first mate

Fly, I do agree that if dog owners can see a horse approaching they should have the courtesy to put it in a lead unless they know for sure the dog will not bark at or chase the horse. This can unsettle the horse and that, of course, might affect the rider. Some puppy owners do have the foresight to arrange a visit to a stable when the pup is young, so they get the opportunity to learn a bit about horses. However, for others, the very first time they see a horse is in the park with inevitable results. That said, Fly, I am sure you do not expect and did not mean to imply all dogs should be banned from the park.

James, so what was the reason for the decision not going to committee quickly enough? This is a long- running saga. I cannot imagine planning and councillors were unaware, especially since you and colleagues had asked for it to be called in. How can something like this fall between the crack? You were all caught out last time, it looks bad that something similar has happened again. Is this an 'accident' to spare blushes when the thing gets through, so everyone can say that although the application breaks planning policy and is dodgy around health and safety that it was taken out of your hands by glitches in process? It could almost be read that the application will get through by the back door, just like the last one did and perhaps that was always the plan?

Penguin68, I agree with you and that was the point of the question. I do not recall major changes to junctions, proposed road closures or 20mph on every arterial road possible, as headlining policies. On the other hand free swimming was......? It is my view that the speed and breadth of current change was not mandated and we should have been consulted. Cycling infrastructure is being built under the guidance of a Dutch expert; as many have said, London is not Amsterdam. Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whilst it is true that all parties go into > elections with a shopping list - often quite long > - it is more normal to implement without further > consultation only those that have figured as major > 'top line' policy commitments - i.e. those which > might be expected to have been a significant topic > of election debate. To go in with pages of > 'policy' and to act as if each and everyone one of > these has the full support of the electorate is > either naive or duplicitous. > > I did not gather from what little election > literature that I received that the labour party > was so anti-car (and indeed it would appear > anti-tree). > > The 20mph policy was one I did recognise (and, for > purely residential streets supported), but had > anticipated that it might have been implemented > with more thought and finesse. I did not > understand that it would be applied to all roads > that Southwark (rather than TfL) had 'control of' > without any further consideration. This is > particularly confusing for us living at the bottom > tip of Southwark, where any travel (on > non-residential roads, normally) tends to take you > quickly into neighbouring boroughs with different > policies on speed. > > The US allows (in their sort of 'local' elections) > for particular policy planks to be put forward > (outwith the wider election) as local referenda > which can be voted on individually. It appears > that the labour party may be treating their > individual local manifesto policies as if the more > general council election was indeed endorsing each > of these as if being individually voted on. > > Edited to say - I understood that labour was > pro-safety (20 mph) and pro-cycling - I had not > drawn from their literature, possibly because I > did not read it forensically, that they were > additionally hoping to drive out (sorry) cars and > car driving from the borough on top of improving > safety and encouraging cycling. Indeed, > considering the poverty of mass transit in SE > London, I had not worked out that the labour > preferred (and ideally only) means of future > transport would be cycling.

Do we know what proportion of those are Boris Bikes, or even folding bikes where part of the journey is by bus, train or car? The point being that useage within central London does not necessarily correlate with journeys into London- the latter being relevant to changes to infrastructure in ED.

I don't know, one made a brief appearance on here and was warmly welcomed, however his only comments were to crticise James Barber for taking too much credit for change in ED and some forum users for being anonymous snides.

Not wanting to get into a broad debate about the mechanisms of local politics but just to ask that if you voted in Labour at the last Council elections did you expect the sort and speed of change we are now experiencing in ED re 20 mph, closing roads, changes to junctions, roadworks everywhere, mass reduction of parking, an agenda to get you to use a bike? Did you expect to be further consulted before actions were taken or do you fully support the speed of change we are now experiencing and trust it will all turn out for the good?

Angelina, yes the car wash is unpopular and a real pain...it also uses one heck of a lot of water, as you'd expect, as well as seriously blocking the street with cars oarked up waiting for service ( often on yellow lines, but there is a 'close' relationship with parking wardens who are regular visitors). Thus far the car wash owner has been unwilling to sell, it is a prime spot after all. However, once the retail unit is up and running no doubt the owners can name their price.

Perhaps a general discussion about the parlous state of the planning system should have its own thread, but can we keep duscussion here to this specific site, there are serious issues around this. What is James Barber's view about the latest addition of this substation?

What a shame and how short- sighted. Is there a plan to uproot trees to make bicycle lanes, I wonder?

RobMiller, I doubt you are missing anything and I agree with your points. I'm afraid it seems to me that developers and building contracters snap their fingers and Southwark and our Councillors all fall into line. What is more, the builders on the site under discussion are a rude bunch, which makes a complete mockery of the back-patting proclaimations covering the hoardings stating how caring and 'touchy feely' they are. All empty rhetoric naturally; they could not give a toss. It Is all about the developer's bottom line and our local reps and govt give them free rein.

yes, I saw that. What the heck? They really are taking the p now but, no doubt, planning and Councillor hands will be tied by some bit of small print. On another note, I do wish those that thise that pass comment, dismissing objections, would at least try to look at the detail and history behind this series of applications. Again, there is a pair of huge metal bollards, over 6ft high one of which has been wrecked and bangd out of line by one of the old Iceland delivery trucks, because there has never been enough room for them to properly navigate the very small entrance. Note a resident had their wall wrecked, and another had the side of their car taken off by one of these large vehicles. There will now be more delivery vehicles, many more people using the site than before, and having reduced available space once they now intend to reduce it further by adding in a substation. A RIBA architect amongst others has signalled that there are major health and safety issues attached to earlier applications, let alone this one, yet what do Southwark and our Councillors do? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

Not road closure, that would be so unfair on the shops that try to make a living. Perhaps it is the case that the developers need to manage their works in a slightly different way so that materials etc.. can be stored on site. Work seems to have been arranged to speed the building process and this has meant storing materials and equipment off site. It just so happens that off site is the public highway. Again, are the developers paying a fee and do they have a licence for daily road obstruction, and are the shop owners being compensated? If not it seems there is one rule for developers and another for everyone else.

XIX, I second your request. I too want to know what has gone wrong in terms of process and where are the letters?

James, So does this mean the application can get through on a technicality, or that planning is now forced to make a decision immediately? When the application was called in was a date not set for the committee meeting at the time? If you are amazed this does not happen more often (that is non-determination appeals), that would suggest late or out of time decisions happen a lot, in which case jeaopardy re this application could surely have been forseen by someone within the planning framework/hierarchy? Are we going to get another our-hands-are-tied-by-process excuse?

Yes, but what happened to you calling it in? What happened to this being decided by planning Committee? Please don't let it be the case that Councillors and Planning have made yet another error of judgement that lets another undesirable application through on a technicality. James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi first mate, XIX, > If you've objected then your objections should be > transferred to the inspector as part of the appeal > paperwork.

Hoping James is along soon to explain what has happened.

I'm sure someone could do some clever calculations re loss to economy.

TG, Copenhagen is having issues with cycle congestion, apparently because cycling numbers have increased too fast in the last few years. This is not to be wholly negative but again highlights that large scale meddling to force change can be problematic.

Whaaaaat? This could be a great opportunity for a feasibility study as to whether we need to let any traffic through LL ...........ever.

It is in the S'wark cycling strategy doc 2015- a link was posted in an earlier thread. Goodness only knows what they are up to, but quite apart from the whole business of trying to force people out of cars a deeply cynical part of me wonders if they also want to place enough traffic pressure on residential roads that people start begging for CPZ; don't forget they are slowly reducing parking spaces. Don't forget also that we will soon have Harris and Charter and M&S. Whatever reassurances they give, these developments will bump up traffic and parking up. It seems from the Loughborough experiment that the Council have tried to cash in on deliberate creation of chaos by then fining, perhaps this is another aim....who knows. The thing that drives me mad is that there seems to be no coherent explanation/consultation or accountability. Instead, Councillors come on here to say what they want and no more or dismiss objectors as hysterical (the anti Melbourne Barrier campaign were accused of this by Councillors) and posters on here as "snides".

Remember the stated aim, and I quote, is to "design out" traffic on residential roads in 5 years and to remove parking on main roads within the same timeframe. So, by routing cars onto sidestreets I imagine they hope to make life as unpleasant as possible for car drivers and to turn residents against car drivers. This is the kind of imaginative, blue skies thinking we are paying our taxes for folks.

Do watch the space though- it will be resubmitted,I can guarantee. Serial resubmission is the developers MO as they chip, chip away getting a little more each time and they also wait for any technical hiccup where they can swoop in and catch planning off guard, securing game, set and match.

I noticed today rather large square bollard type things (hard to describe) at the junction of Melbourne Grove and ED Grove on both sides. They have also appeared on the junction of Glengarry Rd into ED Grove. What are these for???

James, On the M&S thread Mark T writes that the application for the penthouses has gone to appeal because the Council timed out in a reply. Allegedly a liad of appeal letters were sent round but at least two of us have not received them. The deadline to respond is 14th October. It would be extraordinary if yet again the Council had been caught out on a technicality as happened last time. Could you please find out what has gone on? I thought you said this was being called in and decided by a planning committee, what has gone wrong?

Mark T, I'm going to cross post to James thread. He said that the decision was to be called in but has never come back on what happened next.