KalamityKel

Police station, A&E and needle exchange... simple :-))

day

not even a lump of coal? Now that's unfortunate :P

oh dear, that is completely not true. iceland is not leaving at the beginning of january as originally planned thats all. the landowner is leasing to iceland by month whilst planning and all that stuff is sorted... simple

IMPORTANT CHRISTMAS PROCEDURE Please be advised that all employees planning to dash through the snow in a one-horse open sleigh, going over the fields and laughing all the way, are required to undergo a Risk Assessment addressing the safety of open sleighs. This assessment must also consider whether it is appropriate to use only one horse for such a venture, particularly where there are multiple passengers. Please note that permission must also be obtained in writing from landowners before their fields may be entered. To avoid offending those not participating in celebrations, we request that laughter is moderate only and not loud enough to be considered a noise nuisance. Benches, stools and orthopaedic chairs are now available for collection by any shepherds planning or required to watch their flocks at night. While provision has also been made for remote monitoring of flocks by CCTV cameras from a centrally heated shepherd observation hut, all facility users are reminded that an emergency response plan must be submitted to account for known risks to the flocks. The angel of the Lord is additionally reminded that prior to shining his/her glory all around s/he must confirm that all shepherds are wearing appropriate PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) to account for the harmful effects of UVA, UVB and the overwhelming effects of Glory. Following last year's well publicised case, everyone is advised that EC legislation prohibits any comment with regard to the redness of any part of Mr R. Reindeer. Further to this, exclusion of Mr R. Reindeer from reindeer games will be considered discriminatory and disciplinary action will be taken against those found guilty of this offence. While it is acknowledged that gift-bearing is commonly practiced in various parts of the world, particularly the Orient, everyone is reminded that the bearing of gifts is subject to Hospitality Guidelines and all gifts must be registered. This applies regardless of the individual, even royal personages. It is particularly noted that direct gifts of currency or gold are specifically precluded under provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Further, caution is advised regarding other common gifts, such as aromatic resins that may initiate allergic reactions. Finally, in the recent case of the infant found tucked up in a manger without any crib for a bed, Social Services have been advised and will be arriving shortly. AND DON'T FORGET TO HAVE A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS!!

MORE entertaining? Loz I worry about u sometimes! ;-)

"god bless us, every one" well kinda :-)

My office door handle fell off yesterday... DOOMED! Quite disappointed really :-(

No, that's just a silly argument to make *sighs*

Did you see it was them?

im sure those comments are not meant maliciously nor are they aimed at any particular individual... right fred?

contact the local sorting office.

Oh, ok ;-)

Pushing the boat *OUT* this year aint ya!

too true.

ill leave some cookies and carrots out for u as usual x

the-e-dealer i quite love u! *blush* ;-)

I never requested a response privately and my comments were addressed publically. Indeed poor form for it to be taken privately. I apologise to those who disagree.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd still like to know when councillors were first > aware of this new application? > > The new application is very detailed, as I said > the process seems to be weighted in favour of the > application in that there is little time to object > and what time there is falls over a holiday > period. Moreover locals have not been alerted, > until now- the application was in planning on 22nd > November. > > We also know that there were pre-submission talks > between the developer and planning, where it was > agreed that the application would be processed > more quickly this time round....whatever that > means. Please see response below: Re: Revised new - M&S planning application to replace Iceland.. From: James Barber To: KalamityKel Date: 14/12/2012 11:24 I'm not omnipresent. As soon as I could I posted the details as I understand them. Last night I spotted the Thomas Moore application and have posted it today. How is being so busy sneaky! If I'd highlighted it first someone would have drawn some other negative conclusion. In reply to [www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk] KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why haven't residents in the effected area been > notified of this new application as with the other > application? > Rather sneaky no? Especially for our local > councillor who was incredibly interested the first > time round and now not to mention anything until > someone else spotted the application on the > planning website. Shame on you Mr Barber! James, I don't see why your comments warranted to a PM.

I would have thought that was obvious - planning or those submitting the application.

And still no "official" representative (meaning any that have declared themselves in an official capacity) has met with nearby residents to actually physically discuss concerns. It is all well and good to submit comments in writing whether objecting or supporting the application but as everyone knows it is easy to miss the point or misinterpret comments. I'm certainly not suggesting not to write in but that it would have been useful for all those involved in the planning application to actually speak to those nearby in a group - and not just one or two people seen by chance on any nearby streets.

It is indeed a shame many have and are continuing to hi-jack this thread with their silly comments about the likes and dislikes between this and that establishment. It doesn't matter who moves in the issues are the application itself. It is disappointing there are many who fail to grasp the implications of the application.

This is not necessarily ED related. The journey of a letter/parcel is a long one.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where did you see that? The stuff on > marketability of premises relates to justifying > the need to convert the office space into > residential space: the proof the freeholder > submitted last time showing the office space > couldn't be rented was weak so they asked for more > substantive proof as well as cost benefit > analysis. I have not read everything in depth so > can you point me to where in the docs you've seen > that requirement as that would be very surprising? Have a look in the "planning statement" provided by Farcastle Group Ltd and in email correspondance - which I find rather contradictory. There are so many documents submitted this time round, a lot of it making rather hard reading, it would seem they mean business this time round although STILL they (M&S) are unable to provide accurate information and are missing details which were raised in objections the last time - simple things like lighting at the rear, security and actual impact on neighbouring property - only consideration has been given to the proposed residential space on the property itself. The drawings are not particularly accurate either. It would seem also that planning are keen for the application to be sucessful. For those that rejoiced and thought good of M&S to see the error of the application and therefore withdraw the initial application - it wasn't through consideration from M&S it was Victoria Lewis, Senior Planning Officer who, I quote "It may be advisable that you withdraw the application and resubmit at a later date, as this could result in a more positive response to the public consultation." (email from Victoria Lewis to Robert Battersby 15th August 2012).

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > London Mix, actually you are spot on, planning > have no interest in the brand of shop and this > will have no bearing on their decision on the > application. The only objections they will > consider and weigh in the balance, are to do with > the detail of the application. For these reasons I > would urge people to read the application and to > comment, having considered its implications. Although that doesn't seem to be strictly true... from the last application it was requested that M&S submitted further marketing information/strategies on the type of business they were and the plans for this particular outlet. There is now page upon page of nonesense within this application. Why would this info be requested?