first mate

Post removed as inaccurate.

Like Ed History, I'm keen to know who was on the planning cttee, which wards they rep and which way they voted.

Robbin, Objections were not against M&S but overdevelopment of the site by the developers in breach of Southwark Planning policy, attendant health and safety issues, and apparent attempts by developers to circumvent affordable housing quotas. The brand is a red herring.

rch, A helpful and informative post, thanks. If CS did object to this it shows he is prepared to put local interests before what might be a party line and that takes guts.

Charlie, It sounds like you objected. If so, thank you. If all the local Councillors of whatever party objected it feels worrying that those considered views could so easily be overridden by the opinions of those who do not know the area as well. As requested earlier, can we have the names of those attending and who voted for what?

P68, I don't think the majority of objectors were against change, it has always been about degree. Those closest will inevitably note the downsides, those further away are more likely to see the benefits and dismiss the former as a sort of collateral damage, and the latter will almost always be the majority view. Yes, for most people having a convenient liquor and fast food store, open 7am 'till 12pm every day of the week, will certainly be seen as handy. There will always be customers for that. For those close by increased deliveries/ opening hours may impact on sleep etc.. presumably the rationale for earlier conditions. But hey,as you suggest, for the greater good.

James, how likely do you think it is the proposed licensing application will also be nodded through, because this would completely undermine earlier agreements with M&S about trading hours.

James, Many thanks to you and the other councillors who attended snd objected. It is now clear that the whole system is a farce when, as you say, the Council's own planning policy is consistently ignored. Developers rule. Someone attached to that site commented to me that part of the problem was the planning officers did not have the "bxxxs" to make a decision. Given your comments about planning committees appearing to be 'whipped' by the ruling party, that comment has a new layer of meaning.

So not just developers playing with the system but M&S too.

Many thanks James and I hope your objection/s prevail. You will now how massive this build is now. It is so much bigger than any of us imagined. Many of us feel this is an accident waiting to happen in terms of cramming in residents on top of servicing vehicles. Best of luck and please let us know the outcome. Mark T, who clearly knows his stuff, makes excellent points in particular a pattern of events and interpretation of policy across a number of unpopular applications. These things are being noted and it does smack of a degree of collusion between developers and planning.

Rch, Unfortunately I would be unable to attend but if Mark T and another were able and willing that would be fantastic.

Fazer, one man's meat as they say. As someone wrote: " the drone of flying engines is a song so wild and blue, it scrambles time and seasons if it gets through to you...."

The problem with that is that planning policy may get stretched and ignored by some unscrupulous builders/neighbours. Once this happens planning are generally reluctant to apply and enforce their own policies, so in that sense at least I think it is only sensible to pay attention to what plans your neighbours have for building work and, yes, to talk to them about it, to stay positive but to be sure you protect yourself by finding out as much as you can and getting expert advice. In my view this poster is sensibly seeking advice and trying to protect their own interests. Nothing wrong with that at all.

If any of you object then please make sure you fill out the online form, it is really short. However, do be aware that there is a biased, trip trap question that should be queried and that is about effectiveness of speed humps. RCH, I really hope you are onto all of this and somehow involved.

Disagree Fazer, not visible if standing right next to building but very apparent if a little further away. Anyhow, all conjecture until decision is in.

Sue, yes it is amazing how far radio noise and builder shouting travels, especially when doing loft work.

I think the point about builders offering to tidy up properly, wash the neighbours windows, clean out guttering (which can get blocked after loads of building work) and not being too loud and shouty on site, can all help reduce the negative impact for the neighbour living next door to major building works.

Yes, accept all your points and indeed James is not our only Councillor, but he is the only one that uses the forum on a regular basis. I have no personal beef with James at all, there are times he comes up trumps. However, this particular issue is frustrating when important decisions are imminent and James has expressed reservations about the fourth storey and the developer's 'salami slicing' tactics. I am not aware of other Councillors commenting on it at all. Still, I will as you suggest,cut him some slack.

Rahrahrah, Well I am no expert but have watched the progress of this thing over the years and am quite dumbfounded. Again I would ask anyone who doubts what I say to visit the back of this development to see just how large it is already, without a further storey.

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.