first mate

James, I don't have any paperwork at all. I just wnat to know whether you agreed to extending double yellows on Chesterfield or not....perhaps you never answered. The person who replied to your recent email on consolidation Orders, and who stated in that email the date you were consulted, will know the answer whatever it was, perhaps you could simply ask them? I want to know because I am not clear why double yellows were suddenly extended on Chesterrfield, there must have been a good reason for this or was it just done because someone somewhere thought it would be a good idea?

Fazer71, You need to be across the detail of this particular application. It is overdevelopment in terms of current planning policy. I do not feel that developers should be supported in flouting policy, there have to be checks and balances. You argue for more housing so why not support the earlier application for 8 residences above the retail outlet, which was passed and could be built right now, offering homes to 8 families very soon? The developer has instead chosen to drop that to greedily pursue a probably lenghty process of getting another floor again for two penthouses with two floors under for offices. It will then reapply once the penthouses are built to try to get the offices converted back to flats, they would figure it is worth a punt and if they fail they have not lost. So, if you are justifying the build on the basis that we need more housing it does not add up at all. It is also spectacularly disingenuous of the developer to try to shove through the new application for offices and two penthouses when it argued hard for the last applications for 8 falts on the office floors on the basis that there was no demand for offices in the area. There is also the real issue of health and safety with this particular site. i cannot be bothered to go into it all again, but if you research the detail and history you will see that there are real and valid concerns. The Developer is trying to squeeze too much into the site. Finally, I find it disconcerting that retail outlets like M&S are apparently hand in glove with these sorts of shenanigans. It seems that behind every over developed site you find the footprint of a suoermarket giant.

Rch, Thanks for the feedback and thanks for representing our interests, yet again. In terms of what you say I'd note that were James Barber minded, this is where he could really make a difference. Those local Councillors who are Labour will probably not have the guts to set themselves against the Tooley St agenda for S'wark, but James and his colleague could be more independent and speak out for what you term the Dulwich parameters. It takes a big person to really listen and change accordingly, I still hope James can do this. I like your idea for the Dulwich Society and look forward to hearing more.

James, I agree, building penthouses while neatly avoiding any social housing is an abuse of the system. Developers should not be allowed to get away with this. It would also be overdevelopment of the site and there are associated health and safety risks with that. These have been repeatedly flagged up by knowledgable residents but the Developer seems much more worried about any risk to maximum profit to be squeezed out of this small oarcel of prime land. Planning is toothless and always seems to " have its hands tied" in ine way or another. James, There may not have been planning permission for the two flats that existed on the upper floor of the old build, when it was still Iceland, but those flats were inhabited and fully functioning for many years. Does this not create some kind of precedent in terms of the existing application which lists those floors as for office use?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi ZT, > You've poo poo'd wulfhound. > So what do you think the answer it sot rising > obesity and the associated ill health epidemic, > global warming and need to reduce CO2 emissions by > 90%? > > Hi first mate, > We've heard that 43% of residents have access to a > car. So 57% don't. James, hard to say what those figures mean. Is this for S'wark or ED alone? What are the demographics for each group and how large was the sample? Those who are fit and healthy may choose not to have access to a car, ED has a lot of young, healthy affluent people. Clearly people can already cycle or they would not do so, despite all the issues. Cycling is not the only way children can get to school- walking works and is a healthy alternative too. I support improving cycling for those who can but it has to be balanced against the needs of those who cannot or are unable to. The balance should not be sharply tipped one way, which seems to be what is being proposed by some. Slow, careful change is not as sexy or headlining grabbing as radical agendas, but probably more sensible, in the long term. Re obesity, yes exercise is important, but just as important is diet. Ready meals (even the M&S type) processed foods too high in sugar and salt are at least as much to blame. I just hate when complex issues are made black and white for political gain. Anyhow, walking is great exercise, something humans are designed to do, requiring zero mechanics and probably safer too. Children that walked to school would get great exercise.

AbDabs, yes I share your cynicism. I still cannot understand how plans for offices with penthouses atop could be even be countenanced since the 'office space' has until demolition been used a residences. They would surely have to apply for change of use? In addition, much was made in earlier applications that there was no call for office space and great demand for more flats/ housing so to then apply to build mainly office space looks utterly perverse.

Hmmm so lesson obviously not learnt.

Wonderful if you are fit, healthy and able to cycle in all weathers; for those people life would be much better, but for everyone else? What if you cannot cycle or if for it simply is not practical to do this on a regular basis? Is it reasonable or equable to suggest your life is made a misery for two years in order to fulfil an experimental vision that may or may not work for only one sector of the population?

James, forgive me if I am being utterly thick but if no planning permission has been given how come there is a yellow note stuck on a post outside Iceland and more to the point, are you aware that building work on that site is going great guns as I write? Perhaps it is only demolition and perhaps no permissions are required for this? Could you please clarify? Additionally, still no answer from you about Chesterfield double yellows. I've lost count of how often I have asked you about this now, on a variety of threads too.

If our local Councillor is unable or unwilling to comment on the current building work on the old Iceland site ( going ahead at breakneck speed) is there anyone else who is able to say what is going on? Is it known if a fourth floor( cunningly called a 3 rd floor in the plans) is going ahead? Have the developers been allowed to go with the other two floors as offices? From what I can glean on S'wark planning site, this appears to be the case and would indicate that the developers have, yet again, been allowed to do pretty much as they please. It is noteworthy to see the incredible speed at which this work is going ahead, compared with say Nx or Townley. Anyone would think the developers had some deadline they were trying to beat?

James, the whole back of the old Iceland building has now been ripped out. Workers heard at 6.15 am today. What is happening on this site? Were the last plans for the penthouses and a 4th floor passed after you called them in? I have asked you about this recently too and you have not replied.

.

ZT, i think we both know the answer to that. The rather crude attempts to undermine RCH make her even more credible and trustworthy, in stark opposition to the official reps.

James, Because those of us, that is over 300, who do not agree with that decision and feel that decisions are being made without proper consultation, feel it necessary to express our dissatisfaction at a process that is not working for the community. A decision may have been made on 24th but this does not make it the right decision, nor does it mean that the process by which that decision was made is right either. The second deputation was much larger, does this not mean anything?

Rch, You and those who have organised the majority deputation/ petition have a lot of local support. It is simply common sense. More than anything, we need someone who understands the process and who can be trusted to represent the majority- think of yourself as our unofficial councillor elect.

Rch, Worry not, it is pretty clear what is going on. The remark about you "adjusting" was patronising to say the least.

Hi James, My response was not about Robin, more a realisation that whatever agenda you and. Labour have for the roads around here is going to be pushed through one way or another and that a majority petition request that traffic etc be looked at as a whole around ED has been more or less ignored by you and other councillors on the DCC. The feasibility study will, it seems, focus just on MG. I am also disappointed to hear that majority view typified by DCC councillors as "hysterical". That is what I meant by democracy is dead in ED. By the way, you still haven't answered my question about whether you were in favour of increased lengths of double yellows on Chesterfield when consulted on the matter by Southwark Council. As our/ my local rep I think you should tell me what your decision was.

James, Have you remembered your decision about double yellows on Chesterfield yet? I have given you all the information you need to find out, including an email from a council officer stating the date you were consulted. Your decision will also be on record.

I am really now understanding what RCH meant when she suggested democracy was dead in ED. It is now crystal clear that James and his Labour buddies cannot be trusted to listen or to learn. I also agree about use of the word "hysterical" to characterise the majority view...most revealing.

The only sensible thing is to look at the whole area of ED, not just one road. If perception is being used by Cllrs as a decision making tool then we should be clear that perceived levels of speeding on Melbourne are no different from many other streets. Are we going to block every street in ED? In my view perception is hardly grounds to spends large amounts of tax payers money. Facts are what we need, hard facts. Descriptions of the DCC, councillors attending and their MO leave a very bad taste in the mouth.

I tend to think that those who get deeply addicted to the game of politics are often the last people you want steering major decisions, however those types are generally very good at the game- they have a game playing mentality.

Robin, please name and shame that councillor or perhaps someone else can do it. Thank you for trying to represent the wider majority view and please keep at it. Have you ever thought about standing as an independent? You'd get my vote. It is also good to know that councillors read the forum; all the more reason to keep using this as a primary means of communication to get things done for the community.

Yes, M$S fine, no quibble with that but the proposal to add another story plonk a penthouse on top is somewhat different, if as many if us suspect, the aim is to avoid a social housing quota. James Barber had said the last application would be called in and so. I am wondering if this has happened or what the latest is?

There has been a lot of very noisy activity on the old Iceland site today. Does anyone know what happened with the penthouse application? The people living in the flats must have gone, but it should be noted that those floors cannot be used as office space as they have been inhabited for the last few years.

I just wondered if there was any further news on a completion date for this work? ....anyone?