first mate

A certain estate agent parks up to three large cars overnight on a residential street all the time. This is done because employees are not insured to take the cars to their homes and park them. Is this all above board. These cars are solely for business use.

Obviously very concerned that safety of children and pedestrians is protected at all times, however I do recall assurances that traffic would not increase as a result of the school since parents and children would walk, cycle or take public transport! If traffic has increased or us 'bound to increase' is this because the former assurances were empty and hopeful rather than realistic? Actually, editing this because I think you meant foot traffic, in which csse a lollipop person would make sense. Apologies for any misunderstanding.

My sincere condolences to the owners of this dog. As a rule it is unwise to let dogs drink from streams, ponds or puddles. I'd even go so far as saying don't let your dog splash around in park water, they can still ingest water while playing or afterwards when they lick their fur. Still water in particular carries a range of potentially dangerous micro-organisms.

The scenarios below do show a lack of joined up thinking. On the one hand we are advised we should not use technology in the street because it is a thief magnet, but transport companies are making it necessary by using phone apps for tiemtables. Another example is parking, where old coin operated boxes are replaced by phone-in with payment by credit card. JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > singalto Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > We are frequently told not to use phones in the > > street to avoid having them stolen. > > > But TFL is removing bus times as we can use our > phones > > Anyway no one will try it with me - too loud and > grumpy :) > > Edit: meaning I've never even had anyone try and > I'm always out maybe my (mis)demeanour > so I've made my own risk assessment

Just going back to the flats and offices issue and the chronology of the development. How is it that the developer was able so easily to do a u turn on the 8 flats proposal by re-applying to get work units instead? I had always thought change of use was a big thing? Additionally, there is a clear need for affordable housing and the developer had already argued for the first change of use from offices to get the application for 8 flats through? In short, the developer was allowed to flip flop between changes of use twice over. Please also note that at the time the second change of use from flats to work units was passed by planning, the second floor was inhabited by two families living in flats. How on earth did Southwark Planning miss that..we evict tenants to make way for offices for which the developer argued hard there is no demand?

Rch, Thanks for update. When you have a moment please do tell about further madness you have uncovered. BTW think you are right about the stalling. Is there any way to try to oush this through before devolution of powers?

I thought fitness trainers had to pay for a licence to operate in any if the S'wark parks?

If there are plans for a small supermarket of some kind by the station and a large one on Barry Road I would think indipendents selling food will be under a lot of pressure.

I think James might mean the servicing plan/agreement.

Quite.

Well you really don't have to read a thread unless you want to... Robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I live in hope that this isn't going to trigger > the usual nimby comments (lorry parking, customers > all over the place, noise of people walking in the > shop, people laughing, whistling after sundown > etc. etc.)! > > All accompanied with a healthy dose of faux > indignation - it's not like it used to be, its > only for the rich, its all in the worst possible > taste, it'll never succeed... what? they've sold > out already? that first week was a blip/their > stock management is woeful.. blah blah blah... > > I suppose the silver lining might be that at least > the M&S thread might go quiet for a while!

Penguin, let's not forget safety. You seem to think planning have not been incompetent but looked to the greater good?

LM, Look at the other MS thread and Sidhue's comments on servicing agreements etc.. Whilst it may not be an infraction of planning law per se, I suspect that conditions of the servicing agreement are not being met. So I get what James means, and although his wording may not be completely accurate it is still shoddy behaviour by the retailer. I cannot honestly believe that they have been oblivious to the whole planning saga attached to this site, or that they have only just 'discovered' the service entrance and area is not fit for purpose.

KK, Exactly the sort of thing I wish local councillors would investigate and try to iron out, of much greater service to the community than some of the other things that get attention. I don't want to make wild accusations but it would appear that planning are at the very least incompetent in the extreme.

Again, just so everyone is clear: The servicing area was massively reduced as part of the developer's multiple applications. In short, a whole car park was removed and built on. The retailers said they would want more deliveries extending delivery times, but using the same sized vehicles as Iceland. Somehow the developer managed to persuade Southwark Council that black was white and that the abve could be achieved with no adverse effects to residents. Quite how they managed that is up to the individual to conclude. As many if you know, residents repeatedly protested that the new applications were not workable or, indeed, safe. Please remember that one of the bollards at the service entrance was bent sideways, with large, visible red paint scrape marks. That 'evidence' has now been removed and replaced. However, at an earlier site inspection a planning offcer reported words to the effect that it was not provable that this damage had been caused by an Iceland lorry and so he chose to ignore this as a relevant factor in determining the suitability of the service entrance for even more deliveries in future. The wider community may be delighted with their M&S fodder but residents nearby warned planning that the service entrance was not feasible and were ignored in a way that beggars belief. Why would planning do that???

So how was the threshold from 10 to 11 units changed, by the appeal process or prior to that....confused?

LM, If I have understood, there were conditions of access to the service area, times, frequency, noise levels, which bits of road to use etc.. that were applied to the retailer, in this case M&S. It seems some of those conditions are not being adhered to.

James, I'd have thought the history of this development would have prepared you for yet more shoddy behaviour.

Ed. I am not sure, but cannot remember frequency of delivery spec, only timeframe.

BB! Surprise, surprise. Yesterday a delivery vehicle was parked up on the road and path and unloading. He did not attempt to get into the very reduced service entrance. If this is regular it will have a negative effect.

I'm afraid issues with this development and site affecting local residents are still very much alive. M&S vehicles unable to access service entrance and so parking up on street to unload, being just one. This is the new, very much reduced entrance that anyone with an ounce of common sense would have seen was not big enough for a development of this size, let alone one for a supermarket.

James, This was the site inspection/visit by the Planning Inspectorate to determine the appeal on the fourth floor penthouses going ahead. Apparently the Inspector and developer turned up but S'wark Planning did not.

We'll see.

Jeremy, don't know if you have been inside but this place seems to offer rather more than items for an occasional meal. I would say they are offer enough to occasion a weekly shop for small families. There is also a very large food storage area at the back. I never envisaged something this size. I would be simply amazed if people do not drive here to do weekly shops.

I doubt this is accidental. My guess is this was always the plan and the Developer is banking on the fact that the current local infatuation with M&S will stop planning enforcing policy and interfering with the build. They will then apply for retrospective permission and the very greedy developer wins again. How sad that local warnings about the scale and design of this build were not heeded and are only 'discovered' when it is almost too late. It is alleged that at the appeal for the fourth floor penthouses that S'wark Planning did a no show. James Barber do you know if that is true and if so why?