first mate

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.

No appeal letter here...strange. James Barber, are you aware if the appeal ?

TG great, we sort of agree on what I see as the main issue which is lack of consultation. We have an intelligent population why not have the debate properly? Instead people, myself included, are reduced to ranting on the forum because there is little faith in our elected reps to properly listen and represent us when it counts. James appears to support the wilder fringes of those proposing the agenda and there seems little to choose between his take and S'wark Labour, and Charlie Smith who came on here for, I think, only the second time ever, sounded like his mind was already made up and that he would not be listening to those (presumably like me) who "snide" anonymously on the forum. So that's it, loads of objectors dismissed, jus' like that! What to do?

TG, In fairness to TheCat I think she was referring to this particular locale. However, what I find interesting is the wider trend, presumably well under way before the mass meddling began. The issue is that attempts are being made to wildly force stuff through and without proper consultation, therefore it feels experimental. I just want to see the agenda slowed down, let's stand back and see what impact a few changes have, let's consult properly and that way we reduce stress all round whilst, we hope, heading for a better infrastructure that works all round.

I do accept we need to be mindful of that extreme, but change is good if the pace is moderate and considered.

Yes, they have made incremental changes to infrastructure, a ban on high capacity toilet flushes being the most relevant comparison but they have not recommended that within 5 years all flat owners will have to share loos and showers and all homeowners should rip out any bathrooms and replace them with time-limited shower units - that is more like the set of current proposals. Too much, too soon. wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @first mate - no, but they did just spend > ?millions, dig up the park for the best part of a > year, permanently rearrange the playground, and > indeed closed some roads (albeit temporarily) to > reduce the impact of rainwater drainage on the > sewer system. Be thankful you don't live or work > near a Thames Tideway Tunnel site. > > They've already banned high-capacity toilet flush > units some years ago - the maximum now is 6 > litres, less than half the standard a few years > ago. Fortunately, better modern engineering means > they're still reasonably.. effective.