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

[Zebedee Tring]

The last time that I was in M&S, there were no organic dildos on sale - or am I unobservant? More seriously, the invective against middle class people (or in other cases against working class people) on this MB sometimes goes way over the top.

As I and many other posters have commented at length, the issues before the Planning Committee relate to the acceptability of the proposals in traffic, parking and housing terms, not the merits or otherwise of M&S and Iceland

[-Heinz-]

Fair point Z...just a bit of poking...So... on a more pragmatic line of thought, has anyone considered creating a car park

under Goose Green? It would not be cheap,but it would solve all ED parking problems in one stroke and also stimulate

businesses in the area...quite considerably me thinks.

[the-e-dealer]

Yeah but its a plague pit. Very Dangerous!

[-Heinz-]

Impossible?

Surely they were covered in lime at the time...and even so it think it's worth pondering. Hmmmmm

[DulwichGlobetrotter]

Ha! Yes, I like M&S therefore I can't comprehend planning matters! Very good. You win. The application must fail! You've convinced me with your superior powers of reasoning.

[Eileen]

-Heinz- Wrote:

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

> Fair point Z...just a bit of poking...So... on a

> more pragmatic line of thought, has anyone

> considered creating a car park

>

> under Goose Green? It would not be cheap,but it

> would solve all ED parking problems in one stroke

> and also stimulate

> businesses in the area...quite considerably me

> thinks.

I think this is against the planning policies to discourage car use, so probably wouldn't get planning permission, quite apart from the lack of funding for such a venture. If Cllr RobinCH is reading this could she remind us what the planning policy is on new car parks?

[Undisputedtruth]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> Insulting M&S supporters won't help you win your

> argument, UT, you'll just polarise people.

I wasn't insulting, just passing comments on my observation. I didn't read anything constructive in terms of planning from the M&S supporters when they responded to the consultation. I don't remember seeing anything constructive in terms of planning either on this thread from M&S supporters either.

[Undisputedtruth]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> The issues before the Planning Committee surely

> relate to the acceptability of the proposals in

> traffic, parking and housing terms, not the merits

> or otherwise of M&S and Iceland

I believe it should go futher than this by looking at the economic impact on surrounding businesses and social inclusion on the high street.

[-Heinz-]

When will the council understand people will always need motorised vehicules to cart their life around.

If you want businesses to thrive, their customers will need cars and convenient places to park them.

[Undisputedtruth]

Heinz, planning policies involves the promotion of sustainable transport for last decade. Hence why you're seeing less car parking space in new developments.

[Undisputedtruth]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> The last time that I was in M&S, there were no

> organic dildos on sale - or am I unobservant? More

> seriously, the invective against middle class

> people (or in other cases against working class

> people) on this MB sometimes goes way over the

> top.

I've seen articles in newspapers where journalists pitch this type of discussion as a class war/gentrification issue. But I think a discussion on this matter helps shape future planning policies in the future for building a sustainable community.

[Eileen]

-Heinz- Wrote:

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

> When will the council understand people will

> always need motorised vehicules to cart their life

> around.

> If you want businesses to thrive, their customers

> will need cars and convenient places to park them.

They might have more understanding when more residents get involved and take an interest in putting forward their views in the development of planning policies. There is I think a key part of this coming up in a planning policy for East Dulwich in the next few months. One of the local E/Dulwich ward coumcillors can give more details. The planning policy for Peckham town centre (PNAAP) is coming out for the last key consultation in September (to 4 December). Car use and parking policy are key parts of these planning policies.

[-Heinz-]

Cars today are many times more efficient and clean than a decade or so a go. Progress in that field is constant and I am

not sure residents of ED are in any danger of suffering from car induced pollution illnesses...

On the other hand, lefty world saving do gooders driving 1960' VW Campervans are as green as a frog in a blender...So

maybe we should vote to force them to offset their carbon footprint by digging us "normals" a shiny new underground car

park under Goose Green. I recon the ratio of earth dug up, to tonnes of Aquarious free thinking Campervan induced carbon

is about 1... So you know it makes sense.

[Eileen]

-Heinz- Wrote:

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

> Cars today are many times more efficient and clean

> than a decade or so a go. Progress in that field

> is constant and I am

> not sure residents of ED are in any danger of

> suffering from car induced pollution illnesses...

> On the other hand, lefty world saving do gooders

> driving 1960 VW Campervans are as green as a frog

> in a blender...So

> maybe we should vote to force them to offset their

> carbon footprint by digging us "normals" a shiny

> new underground car park under Goose Green. I recon the ratio of earth

> dug up, to tonnes of Aquarious free thinking

> Campervan induced carbon is about 1...So you know it makes sense.

You can have these views and they may be very valid, but unless you take part in the planning policy process at local level in the current system they won't have any effect.

Which part of the current process do you have in mind for the '... vote to force ...' in **So maybe we should vote to force them to offset their carbon footprint by digging us "normals" a a shiny new underground car park under Goose Green.**

[-Heinz-]

Sorry Eileen,

I meant, "incentivise by letting them keep the dug up clay so they can build wonderful replicas of Stonehenge in their

gardens".

[edhistory]

Clay?

John K

[Undisputedtruth]

While I accept that cars are more efficient and cleaner than a decade ago, these do not offset pollution caused by the rise in car ownership. The idea about building more roads to accommodate more cars is simply not sustainable and costly to the taxpayer.

-Heinz- Wrote:

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

> Cars today are many times more efficient and clean

> than a decade or so a go. Progress in that field

> is constant and I am

> not sure residents of ED are in any danger of

> suffering from car induced pollution illnesses...

> On the other hand, lefty world saving do gooders

> driving 1960' VW Campervans are as green as a frog

> in a blender...So

> maybe we should vote to force them to offset their

> carbon footprint by digging us "normals" a shiny

> new underground car

> park under Goose Green. I recon the ratio of earth

> dug up, to tonnes of Aquarious free thinking

> Campervan induced carbon

> is about 1... So you know it makes sense.

[-Heinz-]

We are not asking for more roads here, just a car park.

[edhistory]

Who is we?

John K

[Undisputedtruth]

-Heinz- Wrote:

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

> We are not asking for more roads here, just a car

> park.

It's all part of the masterplan to reduce cars on the roads. Less car parking spaces & roads being built.

[Eileen]

-Heinz- Wrote:

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

> We are not asking for more roads here, just a car

> park.

The link is that the more facilities for parking there are, the more cars there are and the more roads are needed.

If you want to change that thinking in planning policy you have to roll your sleeves up and get engaged.

[-Heinz-]

A bigger M&S shop, flats above; a bigger Grove Vale Library, flats above; fewer parking spaces...Will we get the same

situation as in Paris were quite a bit of the traffic congestion (and consequently pollution) consists off cars being

driven around until lucky enough to find a place to park....already it is starting to happen around here.

How green and practical...with the cunning result of demonising cars even more...genius.

In the meanwhile thanks for putting a credible alternative in place...now that would be a mastreplan.

[rch]

The policy that addresses Car Parking in Southwark is known as saved Policy 5.6 (which I'll be referring to a lot during the future Dulwich SPD consultation discussions). It states (I'm summarising here, to see the full policy Google Saved Southwark Plan and scroll down to Policy 5.6):-

All developments requiring car parking should minimise the number of spaces provided. Maximum standards are set out in Appendix 15 [which states that developments within the Suburban Zone can provide between 1.5 and 2 spaces per flat or house, in line with the Sustainable Transport SPD].

[...]

All developments will be expected to include justification for the amount of car parking sought, taking into account:

i. Public Transport Accessibility Levels set out in Appendix 15 [these are the PTALs that I referred to previously]; and

ii. The impact on overspill parking; and

iii. The demand for parking within the Controlled Parking Zones. The LPA will restrict permit provision where necessary.

Parking for retail and leisure uses within town centres should be shared with public parking, not reserved for customers of a particular development. Maximum stay restrictions are required for all retail and leisure town centre parking.

Reasons

Too many cars cause problems with congestion and pollution, increasing travel times and expense as well as causing health problems. With fewer car parking spaces available people will seek alternative modes of transport to the private car, subsequently reducing congestion and pollution.

Access to services, leisure, shops and a range of amenities by public transport and other alternative modes of transport to the private car must be considered when providing less car parking in order to ensure efficiency and social inclusion. Measures to control overspill parking are necessary in order to prevent or mitigate loss of amenity including inconvenience to local residents caused by overspill car parking and increased pressure on on-street spaces.

[...]

There's more, but that's the gist of the relevant points. We can have a long discussion/debate about this, if you like... but, as this policy will also be relevant to other future developments and consultations in the Dulwich area, I would suggest that someone might want to start a specific thread on this topic (it would also be useful if someone can cut and paste the whole policy in the new thread as I can't figure out how to copy text from a PDF).

[first mate]

Robin, given your interest in the M&S application, what would your current take on CPZ on the roads surrounding the proposed application be? It is moot, but many can stump up a good argument that demand for parking will increase if this application gets the thumbs up. Would you be pro or anti CPZ?

[JMC]

gedwina Wrote:

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

> First Mate - The car wash has nothing to do with

> the m&s and a CPZ would solve this problem. This

> is a current problem as seen by threads on this

> forum.

>

> Are the 8 spaces fully used or are they the car

> park for the Iceland? Are they used by

> householders? - if so this could be a problem

> otherwise it will be no change to present use.

>

> How does the current shop get stock? Do they use

> "extremely large lorries"? or very small ones?.

> Currently there seems to be no issue with the

> Iceland lorries and I am sure that this will be

> the case with M%S.

>

> All I can see from the planning is the removal of

> 8 spaces which is minimal. Parking will always be

> a problem in East Dulwich and London as a whole.

I presume this poster doesn't live on any of the roads affected? Would they be happy to have "small lorries" to drive up and down past their house all the time? Is it just the "extremely large lorries" that they would have an issue with?

I live on Melbourne Grove and the current Iceland lorries are massive, they get stuck turning into Chesterfield Road because even with their articulation, they can't get round the corners (because the number of cars parked in the street make the turn too tight) and they start pretty early in the morning.

I don't think it's appropriate to have articulated lorries delivering via residential streets, so if M&S can fix the access for deliveries and the flats are affordable housing, it's a good solution. But I very much doubt that either of those things will be specified as must-haves in the final proposal.