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

[first mate]

The consultation has started - the period runs from 28 jan to 20th Feb. it's a bit rich that consultation opened before info was available to public and residents.

Just checked and the application is not yet up. Residents and neighbours may have letters on the way but do not see how consultation can be declared open until detail is available.

[KalamityKel]

if it's not been "validated" how/why is it displayed on the website?

[XIX]

James,

As a resident of Chesterfield Grove, I share first mate and KK's concerns about this.

The application IS showing in searches and as has been pointed out, the consultation period started a week ago. Yet no-one locally has received a letter, nor are there any details available on the website about the application.

This is clearly not right. I, and no doubt others, would be very grateful if you could look into what is going on with this and update us.

Many thanks

[first mate]

James (Barber),

Are you now able to access the application? Would you agree that it is unfortunate that the consultation has been underway for a week without detail available to interested parties, like local reisdents?

[the-e-dealer]

looks like somthing went wrong. I doubt if its a conspiracy

[Goose]

Hmmm. I smell a rat here - a particularly large 'M+S branded' rat...

So the clock started ticking 28th Jan - yet no documents available to view.

124 neighbours consulted - yet no one has received anything 1 week on.

... and it all closes on 20th Feb.

How can a consultation have started when no documents available to view and no one has been consulted !!!

[healey]

If I lived near this site I'd be more bothered about the traffic from the car wash. M&S or Waitrose will have a similar level of daily deliveries as Iceland do now. Can't see what all the fuss is about.

[first mate]

healey,

the 'fuss' at the moment is that we are already one week into a 'consultation' yet the latest application details are not available for scrutiny- we don't know what is being proposed or indeed for which store. A councillor that sits on one of the planning committees says he knows no more about the application than do readers of this forum. Whether by accident or design it is rather odd.

[first mate]

Still nothing up on the planning website. Come on Southwark, you can't have a consultation without any information. Strange how no letter have arrive either.

[Louisa]

I contacted Southwark earlier today and I was told the application is waiting to be scanned and letters have yet to be sent. All documents will be uploaded shortly to the web site for people to comment.

Louisa.

[KalamityKel]

Details are now loaded

http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=9553324

[Jeremy]

It's effectively an identical proposal, but with modified servicing hours.

[KalamityKel]

with prettier pictures and colours on the plans :-|

[first mate]

Makes depressing reading. They have changed nothing really. They have argued that the proposed servicing hours should stand because since existing car park for 17 cars is being removed there will be more room for vehicles to move around...eh? This despite the fact that the footprint of the existing building will be nearly doubled.

Seems they will have same amount of vehicles delivering as proposed before but they promise they'll do everything more quietly by using more modern vehicles " where possible" and asking delivery guys not to whistle or shout and to take more time doing their deliveries.....?!

The developer/store seems to have given not an inch in accomodating the concerns of residents nearby...

[Louisa]

To me this application makes no sense. If Waitrose are willing to move in without the extension, why would the freeholder go through all these months worth of scrutinised planning applications which have been heavily opposed by some local residents? M&S clearly want a larger floor space. Surely Waitrose would be a more prestigious tenant anyhow. Bizarre.

Louisa.

[Siduhe]

Is it only me that finds this line of the covering letter quite telling/depressing?

  Quote

The main point of difference is in the AM weekend servicing hours that are being sought...It is understood these hours align with the Council's views on weekend servicing at this site

Which my cynical side translates as

  Quote

This is pretty much exactly the same application that failed last time and on appeal. We've made a minor, cosmetic change that doesn't address any of the real issues/reasons why the application failed, but we've had lots of discussions with the planning team in the meantime and think we've convinced them to put it through now...

I'm normally someone who sticks up for Southwark because I think they generally do a pretty good job, but this doesn't come across well at all.

[first mate]

Louisa,

I'd imagine by opting for the increased footprint as well as the residential units the freeholder will make a lot more money...that's the bottom line.

As Siduhe suggests, the developers are intent on having it their way and confident that objectors (the little people) and most of all Southwark Planning, will eventually fold.

I note the current application says that the upper levels are empty. I know that is untrue, at least two families live there.

[XIX]

Given that no details have been changed other than the weekend delivery times, it appears that the planning consultancy are confident this was the sticking point with the previous application. However the reasons given by Southwark for refusing the first application are different and relate to parking, not just noise:

"Discussions were held with the applicant and further information received during the course of the application, but it was not possible to overcome the concerns raised and permission was refused.

The proposed development, owing to the loss of the customer car park and increase in vehicle trips associated with the extended retail unit would increase parking stress on the surrounding streets in the area which already experiences a high level of on-street parking. This would result in an unacceptable loss of amenity to neighbouring residents, contrary to saved policies 3.2 'Protection of amenity' and 5.6 'Car parking' of the Southwark Plan (2007), the Sustainable Transport SPD (2010), strategic policy 2 'Sustainable transport' of the Core Strategy (2011), policy 6.13 'Parking' of the London Plan (2011) and section 4 of the NPPF"

Given this has not been addressed at all in the new application, it is hard to see how Southwark could come to the conclusion that the previous issues have been addressed and grant permission. I hope the planning committee will be addressing this and asking some very searching questions of the applicant.

[tomk]

It did appear that the original application was refused due to ?parking stress?, which seemed barmy for a Zone 2 shopping destination which has suffered from ?parking stress? for at least 10 years. I can?t see how removing a small car park will make any significant difference. They also seem to have compromised further on the delivery hours, which anyway seemed reasonable in the first application. I really don?t get the objections, unless you live directly bordering the site and want no change at all for the entire time you choose to live there. I do sympathise with this position, but the application has always looked broadly sensible.

[Jeremy]

I think the delivery hours look reasonable, and in line with what people should expect if they live in close proximity to a high street.

I sympathise with the concerns about parking, but it does seem at odds with the local residents objections to a CPZ.

[first mate]

Jeremy,

The difference is the volume of deliveries within those parameters, in addition to more stress on parking, less space to manoeuvre...the total effect is more stress on less space as well as taking delievery times to the limit- something Iceland do not do.

The combination of this proposed development together with with the effects of the car wash does not augur well for immediate residents.

Anyhow, hardly have the appetite to go through all this again. The planners know the game and they are hell bent on getting what they want.

[first mate]

tomk,

The proposal is to remove parking for 17 cars- this is used by locals, by those working at Iceland and those living in the upper levels of the premises.

Now add 8 two bedroom flats and double the size of the existing building where there will be more employees arriving daily to work.

The proposal banks on the idea that all those new residents, as well as the employees, will use bicycles and not cars.

If the residential street in question is already suffering parking stress, it can only get worse. That aside, there will be stepped up deliveries. Have a visit and see what happens when one of the juggernauts delivers. Bearing in mind that there will be less room to move and the suggestion is that those delivering should take longer to ensure safety etc..

[tomk]

Most streets directly off LL are already very hard to park on and would not be attractive options for car-driving customers/employees. I think if there were to be any increase in car use and parking from these, it is more likely to affect streets slightly further afield eg bottom of upland, CP road etc, where you can still walk to Iceland/M&S in 5 mins. And that's totally ignoring the likelihood of public transport being used.

Re. the flats, 2bed inner London flat dwellers who live on a well-provided high street with a short walk to two rail stations (one the EL London) tend not to be high users of cars. Maybe 5-8 cars max from the 8 flats? Parking in the area is not easy at all, but I really don't see how this development would have a significantly negative effect.

I sympathise about the delivery vehicles, though presumably most local residents moved into the street after the supermarket was in place - so deliveries are not exactly a surprise.

[first mate]

tomk,

I am surprised you cannot see how the proposed development might have a negative impact. 5-8 extra residents cars, plus a proportion of 36 employees who will not always use public transport or cycle, is quite a signifcant number, when you consider that 17 parking spaces will also simultaneously be removed. Once the deal is done there is no going back and I think a line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere. No objection has been made to having a store it is the scale of the proposal that is problematic for those living close by.

Anyhow, I think unless you know the site concerned it is hard to understand the likley impact of the proposal.

[tomk]

Possibly there will be some increase in cars looking for parking spaces in the surrounding streets. I don't see it as likely to be a significant increase though. If we're not careful we will just block all changes on this basis - keep shops unpopular and units empty so that residents (who declined the cpz offered) can park without stress.