the shop space, but might be a small price to pay.

[first mate]

P68,

Quite. All we ask for is for there to be a balance between the needs and quality of life of those close to the site, commercial interests and the interests of the wider community.

The current proposal does not strike that balance and one senses that because, as some have suggested, it possibly even breaks planning law, that there is more work to be done.

I have also said before that large organisations have the money,time and will to hire expertise in interpreting planning law in order to drive proposals through. I think that local councillors who argue for the residents affected perhaps go some way to balance the impact at planning meetings etc..

[DulwichFox]

Lets stop all this Bickering and open a McDonalds

Class Free Nosh..

Feed the Kids for ?2.99

And prepare them for The Olympics 2016

Fox.

[Michael Palaeologus]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> @First Mate,

>

> I fully agree with what you said. Unfortunately,

> it's not the first MP have shown his inability to

> give an hollistic view or a detailed understanding

> of all the issues at stake. His fixation with M&S

> food skews his judgment.

Its my inability just to accept your views that is the problem here. Again.

Iceland or M&S, it makes no difference. They are what they are, retail outlets in a retail unit, little will change apart from the branding on the lorries. All else is detail which is largely irrelevant to the holistic picture.

[Undisputedtruth]

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

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

> Its my inability just to accept your views that is

> the problem here. Again.

> Iceland or M&S, it makes no difference. They are

> what they are, retail outlets in a retail unit,

> little will change apart from the branding on the

> lorries. All else is detail which is largely

> irrelevant to the holistic picture.

I was merely making an observation on the flaws of your thinking. Incredible how you ignore the core planning issues and then pitching your planning argument as though it was a straightforward process.

> All else is detail which is largely

> irrelevant to the holistic picture.

Wrong, people who live near to the development have a legal right to privacy and quiet enjoyment of their property.

[Bic Basher]

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

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

> It is NIMBY-ism. If M&S were opening in Forest

> Hill, nobody in ED would complain, because it

> wouldnt be in their backyard.

I think FH would welcome a M&S in the town as they've had problems in recent years getting business into Dartmouth Road especially. However they won funding from the Portas scheme in a joint bid with Sydenham and with the soon to re-open Pools, the problems they've had with retail units may bring it up to ED levels.

This was the same town that tries to keep the chains in the town, they successfully managed to persuade Barclays to stay when they were considering closing their branch.

[fredricketts]

These pictures show what most local residents are objecting to, and this is happening all the time in

Ashbourne Grove and Chesterfield Grove. And why should we have to put up with this all the time.

And it is not getting, but in fact getting worse.

[fredricketts]

These pictures show what most local residents are objecting to, and this is happening all the time in

Ashbourne Grove and Chesterfield Grove. And why should we have to put up with this all the time.

And it is not getting better, but in fact getting worse.

[Michael Palaeologus]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > Its my inability just to accept your views that

> is

> > the problem here. Again.

> > Iceland or M&S, it makes no difference. They

> are

> > what they are, retail outlets in a retail unit,

> > little will change apart from the branding on

> the

> > lorries. All else is detail which is largely

> > irrelevant to the holistic picture.

>

> I was merely making an observation on the flaws of

> your thinking. Incredible how you ignore the core

> planning issues and then pitching your planning

> argument as though it was a straightforward

> process.

Well thank you for that great favour. The planning "issues" are for the council to sort out. These are not going to stop the development if M&S and the Coumcil want it to happen. M&S just negotiate, re-submit offer a bit of planning-gain.

>

> > All else is detail which is largely

> > irrelevant to the holistic picture.

>

> Wrong, people who live near to the development

> have a legal right to privacy and quiet enjoyment

> of their property.

Yes. In the context of where their properties are. People bought houses close to a main road with retail outlets. They have always had traffic, deliveries and some noise to deal with, they alway will have. I bought a flat opposite a wine bar and a fish and chip shop. Guess what, there is some late night noise and an occasional fishy waft, thems just the breaks.

We are in a big, over-crowded city - their quiet enjoyment is in the context of the emergency services driving up and down the Lane, sirens howling, police helicopters flying overhead at all hours, revellers on Lordship Lane and busy traffic.

The displacement of cars from the Iceland car park is not going to make a big difference. M&S lorries rather than Iceland lorries are not going to make a big difference.

[LondonMix]

I heard about that. What street in FH is considered the main high-street (apologies for my ignorance) and do you know about the exact plans? I've heard some of the ideas and the renovation of Forest Hill and Sydnahm's high streets sound really exciting. I live in ED but the more interesting things in the general area the better?

Bic Basher Wrote:

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

> Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

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

> -----

> > It is NIMBY-ism. If M&S were opening in Forest

> > Hill, nobody in ED would complain, because it

> > wouldnt be in their backyard.

>

> I think FH would welcome a M&S in the town as

> they've had problems in recent years getting

> business into Dartmouth Road especially. However

> they won funding from the Portas scheme in a joint

> bid with Sydenham and with the soon to re-open

> Pools, the problems they've had with retail units

> may bring it up to ED levels.

>

> This was the same town that tries to keep the

> chains in the town, they successfully managed to

> persuade Barclays to stay when they were

> considering closing their branch.

[first mate]

MP,

While I agree with many of your points I am sure you do not really buy the argument that because we have overcrowding that is a good enough reason to overcrowd even more.

Your point that seems to suggest those who buy close to small local shops should expect the arrival of superstores next door any time soon, seems to me excessive. I guess in part this is a debate about urbanisation, do we want to maintain the feel of ED as small scale and residential with most shops being of a proportionate size, or do we throw all that out and welcome in any amount of chains and start building up and out everywhere?

Many of us are clear that the brand is irrelevant, again this is about scale and balance of needs and interests.

[LondonMix]

A super store is a bit of an exaggeration! Its a Simply M&S which hardly qualifies.

first mate Wrote:

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

> MP,

> While I agree with many of your points I am sure

> you do not really buy the argument that because we

> have overcrowding that is a good enough reason to

> overcrowd even more.

>

> Your point that seems to suggest those who buy

> close to small local shops should expect the

> arrival of superstores next door any time soon,

> seems to me excessive. I guess in part this is a

> debate about urbanisation, do we want to maintain

> the feel of ED as small scale and residential with

> most shops being of a proportionate size, or do we

> throw all that out and welcome in any amount of

> chains and start building up and out everywhere?

>

> Many of us are clear that the brand is irrelevant,

> again this is about scale and balance of needs and

> interests.

[first mate]

LM,

Yes it is and I retract that description because I don't want the main debate to go off at a tangent. However, the scale of the current application is cause for concern for many reasons. I do hope that anyone expressing strong views on this matter takes time to actually read the application.

[Bic Basher]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> I heard about that. What street in FH is

> considered the main high-street (apologies for my

> ignorance) and do you know about the exact plans?

> I've heard some of the ideas and the renovation of

> Forest Hill and Sydnahm's high streets sound

> really exciting. I live in ED but the more

> interesting things in the general area the

> better?

The Forest Hill Society are administrating the Portas funding and you should contact them for further information.

http://www.foresthillsociety.com/2012/07/portas-pilot-first-steps.html

[Undisputedtruth]

I don't think MP understands planning laws or read the M&S planning application. His views are devoid of any planning framework. Amost child like innocence in his remarks. Blesss him.

[LondonMix]

FM, I agree. Have you spoken to the freeholder about the delivery times and lorry access? It seems like a viable compromise might be possible on these very legitimate concerns. I share the concerns raised about those elements of the planning application but think a direct discussion with the freeholder in addition to formerly raising the issue with the council might yield a result that everyone could potentially live with.

The parking issues I have less concern about as it appears the existing parking lot was not widely used even on weekends (most people seemed to be unaware it existed until the application) and given you can't do a weekly shop at a Simply M&S, I think the concerns about people driving there more than is the case for Iceland are perhaps overblown. Regarding the flats, I am for the development of more flats in general. While I understand the parking concerns this poses, I think most people who buy flats near the high street and public transport (which these will be) don't typically own cars as there is less need for them. While its difficult to make this a condition of owning the flats, I think the risk that the new flats will considerably increase parking pressure is fairly remote.

[Michael Palaeologus]

LOL!! Because I do not agree with me you abuse me and attempt to belittle me. The next step will be charge me with being a Nazi.

You are a bully.

[the-e-dealer]

Theres some law or other about Nazis coming up in threads.

[Michael Palaeologus]

"Godwins Law" :)

[AbDabs]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> FM, I agree. Have you spoken to the freeholder

> about the delivery times and lorry access? It

> seems like a viable compromise might be possible

> on these very legitimate concerns.

How is the freeholder going to be able to do anything about it? Once he has granted a leasehold, he doesn't have any legal interest in the use (other than those things that might directly affect his legal obligations). Also, why would he care? The freeholder won't be the one who has to respond to complaints and potential legal action.

> The parking issues I have less concern about as it

> appears the existing parking lot was not widely

> used even on weekends (most people seemed to be

> unaware it existed until the application) and

> given you can't do a weekly shop at a Simply M&S,

> I think the concerns about people driving there

> more than is the case for Iceland are perhaps

> overblown.

It is certainly true that the car park is not fully utilised (From personal observation, I would suggest that there is often half the spaces free) but the intention is to remove the car park to create a much bigger shop for a more affluent target market who tend to have higher car ownership. Whilst it may still be too small a shop for the average family to do their weekly shop, nevertheless, for the car owning young single/couple, the temptation to 'pop into M&S' will be immense. At least that's the response I've had from 30 something friends when they hear M&S is coming.

Regarding the flats, I am for the

> development of more flats in general. While I

> understand the parking concerns this poses, I

> think most people who buy flats near the high

> street and public transport (which these will be)

> don't typically own cars as there is less need for

> them. While its difficult to make this a

> condition of owning the flats, I think the risk

> that the new flats will considerably increase

> parking pressure is fairly remote.

I'm afraid that the reason Mr Ricketts gets so apoplectic is that there have been a number of flat conversions in the streets close to Iceland/M&S in the last 10-15 years and the level of car ownership has increased dramatically because of it. I'm afraid that whilst there are some who choose not to buy a car, there is certain evidence that many do. I do though tend to agree that the level of pressure on car parking will not be as high as some fear as there is a saturation point which has generally been reached where shoppers won't look for spaces.

What I do anticipate is a significant increase in illegal parking (across driveways, on doubles yellow lines etc) within the immediate vacinity as drivers 'pop in' to grab supper. I hope that TFL are ready for the disruption to the bus lane and are quick to hand out fines.