first mate

James (Barber), Are you now able to access the application? Would you agree that it is unfortunate that the consultation has been underway for a week without detail available to interested parties, like local reisdents?

Harris....again.

James, are you now able to access the latest planning application for the Iceland site?

KK, good to know more about this. Brightness of lights is a concern but perhaps these can be adjusted through the night. More concerning is possible removal of trees.......? I suppose one has to wonder why lights were sited so close to trees in the first place. Anyhow, thanks for solving that mystery the main question at the moment concerns the new application, one that is open for consultation and comment but that cannot be seen, not even by a local councillor that sits on a planning committee!

The consultation has started - the period runs from 28 jan to 20th Feb. it's a bit rich that consultation opened before info was available to public and residents. Just checked and the application is not yet up. Residents and neighbours may have letters on the way but do not see how consultation can be declared open until detail is available.

James, Again, many thanks. With regard to the lights, it depends how bright they are. I have to say I had not felt light was an issue, the existing lights seem fine, but understand that it might not be so for others. The pavements are certainly in need of proper upkeep and repair and wonder why this was not done some time ago. There was some work on the pavement last year and then it stopped- the workman commented that it was in some way related to the progress, or not, of a certain planning application, but this may be an urban tale. The leaves are a seasonal hazard- not sure light would make any difference, but may be wrong. The removal of trees is a little worrying- is the suggestion that the road should be tree free or that certain trees should be replaced with new trees? It appears that only one resident has suggested all of this, is that correct?

James (Barber), Another poster , Jeremy, kindly provided a link in an earlier post today ( see above and http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9553324). I wonder if the item was submitted and then withdrawn as a search of planning does not bring it up but as the earlier link shows it is, or has been, on the site...it says the application is dated 28.1.2014. It is made by a Mr M Lerner and submitted by planning specialists Planning Perspectives LLP.

James, Thanks for the links. I have scan read everything available and cannot find any reference either to a request for white lighting on Chesterfield or anything regarding a decision on spend for this. There are various references to a gate for the alley on that road. There are references to improved lighting and eco lighting on Lordship Lane. Do you know on what page and in which document the information is held?

James, In addition, do you know anything about the latest planning submission for the Iceland site?

James, Thank you. How many residents requested the brighter white lights, and were they all residents on the road in question? Is it possible to see the original submission- who was it sent to and when? I ask because having a bright white light shining into the bedroom is going to be pretty oppressive and may interfere with the sleep of some- the lights are more or less at bedroom window height, so perhaps this could also be taken into account before a final decision is made? It is the sort of issue that one would hope all the residents in the street would be asked about. It is great that the issue of paving is being addressed. Much of the existing paving is in good order, it just needs to be lifted, the substrate level adjusted and then relaid. The use of tarmac looks awful and this breaks up really quickly and does not work as a permanent solution. Simply relaying existing paving would be the best way of dealing with trip hazards.

James, do you know anything about the latest planning application for the Iceland site. As yet no info on Southwark Planning.

James Barber, do you know anything about this latest application?

No documents to view yet online. No mention of which store brand. No consultation with neighbours etc..

Unlurked, looked an cannot find this application. Can you post a link?

James, Can you tell us why Chesterfield has been earmarked in the budget for white street lighting and who has requested this? I had asked you earlier but you did not reply.

James, In regard to your budget list, could you give more detail about upgrading of street lights to white light on the road mentioned. Who has requested this and why?

uncleglen, wouldn't it just be easier to ask them to pick up? Don't know if you were in Peckham Rye yesterday morning but someone had dumped and strewn toilet paper and tissues all around and inside the Japanese summerhouse as well as into the stream. A fair bit was scrunched up so had possibly been used.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > keeping a dog in the city is generally antisocial That's a bit OTT. Many would argue the opposite. As ever, the minority that don't pick up are a pain for the rest of us, including the dog owners, not forgetting it was a dog owner that started this thread.

Lane lover, Sue has already stated that she is very familiar with the noises foxes make through the seasons. She noted that the noises that alarmed her were different to the usual sounds foxes make- many of us have heard the blood curdling shrieks made by mating foxes and foxes fighting over territory. Sue was very clear that the noises that prompted this thread were different. I hope that the securing of the lost cat was the cause and that the noise has now stopped.

LD, I note in that last link that it is stated that Harris have 'exempt charity' status where they are not required to submit accounts to the Charity Commission- so who does have oversight? Must say that the article and comments from disgruntled staff makes rather worrying reading.

Back in November someone on the forum was contacted by one of the co-owners who promised to rectify problems and who blamed everything on the ex practice manager. Weeks down the line it seems as though his promises were empty words. What stood out for me was the co-owners comment that he owned many other GP surgeries, perhaps there is a clue there. I doubt that care is the primary consideration for the owners. Like Melbourne Grove surgery, it sounds like this surgery has fallen foul of the doctor turned big businessman. Each surgery has to be run carefully and of course the pennies have to be watched but there is a fine balance between proper care and running the business side. Where a doctor starts owning multiple practices I just cannot believe that patient care is still the primary concern. Everyone keeps mentioning the Gardens. I think I am right in saying that the partners do not own loads of other surgeries and that might be why they still offer the service one would expect from a community practice. The same problem is happening in care homes which, increasingly, are multiply owned by care moguls-are those guys truly interested in the care of their clients? Of course not- profit is what matters.

James, thank you.

James, can you help with the problem of junk mail and those that deliver it? On many occasions now I have arrived home to find the letter box stuck open with mail protruding. Aside from losing expensive heat from the house this is also like an invitation to any dodgy characters, advertising that the occupants are out. Any ideas how those who deliver unsolicited mail can be persuaded or even compelled to push it all the way through through the letter box?

Don't forget the Right to Light legilstion.Itmay or may not be relevant here, but if there is no pre-existing boundary structure of significant height then building one that is substantially higher and adding a further structure by way of a building/conservatory, may seriously impact on the light into your house. This is why you need to see plans which will show projected height of wall plus structure. There are legal firms that specilise in right to light, in your shoes I would be contacting one for some preliminary advice on what might count in your favour.

Seeing plans for any proposed works is important and even if it is being done under permitted development there will still be plans of some kind, even if they are only architect's plans. If you will undergo loss of light as a result of building then I would look at this very carefully indeed. Do involve Southwark planning, research the legal right to light angle and you also want to look at the planning portal http://www.planningportal.gov.uk this is the government's planning resource and outlines all the various rules and regs on permitted development, party wall agreements etc.. Most of all, don't sign or agree to anything until you are clear what your neighbours are doing, how that will impact on you, and where you stand in law. It helps to really read up on what is and isn't allowed nationally and to see what Southwark's stance on permitted development is,especially where terraces are involved.