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

[Mick Mac]

Oh Zebedee, what a good point. How lucky we are to have you to bring such rationality to this great debate. Take a bow.

[Zebedee Tring]

Many thanks for your kind words, Mick Mac. I'm glad that you appreciate my comments.

[Mick Mac]

I do, I do. :)

[Mick Mac]

The End.

[first mate]

Until the results of this application are published.

The decision was meant to be made more qickly this time (at the request of the applicant). That's why everyone had to get their responses in just after xmas.

[fundark]

I pronounce this thread dead. No More. Done. Finito.

[northlondoner]

Good luck with that fundark. The subject of M and S and Waitrose is like Lazarus around here .

[Otta]

Lazarus only came back once, these guys are like a whole bunch of cats!

[DulwichDeviant]

DELETED

[Jeremy]

Tonight.

[Chillaxed]

Second application rejected.

[first mate]

chillaxed,

How do you know?

[James Barber]

I can confirm the second planning application has been refused:

http://jamesbarber.mycouncillor.org.uk/2013/03/01/ms-planning-application-rejected/

The freeholder could appeal - hopefully they wont but instead will put in a proper applications addressing the site issues.

[Calsug]

I don't understand why this was rejected? What could be worse than empty office space above Iceland and a store that is tired and dated?

It seems to be a decision made by a vocal minority - give me real well thought out rational as to why it was rejected and you can sway me, but so far I have heard nothing that persuades me there is any reason to reject it ...

One "reason" I heard was about the lorries, are M&S lorries any different than Iceland lorries? Another was that it would affect Lord ship Lane business, how does 8 extra flats with 16+ people adding spending power to LL impact negatively??

[first mate]

James, thank you.

I also hope the freeholder does not appeal. The existing application is not fit for purpose.

[first mate]

Calsug,

Have you read the application and read the objections?

[Calsug]

I was only going by what I have read in this thread, I can't find a link to them but if you have it I will read it

first mate Wrote:

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

> Calsug,

>

> Have you read the application and read the

> objections?

[James Barber]

http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9547620

The decision has been taken but the online system isnt yet showing this.

On the above URL page you can read all the documentation.

Hope this helps Calsug.

[first mate]

Calsug,

If you scroll down the same page that has the application you will see neighbour consultation replies. Each link carries batches of replies. The second to last link carries a particulalrly detailed objection.

http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=9547620

[KalamityKel]

When did the meeting take place?

[Earl Aelfheah]

From my brief perusal of the objections they seem to mainly fall into the following categories (I may have missed some):

1. Don't want an M&S because it's expensive

2. Delivery lorries are already a nightmare (unclear exactly how M&S will change this, but seems to be a vague belief that lorry size will increase?)

3. Removing the car park and building flats will add to parking pressures / we have a right to park on our street.

[Jeremy]

Surely the first point is not legitimate grounds for objection to a planning application.

[puzzled]

why is the application not fit for purpose? iceland is not fit for anything

[Earl Aelfheah]

I'd be interested to know on what grounds the application was declined.

[first mate]

rahrahrah,

your perusal must have been very brief indeed.