first mate

I should also add that the tracking diagram provided by the applicant has not been 'refuted' because the resients have not come up with their own funded diagram, so on a technicality the planning officer can get away with making this assertion. Nonethless, a careful reading of the more detailed objections by residents (one a RIBA architect with long experience in these types of development) will show that the tracking diagram was ripped apartquite comprehensively. I also think that the claim that putting the delivery hours on a formal and legal basis will benefit residents is nonsense. Quite the contrary, earlier delivery times and more frequent deliveries will now be given a legal greenlight, making them harder to overturn in future. Also wanted to ask where James Barber is?

It all sounds perfectly reasonable until you actually see the site and see how the trucks are manouevered. It is hard enough already, as stated ad nauseam, there is a list of incidences where property has been damaged. The space is to be reduced, the frequency of deliveries stepped up. The process of delivery is already slow and cumbersome, jams along the road are frequent. The technical infomation provided by the applicant has been disputed it is just that planning have chosen to disregard those objections, it would seem. Squeezing a square peg into a round hole is 'feasible'after all if you push hard enough over time. The will of the developer is to prevail it would seem, despite the glaring and obvious fact that they are trying to squeeze too much into this space. I wonder, for instance, why the store could not have expanded onto the second level rather than building out at ground level and putting flats on top? Not as lucrative for the developer I grant you.

Hi James, Since you sit on a planning committee can you shed any light on why the latest planning report for the proposed M&S development appears to be greenlighting the submission, contradicting earlier reports which recommended refusal based on resident objections which were upheld? Why the apparent u-turn?

Yes, a long phone call asking for replacment of one type of bin with another, and which I was assured would be actioned in a few weeks, has not happened. We are two months down. How many calls does it take to Southwark Council to get a result?

It is also wise to consider the setting of precedents. Once ML is opened up for use in this way the same could be done elsewhere in the borough.

LondonMix Nope the report states that the vehicles used will be 10.7 articulated lorries the same as currently used by Iceland, so more deliveries in less space in vehicles just about as large you can get. Iceland does not deliver 6 times a day.

Janes Barber sits on the planning commmittee, i do hope that he is noting the comments here. A comment by him would also ve welcome.

So we'll have a very large Sainsbury's with a Morrisons close by, a Tescos just past Goose Green a Co-op and Iceland/M&S further along and then another Sainsbury's up the hill. I too wish we'd had another garden centre. Yet another example of a mixture of branded supermarkets presenting the illusion of choice.

Well if there is a large site with open land why not build a school?

Spanglysteve, The obvious riposte is that if that level of deliveries is unlikely why is the figure there in black and white in the report? FYI there have long been problems with the Iceland deliveries which have damaged residents property on many occasions as well as causing jams. There was an opportunity to put an old wrong right and reroute deliveries or reduce significantly the delivery vehicle size. But no, instead the developers want more deliveries using the same huge delivery vehicles. In his wisdom, the planning officer has supported this using the rationale that a precedent has now been set by the former parlous state of affairs. Come on, there should be no place on residential streets, especially narrow ones, for huge juggernauts on anything more than an occasional basis, like when people move. Someone knowledgable like Penguin68 may enlighten me but I wonder if by normalising the frequent use of very large delivery vehicles and referring to the area as a "Town Centre" precedents are being set to allow for ever larger developments, taller buildings etc... I still want to know how residents objections that Southwark Planning upheld are no longer being upheld by them?

I wouldn't call 6 deliveries a day occasional, servicing snd safety are real issues with this applications. Objections that were formerly upheld on a number of occasions are being upheld no more. Why the change by Southwark one wonders?

Having read this briefly it just seems like council planning have done some rather large u turns on previous refusals but without the developer really giving an inch. WIth this and the new cinema CPZ will be next, just wait and see. Certain councillors must be rubbing their hands with glee. Note that there will be up to 6 deliveries a day, by huge juggernauts, along a residential street, pretty much from dawn til dusk, seven days a week. Given ED is a town centre, say planning, they really see no reason to refuse. What has changed in planning I wonder? Still no explanation as to why one of the huge bollards is pushed over....plenty of space say planning. Madness.

Rather late to reply. Comment was not meant to be frivolous but, yes, perhaps a little lazy/throwaway. Of much greater importance are disturbing hints by the likes of Tebbit and Harman of what is to come.

Ah but no smoke without fire.

Slightly off message but bigger story now is Westminster, from former PM's down. Does a lot of this have its beginnings in the homoerotic, fag culture of major public schools, I wonder?

le Chandelier is fab and very people friendly and serves the best tea, coffee and cakes around. However they are not tolerant of buggies or rampaging children...as someone else has mentioned the space is too small for that and since everyone pays the same for their chosen repast it seems fair too. Unfortunately some mummies get very snippy about this and choose to trash the reputation of the place.

There does needto be a balance in use of resources. Currently it seems every available scrap of land is being made into a school while health facilities are shaved and we have no local police station. Schools are naturally a top concern for our growing population of young, professional parents and accordingly heavily pushed by local vote-hungry politicians. How it will pan out long term is worrying.

Interesting, if true, that MGMC might get their mitts on a prime site, despite their appalling reputation.

P68, Fair points. I just wonder how this works. Do processes automatically swing in once the contract is finished without any prior contact/communication between the relevant parties? Is it possible that Dr Sarma was simply not across the detail of the contract? It seems odd that if there are other GP's willing and able to continue running the practice that the contractual arrangement is immutable. I guess one would have to be convinced that Dr Sarma has stated something along the lines of 'I cannot be bothered/ I don't want anyone to take over'. Still, I am no expert on contractual law so it may well be a set in stone affair where nothing can be done...shame though.

This is most alarming. Is there any way to challenge/override this decision, one which seems to have been decided by stealth on technicalities and small print? Can our local politicians help in anyway? Healthcare is just as important as education but there seems less political will and drive to secure local needs for the former.

The NHS has been slowly disassembled and put back together in such a confusing way that even those within the system are not quite sure who is in charge of what; so where do the powers of local GP's/CCG's stop and those of NHS England begin? Who does decide what is in the interests of local patients? I thought that the whole idea of the new system was to put more power into the hands of patients not for major decisions, like the closure of a surgery (against patient wishes) to be made by some centralised body. Reminds me of the 'free' schools where most decisions seem to go through one person in the Govt.

Note that on the list of alternative GP practices, up first (by virtue of proximity) is the disaster that is MGMP- I'm sure Concordia/MGMP would love to plump up their numbers since, or so it would seem, patients have been leaving in their droves over the years. Hmmm.

James, I too have experience of elderly relatives being cared for in the home and my experience was not positive. Extremely poorly paid care workers, often allotted only 10 minutes to look after the needs of the client/ patient who should really have been in hospital - a cottage hospital. Not everyone will have family close by who can step in, as necessary. Additionally, a few months may work, for many it is much longer. Who knows what goes on behind closed doors and the politically driven agenda around NHS resources but it has to be a massive mistake to use only a tiny proportion of land available for healthcare when we have an exploding population, what with local surgeries closing too. Sorry, don't see how the maths works... Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi First mate, > No the new health facilities are not currently > planned to have hospital beds or half way > facilities. They will house support for people > being looked after in their homes. I've personal > experience of this as my mother had it and it > meant she could spend the last months of her life > in her home. It really made a positive difference > to her and us. > > I can assure you no political pressure has been > brought to bare on the CCG. We have if anything > been encouraging them to maximise health provision > on this site. BUT we can't go another 21 years of > inaction by past governments with such a valuable > community asset.

TP, extraordinary. After all, we are so well provided for in terms of health, local surgeries are not under any pressure, no doubt all those patients will just slot onto other lists, no problem. Perhaps there are plans to turn the surgery building into another school ( tongue only partly in cheek)?

James, Yes that all sounds very reassuring but the improvements made to provision now on offer is unlikely to match what the hospital used to offer and that was for a smaller population than we have now. I am not convinced and I note your careful phrasing as to what the CCG 'thinks' they might need and how growth of services is 'antcipated'. Additionally, who knows what political pressures have been brought to bear to ensure more of the site is used for education- CCG's are 'partnerships' after all. The NHS is cash strapped as are the local council that is why this site is key all round. Will the 'dramatic' increase in provision include hospital beds and halfway house care for the elderly (as was the case). Yes, we need schools but we also need healthcare that sits between GP Practices and acute admissions in hospitals (and let's face it Kings is groaning under the burden of all that). What about a cottage hospital- has this ever been looked at?