High rise ED (April 2015 M&S planning application)

[first mate]

Jeremy, as I said, it is a matter of proportion, the principle remains the same whatever the size of site.

I rather disagree with your inference that private enterprise has absolutely no responsibility to the community in which it operates.

[Jeremy]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Jeremy, as I said, it is a matter of proportion,

> the principle remains the same whatever the size of site.

How is the principle different to any other building of homes?

> I rather disagree with your inference that private

> enterprise has absolutely no responsibility to the

> community in which it operates.

That's not what I suggested at all. There's clearly a gulf between how we'd like developers to act, and the way they actually do act when left to their own devices. We all want more affordable housing, but the government need to step up and enforce this (or build it themselves).

[first mate]

Jeremy,

No difference, over development may apply whatever the housing scheme, it is a question of what you try to pack into the available space.

[Otta]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Otta - yes I totally agree that we need more

> affordable housing, but that needs to be a

> government initiative. I don't think it's

> realistic to expect a property developer (or

> really any private business) to suddenly come over

> all altruistic.

Agreed, but then perhaps a local authority should do more to force their hands...

A few years ago Greenwich council did a huge deal with Tasco to allow them to build a big store in Woolwich. But as a result Tesco also had to tart the area up a fair bit, and build a certain number of homes for social housing plus a great big new office building for the LA. That seemed like a good deal for the community and the area.

I'm sure Tesco would have rather have just built their shop and some luxury apartments.

[maxxi]

Given their recent fortunes maybe some of their deserted mega-lego-bungalows could be converted from stores to flats. I rather fancy a flat on the produce aisle.

[Jeremy]

I agree Otta. Developers will only build affordable homes if they are forced into it... maybe this is a missed opportunity?

[Otta]

Alcohol aisle for me.

[first mate]

Well the fact remains that the current application seeks to replace 8 residential flats with office space and then add two penthouse flats on top.

[Otta]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> I agree Otta. Developers will only build

> affordable homes if they are forced into it...

> maybe this is a missed opportunity?

Or maybe the powers that be at Southwark have absolutely no interest in affordable housing. One might even suspect they're on the side of the developers (see Elephant & Castle housing estates!).

[maxxi]

I think the whole Heygate thing has left people believing that some at Southwark see dealing with big developers like that as a job interview and retirement package rolled into one. Allegedly.

[TJ]

As a local resident, and business owner, I would like to wholeheartedly support this new application.

Firstly, the redevelopment of the store to a Marks & Spencer food hall would be a welcome addition to the local high street. It would serve as a draw to the area from local residents who may otherwise shop near work or stations in central london (as well as neighbouring SE21, SE15 and SE26 postcodes). In turn this will greatly benefit the local shops & market from the increased footfall.

The building redevelopment is also greatly needed as the current building is very tired. As business owner, I would certainly consider relocating my offices to this building once the work complete. The current office / business provision in SE22 is in dire need of improvement. I point to the SE21 Parkhall BC as a guide to show what local business are capable of.

I concede there will be short term disruption while the works take place, but it will benefit the neighbourhood for the next decade or more.

This area of Lordship lane has so much potential to become a true destination in London. I disagree with the claim this area is already over populated or too busy. With minimal council involvement and no parking restrictions, Lordship lane can continue to thrive & grow along with its growing population and changing demographic.

[Otta]

TJ Wrote:

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

> This area of Lordship lane has so much potential to become a true destination in London.

Think that's over egging the pudding a bit.

[first mate]

TJ,

Out of interest what for you is the merit of this application over the earlier application that is already passed and good to go?

[gh]

Its been noted above that the building already has flats on the top floor, so it's height isn't proposed to increase. I doubt anyone would state the current building is 'high rise'. It may help everyone if the title to this thread was changed cause it is alarmist and misleading.

Other areas of London which had a high street modest in scale only 10 years ago have gone down the route of taller buildings, such as Clapham High Street.

This proposal is nothing of the sort.

For those who are more likely to get distracted by the shopfronts when wandering down our Lane:

I agree the office layouts to floors 1 and 2 are curious little units, with oversized kitchens. Maybe they are anticipating staff who are adverse to M&S sandwiches...

[robbin]

And the references above to "penthouse" flats on top is also unnecessarily prejudicial and somewhat misleading. I have read the application documents and I can see not a single reference to "penthouse flats". They are top floor flats. Whether they are somehow posh and luxurious, as the use of the word (only by the posters) implies, is not mentioned.

[first mate]

With respect, the facts are:

Reference is certainly made in the drawings to penthouses.

The proposed building will be four stories high, not three.

The developer proposes that the application for a retail outlet with 8 residential flats, in a three storey building, and an application that has already been passed by planning, is now changed to a four storey building with a retail outlet, lots of offices and two penthouses on top.

[ed_pete]

robbin Wrote:

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

> And the references above to "penthouse" flats on

> top is also unnecessarily prejudicial and somewhat

> misleading. I have read the application documents

> and I can see not a single reference to "penthouse

> flats". They are top floor flats. Whether they

> are somehow posh and luxurious, as the use of the

> word (only by the posters) implies, is not

> mentioned.

Actually that's not true. I also thought that use of the word penthouse in this threadt was deliberate and intended to be emotive however if you look at the third floor plan, the text does say "New Penthouse extension set back to meet Southwarks D+A requirements dimensions to be confirmed."

[clockworkorange]

Can ot be explained why m&s do not simply move into icelsnd unit.a1 use for a1 use. No need for planning at all. What is the fuss with a few extra flats? Given it seems permission is granted already, and all the local fuss, it does seem odd that they don't just get on with it.

[KalamityKel]

Burbage Wrote:

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

open for standard

> consultation till 15th May.

And yet, again, hardly any of the neighbours have been notified - many of those that commented the last time are completely unaware there is this "application" currently sitting in planning.

[edhistory]

Southwark Council now have an "adjacent neighbour" notification policy.

A cost cutting measure.

Mr Barber may know the definition of "adjacent".

John K

[KalamityKel]

which would seem still to be quite inconsistent... those it doesn't actually effect get notified where as those it does effect are kept in the dark (possibly perhaps quite literally in this case!)

[first mate]

Whether the result of incompetence or design, the impression might be given that there is an unholy alliance between developers and planning....

[Burbage]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Whether the result of incompetence or design, the

> impression might be given that there is an unholy

> alliance between developers and planning....

That's a little unfair.

Developers are in the business of making money. And, for that end, they employ a whole industry of architects and consultants and weaselish representatives that does nothing but game the planning system by breeding applications like cockroaches and sending them out, all at once or piecemeal, in the certainty that, thanks to consultation fatigue, political infighting, old-fashioned corruption or simple blunders, enough of them will eventually get through to make a lot of money, no matter what the locals, or their elected representatives, think

And, if they don't get permission, they'll just do it anyway and apply for permission afterwards, knowing that the council won't want to be seen making people homeless or closing down new businesses,

In this case, the developers put in an application and got it refused. They then put in a slightly more modest application, which got through on a technicality. Now they're adding back the bits of the first, in the hope that councillors will have forgotten and residents either won't notice or will be used to the idea now. It's a gamble, but the odds make it worthwhile.

There's nothing legally wrong with that. The rules don't prevent gaming the system, and developers, like money, have no morals. And there'll be no shortage of greedy crumb-catchers arguing that, without the persistence that money allows, we'd have no progress at all.

You don't have to look futher than the nearest war memorial to see what's wrong with that. In effect, it's the defeat of the democratic process by the sheer weight of borrowed money or, put another way, the sale of the sacrifices of previous generations for an IOU worth next to nothing. And it will be next to nothing because if one thing is certain, despite any mendacious lather about 'investing in the community', it's that the profit will be extracted as swiftly as is legal, if not more so. Sure, some developers claim to have local connections, and may even register a company locally to handle the scam and obscure the businesses behind it. But that, to borrow a phrase, is just the lipstick on the pig.

All this may be obvious to anyone with half a mind, but councils can't refuse everything just because developers are, on the whole, shafty illegitimates. They have to go on what's put before them, and give the benefit of the doubt unless residents keep alert and put forward clear and cogent objections to every scam. Sadly, residents don't always keep alert. That's understandable. Not just because it's hard work that takes time, but also because we're lulled by the incessant celebrations of hard-fought wars into thinking we long ago defeated the the foot-soldiers of dictatorial kleptocracies, and need worry our pretty heads no more.

Which is why we're now living in the looming shadow of the obscenely hubristic outpost of a slave-trading nation and busy constructing a city-state for another oil-rich power's embassy. There is some poetic justice in that, being a taste of our own colonial medicine, but it's also abject surrender. We didn't make enough of a fuss, and so allowed the powers that be to succumb to the evanescent promises of notorious improvements to transport hubs and tranches of what never turn out to be affordable housing. In much the same way as, instead of reaping the Olympic Dividend, we still find the bill for the long-dead games wrapped up in our council tax demands.

Appearances are always deceptive and the impression of an unholy alliance between developers and planners is no exception. What's really happening is that developers are exploiting the greedy or defeatist laziness of residents who, lulled by the concept of democracy, have forgotten democracy's a struggle.

Or, in short, it's not their fault. It's ours.

[robbin]

Pete & First Mate - I see - and stand corrected.

[Otta]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Whether the result of incompetence or design, the

> impression might be given that there is an unholy

> alliance between developers and planning....

Southwark in bed with developers? Surely not!