first mate

So, on that basis, you have to wonder what the real agenda driving this is? Sometimes it feels like there is this overarching vision for ED that is held in the brains of certain Councillors, which is not shared with voters, but where that vision is achieved piecemeal by driving through changes by whatever means possible. Sorry if I sound deeply cynical.

Mustard for those of us that own pets and have seen the effects that impromptu banger fests can have, there is, be assured, real sympathy for you.

James, who says it looks a mess? If you were the person that asked for these works to be done you would have known that safety was a marginal issue yet at first you offered this as justification along with the aesthetic point.

I may be way off but I wonder if this has anything to do with the proposed M&S and flats above and possible planning conditions- remember how there was all that stuff about no pressure on parking because everyone will walk or come on bikes/ public transport? Hard to know why a sudden need for all this investment at LL/Nx.

Thus would make a great news piece, eager journos need to get out and investigate re the recent scandal about corruption in housing depts.

Kiera, Nail on head. And all kinds if alterations are being planned for the junction of nx/LL, without any pressing reason.

Poor lad. Some animals are simply more prone to developing noise fears- probably a genetic thing. Yes, think something stronger indicated.

Yes, but why now and why here in particular? Slowing down cars will also slow down buses and not everyone wants or is able to get on bike. I don't feel narrowing a main road is necessarily a good thing either

Just checked crash map and only one serious incident in last 9 years at that location, and no incidents since 2008. The map also shows, as you say James, many other streets close by with similar problems or worse, so safety is not the real reason I guess. Have their been complaints about the quality of experience at the junction for market goers?

James where is this website and who runs it. Since you have seen it can you say how many crashes in that location? It's just good to be clear about the rationale.

Oh I see, your being humorous.

James, How many crashes have there been in that location? I always feel the market is quite busy enough so not sure it needs to be still more appealing. Is the purpose of improving the appeal to bring in greater numbers or just to provide a better experience?

Kk, the general view is let your dog be with you and even lie beside you but don't actively comfort them as this can tell the dog that you are also worried. If a dog shows any anxiety about fireworks I would not walk him after dark when there is a chance of random bangers etc..., as fear/anxiety reactions can increase quickly and start to generalise to other similar sounds. It is a pain though. I used to enjoy an evening walk with my dog but would not risk it now. This firework business has got way out of hand and I would happily see them made illegal fir anything but official, organised events. I also wonder about the effects on wildlife and the environment. Sparks67 You have no option but to let your cat hide, if you can provide a small, dark soundproof den preferably in the centre if the home away from windows, so much the better. Feliway will help with a cat that is mildly anxious but not one that us clearly terrified. I'd speak to your vet about something stronger as well as desensitisation. Us humans understand what us going on, animals cannot and the fallout can be a totally screwed up pet, literally animal PTSD. This is why random firework parties with no warning to neighbours are so thoughtless. Letting off the odd banger for a laugh is moronic.

Might be worth a read http://www.backcountryattitude.com/toxic_fireworks.html

I think it's those grownups wanting to play outdoors with their bangers in the early hours that need to get a grip.

KK, if he'll gnaw a bone while fireworks are going off then there is a good chance you could desensitise him next year. Food and the reaction to it is a good indicator of how scared the dog is. Refusal of a bone would mean the dog is terrified. I am coming across more and more people with traumatised pets. Occasional fireworks are ok but the current situation has gone way beyond that and there can be absolutely no excuse for letting fireworks off after 12 pm.

"we agree that precedent should not be set for building in all back gardens" It is likely that if this development goes through it will be viewed as a precedent by other developers and perhaps planning departments in future.

Penguin, I think resistance to change is usually about perception, if something appears to be working the view may be why is it necessary to change..., so yes talking is good and perhaps I have in my cynicism too hastily dismissed the motivation of the architects in coming onto the forum. My greatest concern is about setting precedents and glad you agree. Beyond that, from what I have gleaned, I would not want these built next to me, nor, long-term would I want to see our city gardens slowly eroded by ever more developments. Jeremy, Absolutely. London can also become another Hong Kong...completely feasible.

P68, I don't think it is a matter of finding change difficult. Many of us embrace change when it feels right and of benefit. Those next to the proposed development are already involved and those further are probably only affected by it in terms of precedents it sets. I'm most interested to hear the thoughts of those closest to the development.

I guess I just feel sorry for those who have for years looked at a garden next door to them but may now have to look at other properties. In isolation the buildings do look okayish- not my cuppa but tarted up with all the foliage they could be worse, however I am most concerned about the precedent of building on garden land to make more residential buildings, when the existing buildings are all so close together. Yes, I can see that the architects coming on here is a great way to drum up support from those not close by. I just think would I like it next door to me.

I don't know the detail of either application but building on garden land is worrying for the simple reason that if any of these gets passed then it does set a precedent. Interesting that the architects have been sent out on a firefighting/charm offensive mission. This shows the location and relationship of site to to other buildings http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/394632_1.pdf All too close for comfort in my view. Note the developer is a Mr Cotton from Wimbledon, no local interest then.

ZT, what you mean owners are put in the stocks and pelted with their own dog's poo?!

DaveR, I'm not Will Self's biggest fan either but I imagine many of us are taken in by marketing the whole time, it is not always possible to stay abreast of every company takeover and were marketing and advertising unpersuasive I doubt so much time, money and energy would be invested in any of it.

Bawdy-nan, Thanks for that. I didn't know they were part of Cineworld. I had thought it was a small chain...now we find out it's the biggest cinema chain in Europe..nice.

James, I do not mean this as a personal slight against you, however are you really saying that only a handful of people on planning would have had a sense of these three developments (M&S, Cinema, Harris primary)until only very recently. That is slightly stretching the bounds of credulity. It is hardly rocket science to work out that the three together is going to have a major impact on traffic and parking and I am sure that these big developments would have been known about within planning committee circles well before decision time and yet, it seems, the cumulative effect of the three was not raised or considered?