first mate

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi first mate, > The junction of Lordship Lane with North Cross > Road is not reducing parking. The parking place > just before the bus stop there - that meant buses > couldn't get near the pavement reliably I'm told > are being relocated by changing other lines. > Not sure how that see's a dramatic reduction in > parking across the shop? > > M&S will put significantly more pressure on the > area. Not much we can do about that now - we > objected to the planning permission on the basis > of parking but they got their planning > permission. > > Harris school would tend to put pressure on an > area that I've never had casework about parking > stress. Doesn't guarantee anything but it gives me > hope abut that building not causing parking > problems. James, So you seem to agree that that M&S will increase parking. How do you think closing Melbourne to traffic plus increased pressure on Chesterfield and other streets around Melbourne Grove will play out? Do remember also the holdups caused daily by the car wash and retail delivery juggernauts (soon to be stepped up under M&S)? Hard to see how a massive building project like Harris will not impact on both traffic and parking, given say the current ridiculous situation on Upland Road, where large sections of the pavement have been taken over by builders. Surely this new building project will be even larger? I know you want to support local residents on Melbourne but you represent all of us locals so I am interested to know how you see the big picture developing re traffic management across the area, as well as parking?

What is odder is that our local councillor supports this, knowing, one imagines, the inevitable knock on effect on surrounding streets- what then, more road closures?

Agree this is a put up job. As a local I find it odd that such an expensive and suddenly high profile project has been so low profile until now. I recall when certain councillors were keen to drive through CPZ they made much of it all being about providing support to a local street and residents, claiming no other agenda, they were simply doing what the residents wanted. This current scheme just seems a new chapter in the wider agenda to get cars out of ED and force us to use bikes, by whatever means. Again; Townley, introduction of restricted parking throughout ED, building out pavements on Lordship Lane, talk of closing off streets, all at a time when three major developments have been given the thumbs up. Councillors that fought hard for CPZ and lost will seize these new opportunities to increase pressure on car users and in this, they are seemingly at one with Southwark Labour.

There seem to be some major designs on road and traffic management in ED that being wrought in a rather piecemeal but I think very deliberate manner. I see the building out of the pavement next to N x has started. We are going to have significantly reduced parking all over the shop. Once Harris and M&S builds are underway, the Townley road fiasco installed and Melbourne Grove shut to traffic, can we really believe that life will get better....if you ride a bike possibly, but for the majority of transport users things are about to get worse, a lot worse. Is there a way to view the Melbourne list of signatures?

LM, I don't know to what extent other schools use the park and whether that useage is also an alternative to playing fields or in addition to. My point is simple, if the park starts to be used as a school playing field it will change the park long term. I assume that those in favour of Harris would have known all along that the playing fields were off site, that was what was agreed. Why was the school allowed to go ahead on that basis...unless it was always considered that at some point a claim could be made to the Rye. The difference is that both Harris' are adjacent to the Rye, in prime position, so to speak.

Just wanted to add to the above that politicians/ councils showed an incredible lack of foresight in selling off school playing fields. We need to be really careful that local parks do not become the solution to that mistake thereby losing another amenity valued and used by all the community. If parks end up being playing fields they will change, there will doubtless have to be restrictions on other users for health and safety reasons etc.. I can understand parental concerns and see that the suggested usage would be politically expedient for councillors under pressure from powerful parent lobbies, but why was Harris allowed to build a school without adequate play space? There was always a suspicion that sooner or later there would be parental pressure to use the park and the proximity of Harris to the park suggests this may have been a long game, especially when quid pro quos to do with park funding and upkeep are mentioned by councillors. Lack of play space was an issue raised at the time and pretty much ignored by the pro Harris lobby. Just think it could be thin end of the wedge. Fully expect to be shot down in flames, called a nimby, anti child, narrow minded, anti change etc..

I think one concern has always been that given the proximity of two Harris Academies to PR Park that creeping use of the park might mean it does become a school playground extension and that could have an effect on the character if the park as well as other park users. For instance for how much of each day and by what percentage of land would the park be used for school children? Clearly all children can use the park out of school time. It may be an unpopular view but I do see that longterm there could be problems with this. There may also eventually be problems if Harris start to pay for upkeep of the Rye. I think if other schools are using the Rye then Harris should be allowed to do the same to the same degree but not more.

Bermygirl, the primary objection is not to M&S. Some people would have preferred Iceland to stay but I don't think anyone is losing sleep over it. The issues are with the scale and density of the development above the retail space. There are also real and valid concerns about increased delivery times by extremely large vehicles, less turning space/ access and safety re the last point. If you visit the site and view the damaged bollard that sits at the entrance, you will have a better understanding about those concerns.

TJ, i think the nimby charge is a little easy and lazy. The objections are generally considered and based on detail in the application, not wholesale rejection of more housing or indeed applications, because we want to keep our local 'yard' exactly the same, preserved in aspic. I think we need to wise up to the general developer MO and I apologise now to the decent/ ethical developers out there. The issue is balance and proportion and since views on that will differ it is worth the debate and scrutiny, before it's too late. We regularly see developers playing the planners, and doing all they can to maximise space for profit, simultaneously avoiding any responsibility to the community in terms of social housing...Heygate a relatively local case in point. Some will argue that developers have every right in a free market to pursue pure profit, others that reasonable profit must be balanced with ethical considerations. If the local community does not fight for the interests of its local area then who will, the developers, the planners?

If the dog is a PB or PB cross it is illegal, if the man is making threats that indicate he might use the dog to harm someone I would think this was an arrestable offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act or other legislation. The dog should be confiscated and, if not a PB and of sound temperament, rehomed. If it really is PB or cross it may well be put down. Lee how very frightening for you and for this man's child. It sounds like he has serious substance abuse/ mental health issues. The most vulnerable people are probably those walking a dog, so thank you for the heads up. Have you reported this to the SNT? I really would if you can. I think it is other dogs that are most likely to get attacked. A dog in Herne Hill was attacked and killed by a PB type dog earlier in the year, on the street by the overground station.

Oooooh, now I feel torn. I want you to be right about this but the prospect of public hat eating makes that tricky...and I sense you are a man of your word. Any chance of an advance pic of hat, just in case?

Worldwiser, those objections were made and some upheld but then the developers out maneouvered the council planning dept and got the penultimate application ( inlcuding for the 8 residences)upheld.Those in know see that there are real H&S risks re transport, deliveries and so on. As LM infers, that horse bolted long and the developers are clearly going to be relentless in asking for more and more and seems to have little regard for the impact.

I believe it improves drainage, allowing surface water to dissipate, so it helps for sports etc..

I hope all those banging the housing drum, especially social housing, will wake up and smell the coffee.

Otta, we've got them on the edge of Camberwell...not so far. I think half the height of the picture you posted would be too high, but that's me. I agree the views are great if you get a top floor. The shadow cast all around it is another matter. James, thanks for coming back on this and shedding light (arf arf) on the matter

LM, so the fact that the developer was given permission to build 8 flats but chose to dump that application, chaging flats for offices and a further 4th storey for two penthouses on top, should be of concern? I'm still wondering if James has any news on this?????

Go Chazzle!

It is not the school I object to at all, it's the combination of two buildings ( Harris and proposed M&S) being made taller than they were in close proximity and therefore setting precedent for taller still. The focus should be on the M&S development not Harris. If we believe housing is vital then question hard what they are doing with that development. Just to be clear, M&S is just shorthand for the site...any objection has nothing to do with the retail brand.

Well let's wait and see, I do really hope that you, Healey and Otta are right and I am wrong.

Yup along with the fox ,rat and bird poo and urine.

Would ten stories high be okay then? A useful link here http://www.theguardian.com/cities/series/london-skyline-debate

I agree the newer version of Harris is better than the old , save that it is bigger. This is not about ED being special but that buildings are proportionate and as aesthetically pleasing as they can be. I would not want to see tower blocks in ED, the character of the place would change beyond measure; but you are right, the argument about endless need for more and more housing is a useful peg for both councillors and developers to drive ever taller buildings through.

Jeremy, I know, you and I already have a history of disagreement on this issue, but tell me, is their a height you would object to or are you happy for builds to slowly creep up in height generally in the area? I think I already know the answer but thought I'd ask. The most recent version of Harris is taller than the last, you can see that from the drawings.

Mark T, Yes, so allowing 4 storeys will change that by setting precedent. The door will then be open for tower blocks and this is not as far fetched as it might sound, for one it can solve the headache of providing housing. Once local building height has been raised a few storeys in a few cases it is easy for developers to further exploit this. This may also serve the purposes of councillors who can state, as they have done in past applications which breach planning law, that the financial risk of objection and appeal is too great and so all and any developments go through. Of course, everyone will argue well we must have a school of decent size etc.. that must come first but, again, is there an attempt to squeeze too much into the available space? In terms of the current M$S proposal.. What is the pressing need for four storeys, other than lining the developer's pockets? An application for retail space and 8 residences had already been ok'd, so why the need for yet another storey atop a building that is only 3? If it really were only ever going to be limited to these two buildings it might be bearable, but it won't and next it'll be a five storey building, then more.

Otta, some gargoyles would be fun and a change from the bland, unimaginative boxes currently on offer. That said, it is the height that concerns me. As a one off it's okay, but along with the m&s proposal that sets a precedent for more of the same.