KalamityKel

cl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > A depressing process. Council admitted the case > had been dealt with poorly early on, with full > implications not considered properly, and the > councillors making the decision clearly did not > agree with the inspector's previous appeal > decision and conclusions, but ultimately they felt > they could not go back on them. So... the whole thing was admittedly conducted wrongly yet it's acceptable to pass it anyway? Hmmm makes perfect sense don't it. Surely on those grounds alone the whole thing should not have been considered, with the advice the application be re-submitted and a new committee appointed. I bet this admission won't be mentioned in written decision. Again, I ask, what is the point of the planning department? A precedent has now been set so expect all sorts of ridiculous applications to be made and accepted by the council.

The car wash, really, is not so much of a problem and has never been - of course newer residents to the road will disagree. The site is certainly better used now than it was after the small garage closed where needles, rats etc were regular features! The car wash is constant and at suitable business hours. Lorry deliveries made and proposed to the site in question is an unnecessary disturbance. Healey, do you grumble each week when the rubbish/recycling collections are made at the noise? This, you know to expect on a certain day and usually guess roughly what time it will happen. Imagine this kind of thing randomly at all hours of the day. Still think it's fair?

again?

Glass

What?

It's also not exactly an opportunity for anyone and everyone to speak up. It's the bog standard type of thing where only a representative is given a few minutes to have their say. Whilst anyone can attend such meetings it's exactly a "public meeting". I'm certainly not trying to put off anyone considering attending. It's simply typical misleading info being shared.

I'd suggest contacting the police first BEFORE involving anything to do with child protection as you don't know what the situation is. Let the Police look into it.

Beer cans... i believe

Compression "socks" in summertime. OR summertime and compression "socks" Cant figure out which is worse :-(

Am I the only one to have read the thread title as "Louisa is finally punished"? I thought it was all rather harsh! *slaps self* *goes off to find glasses*

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Note that aside from the obvious difficulty of > getting to the offices to object there has also > been no formal notice given to those living close > by enabling them to make the relevant plans. A > thread on this forum is not sufficent notice in my > view. This really does look like a stich up. Mr > Barber is noticeably quiet/absent on the whole > issue. I wonder if he is on holiday, if so will he > be absent for this very important meeting? I received notification from Southwark planning on the 10th July via email (method by which I sent my objections). I believe this is the standard way to notify, or by writing, those who had/have already officially expressed an interest in the application (by "offically" I mean those who actually bothered to say anything either positive or negative to planning in the first place!)

Thought it was the au pairs getting together for an opportunity to say incredibly wonderful things about their employers and their delightful charges. I'd say you really must try harder but I think it's been established... no really... don't ;-)

I was thinking similar keyhole. If it was much earlier/louder that might have been a little different. Builders are allowed to start their loud noises at 8am. Do people complain about rubbish/recycling collections? Buses? Polices sirens? Something a little positive on a sunny day and it's the end of civilisation... *sighs* ETA wasn't it s LOUD storm last night? Its also the Lambeth Country show this weekend... complainers might want to leave town

*yawns* Now now lets focus the issue is not the fact M&S are wanting to move in - who cares? The problem is the planning application - mostly the expansion planned at the rear, delivery, extra stress on parking, facilities (access and refuse) for the proposed residential plans above the retail space etc. Why the space cannot be used as it currently is (with a little bit of updating to the front) by M&S is the big question.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > KalamityKel Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > "Don't tell the bride" > > What annoys you about that one, KK? I kinda like > it if there is nothing else on. The bride mostly ;-)

"Don't tell the bride"

There are some threads on this forum... I am trying REALLY hard to stay away from... *mutters something about numptys* ;-)

I do hope James Barber continues his support in objection to the application as strongly as he did prior to local elections. I'm very disappointed that this application, having being refused in the past, and showing no evidence to adapt or change any plans at all (all of which has been discussed soooo many times on this thread already!), is now being recommended to be granted. How did this come about? What is the point of being given the opportunity to voice well grounded opinions just for planning, never mind the major applicant, to dismiss common concerns from a range of different residents as if such issues raised are (as I feel is being read as) insignificant. What, indeed is the point of planning at all?

You serious? Sorry silly q

niros777 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On Barry Road, Upland Road corner. > Anyone seen them?? Assuming you reported this to the police?

Thunder :))

All a bit late to b 'concerned' now though isnt it? Dont get me wrong im against this whole thing but it was already decided to go ahead despite the "public consultation"

Finally being treated like a real person who has feelings, is not stupid and wants help :-))

Don't be silly clearly says JUNE ;-)

7th June? 2015?