first mate

Thanks Abe, have had a look and posted comments on the M&S site. I am baffled that James appears to have absented himself from recent discussions. He knows how concerned locals are and, note, it was he that first introduced the mammoth M&S thread where he was very involved. It is more puzzling that he has found time to comment on the proposed re-routing of roads in Bellenden, outside his ward, criticising local Councillors for staying quiet on the subject.

Abe this submission is totally disingenuous. Key factors: density, conflict between servicing vehicles and resident/pedestrians, parking, are all considered mitigated because the submission at this stage is for two floors of offices with two further residences on a fourth storey. But it is crystal clear that once the penthouses are built that an earlier submission, granted by planning, to convert the 8 offices to residences will be activated thereby re-instituting all the earlier conflicts which planning would object to were a submission made for 10 residences now, and that is without including the further but important issue of affordable housing. I see that the planning say that if and when this happens they will seek some sort of legal constraints but do not state what these are. It is difficult to know what these might be and how they will help since once all 10 flats are up an running the damage will be done and it will be irrevocable. I can well imagine planning may seek some kind of financial redress/ fine which they will cali. As salve for the community but will not help those directly impacted by this over developed site.

LM, no that was about ensuring that daily deliveries do not begin too early in order that people are not woken at an unreasonable time. Deliveries will take place at various points of the day. Because the shop is much bigger than Iceland there will be much more produce to deliver. It is reasonable to expect there will be more deliveries.

Edhistory, oh it's all okay, the computer tracking proves it, somehow those lorries, the same that smashed the bollard to one side, will be able to easily and safely get in and out of the considerably smaller space. Planning magic.

F71, you may be right but that will cause a heck of a lot of holdups on the Lane as there will be lots and lots of deliveries. Poor people using buses as primary form of transport at rush hour. Imagine too if part of Melbourne is closed off to traffic...the mind boggles.

Mark T, thank you for your helpful and insightful post.

Cl thank you and Jeremy, Mark T and KK have laid out the issues in regard to planning and process and James Barber seems to have disappeared. There is a relationship between increase in traffic, space for vehicles to reverse out etc.. and increase in residential units that will share the same entrance/service area. Those residents and perhaps their children will also have to get in and out of their homes. Seriously, what with the car wash too, there will be so much going on within an inadequate (extremely reduced delivery space) that there are real safety concerns. One of the more knowledgeable objectors, a RIBA architect, has raised this over and over again, but it falls on deaf ears. Owners of those same ears choose to ignore reasons for the seriously damaged bollard at the delivery/service entrance (which will be shared with the flat owners). Planning claimed that it could not conclusively be proved that the damage was caused by a delivery vehicle. Go and have a look and make up your own mind. The bollard is huge, the large scrape marks on the side (Iceland delivery vehicle red)seem pretty conclusive to anyone with an ounce of common sense. Of course parking pressure on all the surrounding roads will be massive. We've got up to 10 new dwellings, a larger store than envisaged, two new schools opening very close by and a very busy car wash that likes to park customer cars up and down the street outside. I doubt all the new residents or parents getting kids to school, will be cycling. The Council wanted CPZ and that is probably what will happen...it was always a long game. Mark T I guess if there are enough 5 storey builds of the type Fazer cherishes then perhaps the designation can simply be changed to urban anyhow..? I forget what the criteria are but once there are enough up then anything goes, I guess.

I assume those commenting in favour have seen the scale of the development in person ( you need to see the back) bearing in mind those 8 offices on the lower floors will also become flats? It is not just about height it is the overall scale of the development.Yes we need more housing but it has to be proportionate. Please note that the entrance has a very large bollard displaced by an Iceland delivery vehicle, indicating that there is not enough room to manouevre. What space there was has been further reduced by the massively increased footprint of the build. We are now piling in many more residents into this reduced area...Those who really know the site are genuinely concerned about safety. Deliveries will now be stepped up, plus there are plans to reduce trading limits for Sundays. The road and area around these proposed flats is going to be very, very busy. LM, James himself has commented on the classic salami tactics of this developer. All those offices will eventually become flats and then they want the penthouses on top. Please remember that an earlier application for 8 flats instead of offices was made on the basis that there was no call for offices. Those offices have been unused for many years, because there has been no market for them. For those who choose to frame the objections to this latest phase of the development as mere nimby/ anti progress/ fuddy duddyism, please think again.

James, can you comment on the latest info on the M&S build ( see Mark T's post below)? Were you aware of these latest developments and will you in any way be involved in the decision making process? Yesterday I received notification from the Director of Planning, Southwark Council, that Application 15/AP/2221 is to be decided by Planning Sub-Committee B next Tuesday 8th March. That?s the application to add a 4th floor comprising 2 flats with use of 2nd and 3rd floor as offices. The Officer?s Report is not available yet, but the Director writes that he is recommending it for approval. I checked today with the HM Planning Inspectorate who confirmed that the Appeal hearing against the non-determination of that same application ? Ref APP/A5840/W/3065783 ? is set for 10th May with a deadline for comment 23rd March. MarkT

Unbelievable. The current building footprint at ground level is massive. A fourth storey would be overdevelopment. What is planning thinking? Where is James Barber, he has gone very quiet on this despite repeated requests to comment.

Bels, thanks for the heads up about this online survey. I had no idea of its existence. I wonder how many other locals know about it?

KK, TBH the whole thing is so convoluted and complicated that it is hard to know what is what, but no I did not get that letter. Are you any the wiser about the fourth storey?

James, good to see you are back answering questions. Any news on the 4th storey M&S?

Hi James, nearly a month gone by and still no news on the fourth storey atop the M&S build. Have there been any developments (no pun intended).

Lee, thank you for writing this very moving piece and letting us know.

rahrahrah, I have never excused it, quite the contrary. However, I also happen to find broken glass pretty obnoxious too and wonder about the mentality of someone that leaves either dog dumps or broken glass in public areas for others to walk into. Jamesb, well it'll be interesting to see how this works and how well it works. I'm in favour of the principle of owner registration in the hope it leads to more reaponsibe dog ownership, but my hunch is that those who do not give toss and are happy to leave their dog's dumps around the neighbourhood will be hard to pin down.

Oh crikey yes, forgot that one, and human variety plentiful at various points...poor you and poor toddler. Yuk.

It is a pain I agree. I am also fed up with having to dodge scattered broken glass, so dangerous for toddler feet as well as dogs paws, and don't get me started on the increasing scourge of chewing gum that is littering and disfiguring pavements, especially the area around Northcross Road. My other big beef is discarded chicken bones and cakes like chocolate brownies ( either, potentially life threatening, can land a dog in the vet with extremely expensive bills). What can be done about all these anti social, and in many cases health threatening, littering habits?

James, I had thought you were broadly in favour of the whole development bar the fourth storey? If this is not the case, and I am not aware of your many official objections, I apologise. That said, accurate and timely information on the fourth storey would be most welcome, not least if it is to go through, as the current structures seem to suggest. Is this also going to amount to a planning time out and also go through on a technicality? So we do, by your account, have a planning dept that is not fit for purpose. Unable to meet deadlines and insufficient staff to undertake enforcement. No wonder developers are getting carte blanche. I don't think it helps though to, again, make it a party political point. It may help you somewhere along the line, but it doesn't help local residents.

Anna D, It would probably be most constructive all round if you took this to the practice manager who is best placed to have a word with the relevant staff member/s and you can discuss your experience in confidence. Sometimes under pressure things like people skills can slide. I agree though, that aspect is vital in a job like GP reception. Perhaps some staff members need a bit more training or just a reminder about professionalism at all times.

James, the application by the developer to get their fourth storey penthouses is currently being looked at so it is a current concern for those living next to it, though I know you welcome the development. Again, is it not faintly shocking that the developer just goes ahead and puts in part of the structure before the decision is even in? The building itself is also as ugly as can be. I also gather that the proposed substation, to be sited outside, should legally be inside the new build. What a farce.

James, thanks and I look forward to hearing your feedback on the state of play re the M&S 4 storeys structure after the weekend. The hope is what is there will have to come down.

DaveR, oh dear.