first mate

No one is objecting to more housing, overdevelopment of a site is the point.

BemusED The application is not creating more housing. The building already has two flats on the second floor, though this is not apparent from the application, but I know it to be the case as I have been inside them. So there will be a change of use if the second level is now to be offices only. It is also arguable that new housing is not being created but simply moved to a new, higher level. Given that the last application only got through on an 'unforseen' technicality, despite significant and repeated local opposition, I think this looks like pure opportunism on the part of the developer. If you keep using the 'it's only one more level' approach we will end up with high rise ED. Perhaps you don't mind but many do. Your point about parking does not hold since the offices have been empty for many years, on that basis it is impossible to know what extra parking pressure would be created if they are used, or, as us the strong suspicion, the developer reverts to residential use for 8 flats, plus another two on top. Goose, you make a good point.

Thank you James. I hope this time a smidgen of reason and proportion can be injected into the planning process for this site, I also hope that the Council do not find their hands tied by process once again.

Of course it will and planning have just rolled over, with councillor' knowledge, and let it all happen. This developer clearly intend to squeeze every last drop of value (for them)out of the site, come what may...and, let's face it, who will stop them? Actually just tried to find this application and it came up non-existant, how odd. Did you look at it on the planning site today?

Sol, why is having the school in front of the park a big plus?

Tessmo, well said.

Tessmo, precisely. These consultations are not genuine. The decision has already been made and only an appearance of consultation is made, to meet statutory requirements. The process is overly complicated and not transparent and this gives councillors plenty of wiggle room. Yes, these people are voted in, partly on manifesto pledges, to represent us. But that does not give them carte blanche, there still has to be meaningful dialogue with voters, especially those who make the effort to be heard. In this sense the relationship has been abused. It is not democratic and trust is lost.

Yes, we have been told elsewhere by a former S'wark employee that it is claimed letters have been sent out when they haven't.

So that is that. Major changes effected with only the appearance of consultation, a seemingly corrupt process and our elected Councillors using that process as the reason why they cannot intervene on our behalf. We see the same approach in regard to introduction of 'free' parking (in reality the roll out of restricted parking) and 20mph. All foisted upon us, genuine objections ignored, inadequate consultation, Councillors use forum to give appearance of supporting local voters but always seem to fail at last hour, citing process.

My view is that Councillors representing us wanted this to go through but did not feel it politic to be upfront about it so used the getout of appearing sympathetic to local concerns while stating the process ties their hands. I remember the same tactic being used for the M&S debacle. What hope if those we voted in to fight our corner actually pursue a different agenda and one we are not necessarily aware of.

Errol, please do tell more.

Mockingbird, have you ever heard the term 'playing both ends against the middle'? It feels like we do not have a person who can represent and push very real local concerns.

James, you are the expert and have far more knowledge of the process than I. I have a hunch that you support the decision too. It is just that there seems to be a disjuncture between use of process to reach the 'valid' decision desired by councillors (for whatever reasons) and local feeling/objections. Who was it said that 'process is the politican's friend'.

james, will you and Rosie Shimmell be calling in the Townley Road decision?

Perhaps it needs an email to Mark Williams saying that many would like this called in, so can he tell us what to do? Is James Barber allowed to steer or is he now too busy with the national campaign? From what you say it does sound as though he could ask for it to be called in. If he doesn't I'd want to know why? Ditto for Rosie Shimmell. In short have they listened to local opposition. And are they representing us? I am now thinking that transparency of council process and consultation should be at the top of the next agenda for the next council elections.

James Barber will know.

Monkey, I'm afraid to say that this is driven by an anti-car agenda, just another way to force people onto bikes or buses. The irony is that, as ever, this will penalise poorer members of the community, as you say, those who do not have a front garden to convert into parking, or cannot afford to do so. Parking is also incrementally and quite deliberately being squeezed by schemes like one hour free parking where large swathes of unrestricted parking is converted to restricted, in the guise of doing us all a favour. 20 mph on A roads and bonkers schemes, like the "no right turn" on Townley, place further pressure on drivers and are meant to support cyclists. The final irony is the effect mass conversion to dropped kerbs might have on the environment...all that creation of hard standing is not great.

No you are not being cynical, the Labour Council have simply decided to go ahead against the wishes of the local electorate and they have used every trick in the book. Essentially, they know best. Building call-in around a holiday period shows the level of contempt Mark Williams has for those objecting.

I wonder how much notice the various surgeries get about inspection?

Tessmo that phrase should be remembered and used: "Southwark Labour, the Council that refuses to listen"

@Woodwarde, Well done to you. How can one possibly trust the process or those operating it, when these kinds of shenanigans come to light.

Isn't meddling with records in such a way corruption? Did you take a screenshot of the old report?

Yes, time to be optomostic but there is a little game that developers and planning seem to play where a couple of applications are refused, as few tweaks are made and we get to the point where planning say they dare not refuse since if the case is won at appeal they will have to foot the legal bills. This seems to be the way developers work the system time and time again.

PeckhamRose, Great post and this is why Southwark's badly planned and purely political initiative is so scandalous, it appears to be decreasing safety, not, as they suggest, making the roads more safe. If you are going to introduce 20mph you have to have the means to enforce it. The fact that the police rejected it as a stupid idea and one that would confuse motorists speaks vloumes about the competence of this Council.