first mate

What does that mean? Did the woman nit clear up after her dog?

Feel for you. It probably is the same dog and owner. Dogs are promoted to go by their own scent, so this is probably why it happens in the same place. i'd definitely try to monitor and see if you can catch the idiot who is leaving their dog's poo. As advised dashing out with a bag and asking the owner to collect might shame them into being more responsible in future. Btw, bleach won't remove smell as far as dog is concerned...rinsing area with surgical spirit will.

Wow, are these free courses available for adults too. Where are they and how does one get access?

What kind of response/guidance would you give alice if confronted with this kind of behaviour?

Melbourne groover, that is appalling. I too think the let's try to be positive with the poor, bored teenagers is sending them the message that they can behave as badly as they like and they have a right to do so.

First let me say that I completely support cycling in town...a good thing etc.. However, over the last few days I have had witnessed some hair-raising cycling as well as driving in town. We all know that some drivers are selfish and careless to the point of criminality, but I have seen cycling that really makes me nervous- the phrase 'death wish' springs to mind. Add to that the adult 20/30 something male who felt it his god given right to cycle on the path down Lordship Lane yesterday, clearly expecting pedestrians to part and make way for him. The path was full of people and children. I did not make way and he had to stop and unplug his earphones so that we could have a 'conversation' about his behaviour.

Goose, This was my point. Let's not forget that it is not only applicants and developers who know the game and how to play it, some councillors will also understand the 'game', especially perhaps those that sit on planning committees.

This is appalling. In conclusion, if you have the financial muscle you can do the wrong thing and get away with it. It is hard to believe that someone, somewhere in planning/council might not have forseen how this would go? It always felt that come hell or highwater this application was going to go through and that leaves one feeling that the will of the developers and large companies will always prevail despite the legitimate concerns of local residents. Part of me wonders if a very elaborate long game has been played out with local residents as the chumps, given the illusion they had a chance to change the application by the process of consultation, where in reality it was always only going to go one way. I really do think that CPZ will be back on the agenda soon.

Healey, again I can only point out that 6 deliveries a day, by 1.7 articulated lorries, on a narrow residential street,can hardly be described as occasional. However, the car wash also causes disruption and is a pain fir resudents close by. The current application plus the car wash could make life very miserable indeed.

davey, Not scaregmonering, a simple statement of fact. It hardly stacks up to say that just because the current parking situation is just about holding that this means you can keep increasing pressure on particular streets by over development. This particular space is too small for the changes proposed. If it is true that Waitrose would take the site on with its current footprint, without losing the parking space or developing out, then the current application just smacks of developer greed.

Note that aside from the obvious difficulty of getting to the offices to object there has also been no formal notice given to those living close by enabling them to make the relevant plans. A thread on this forum is not sufficent notice in my view. This really does look like a stich up. Mr Barber is noticeably quiet/absent on the whole issue. I wonder if he is on holiday, if so will he be absent for this very important meeting?

LM, As ever a balanced and fair reply from you. Please though, if you have not visited the site go and take a look and with any luck you may see a delivery taking place and see for yourself the issues. Also factor in the pressures created by the car wash on a busy day and the shortcomings of this application should be apparent. Again, where is James?

e-dealer, a fair point but lifts and escalators would not be so hard to install and would take up less space than the current proposals. As it is those who are disabled will not be any better served by the current application, is my understanding. Those 6 deliveries a day will cause sufficient disruption, I am sure, to make negotiating the path/road difficult enough.

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.