first mate

Seriously, the whole thing is going to be ripped down?

Sadly, I was slightly put off signing that petition because one has to give an email and agree for info to be stored and updates sent etc.... Shame one couldn't just give a name and postcode without the obligatory database attached.

The idea of an outfit like Concordia and the infamous MGP having even more sway over the health decisions of local makes my blood run cold.

I agree, around cafe and tarmaced areas dogs should be kept on leads, bicyclists should cycle very slowly (I see so many power cycling at great speed) and children on scooters should do the same- these are all reasonbale ways to behave and show other park users that we are considering their needs as well as our own. It is the case that the dedicated dog walk areas in the parks are also used by joggers. Dogs are allowed to be offlead on the dog walks and on the field areas. In this sense, it is likely that the paths of joggers and dogs will sometimes meet. My advice to dog owners is, try to ensure that your dog is sufficently well trained before being let off lead to return to you immediartely when called and not to jump up at people (there are plenty of training classes around). I would ask joggers not to 'foot nudge' dogs out of the way as this is likley to excite the dog and antagonise its owner. I'd advise calling to the owner and asking them to get their dog. The odd young dog may get over-excited and want to play and yes this is annoying because it interrupts your jog but that is the nature of a shared space- we all have to live and let live a little. Having read Teri G's last post it is clear that the b/f was attacked on a tarmaced area where, in my view, dogs should be on a lead. However, it is also clear that the dog was not aggressive, it irritatingly got tangled up in the joggers legs in a way that would have interrupted the jog. Ordinarily words would have been exchanged and that would have been it, in this case the owners of the dog reacted dispropotionately and committed a crime of violence. The dog is a side issue. These men might have reacted in similar vein to someone who 'looked at them the wrong way' or whose 'eyes were the wrong colour'.

This thread should, quite rightly, focus on the awful human on human attack. The side issue of to what extent dogs should be on leads in the park is for discussion elsewhere. Human agression is the issue here.

TeriG, What an awful experience, these men sound horrendous and deserve to be punished. I also hope that their dog is taken from them and put into responsible hands. If they are prepared to beat up a human for absolutely no reason I cannot imagine what they'd be prepared to do to a dog. One can only hope that if they are caught those concerned are severely punished. From the little description you give it sounds as though the dog got under your feet in an annoying way- and of course this should not happen- but am I correct in thinking the dog did not 'attack' you- it does not sound as though he put his teeth on you, or is this not the case? Badly trained and owned dogs can jump up at people they do not know, but the motive is not usually aggressive- though I appreciate that bully breeds can look so menacing that any jumping up, friendly or not, can feel scary. Quite simply, owners need to be educated in teaching dogs manners, at all times. As ever, it is the wretched, stupid and irresponsible humans that are the real cultprits here and it sounds as though it was the humans and not the dog that inflicted injuries on you. Please correct me if this is not the case. Edited to say it does sound as though these guys were looking for any old excuse to beat someone up...for some idiots random violence can be both a hobby and an outlet.

uncleglen, that kind of humping is something both dogs and bitches do and is non sexual, it's more just general excitement. Anyway, don't wnant to go off thread.

James, Thank you. At best it smacks somewhat of a lack of organisation or a very over-stretched department. I think it is also irritating because those objecting had relatively little time to do so. Nonetheless, if it is simply an oversight all well and good. However, for the avoidance of doubt, I'd still like to the decision posted on the website.

A bit of a tangent but perhaps a pointer: there is some evidence to suggest that female dogs that lie between male dogs in the womb are more likely to develop more masculine (testosterone mediated) behaviours, that is they might be more reactive and assertive, they are more likely to develop sexually dimorphic behaviours like leg cocking at urination. The thinking is that the developing male pups produce more testosterone in the womb environment and this impacts on the developing female pup. I don't know if you are au fait with the science of foetal programming, but this is an area of research most likely to describe a host of hormonal influences and their effects on brain and organ development in the womb. Sexuality is a different matter, of course.

Sorry to get in late on the discussion. Just to be clear, my only 'interest' is that I live in the area. Along with other locals, I have followed the progress of this application quite closely and I am mildly puzzled that no decision is yet forthcoming, despite statements that a decision has been reached. So, if my persistent strikes you as odd chillaxed, be assured, I have no hidden agenda.

Has a decision been made yet?

Hi James, Another two weeks has gone by and still the M&S planning application is "pending", according to the website. Could you kindly give an update on whether a decision has actually been made yet, not an intention to make a decision but an actual decision, and why the delay in posting the decision?

James, I've put another question for you on M&S site.

James, Another week passed and still no sign of a decision on the M&S/Iceland site application (target decision date was early March it says on website). I have still been unable to open the document dated end Feb, Amended Plan AA. I followed your instructions but to no avail. It is odd that you keep being told that the 'intention' is to refuse but nothing appears. Is this a case of weasel words? I'd love to know what the Feb document is also, as this must have been submitted by the developer after the consultation period.

Dodgy person working for estate agents, assuming you have bought or rent your home?

James I asked you the following on the M&S thread, but decided to post here as you had not replied: James, Thank you. Do you know what the amended plan AA is? I have tried and failed to access this document several times. This document is listed at the top of the apllication as follows: Amended plan 1121/P (--)154 REV PE - PROPOSED SECTION AA 2013-02-21 Please noet the date for this. Still no sign of a decision.

James, Thank you. Do you know what the amended plan AA is? I have tried and failed to access this document several times. This document is listed at the top of the apllication as follows: Amended plan 1121/P (--)154 REV PE - PROPOSED SECTION AA 2013-02-21

James, I've asked you a question on the M&S application thread.

James Barber, Despite your assertion that this application has been refused, according to the website today a decision on the application is still pending. There is also a documentent for an Amended plan A dated 21/2/2013. Since you sit on the planning committee and it is stated that the decision rests with the planning committee, can you please tell us what is going on? Can you also explain what the Amended plan A document is?

James, I am only posting here in order to get your attention as soon as possible. But please reply on the relevant thread. You recently stated on this forum that the most recent M&S application had been turned down, or gave that impression anyhow. I see today that a revised application has appeared dated 21/2/2013. I haven't been able to get into the document. I also see that according to the website, no decision has yet been made and is pending. Can you please calrify the status of both the existing and the revised application.

Penguin68, Oh come on, if people want an M&S that badly they'll be prepared to walk, or as is equally likely in my view, drive, a few hundred yards up the main drag. BTW James Braber's assertion that the application has been turned down may be a complete red herring. That result does not figure on the planning website and I have just seen that a revised application has suddenly appeared- dated 21/2/2013- but you cannot get in to read it. I sanyone else able to access it I can they notify us of what it says? The road next to the entrance of the planning site and car wash is currently being resurfaced. A number of months ago some residents were told by road workers that resurfacing and smrtening up of the street would be done to coincide with M&S opening. James, you sit on the planning committee so presumably you have some idea of what is going on? Can you please tell us asap. Is there any requirment to let residents know about a revised application?

I do wish people would actually read the application and the objections to it, rather than making vague statements about the nature of the objections. The application as it stands fails to meet planniong requirements on a number of levels. If you wnat to blame anyone, blame the developers and their consultants who haven't done their homework properly. The issue isn't loss of parking its about significantly increasing overall traffic pressure on a street that is not designed to take it. This includes deliveries which would be stepped up significantly from the current schedule, also delivering at much earlier times daily and where the same size of vehicle will be made to manouevre in a very much smaller space, creating all kinds of potential hazards. They also want to massively extend the footprint of the overall building,in height as well, in order to accomodate living space for 8 households, but where parking provision will not be made. The assumption is that everyone will do their M&S shopping on bicycles and that the households will not need or want cars. There are also more complex issues to do with noise and waste disposal, ownership of curtilage, threats to mature trees. Part of the plan indicates that it needs to encroach on and use private property in order to succeed. It's a very badly thought out application and there is a sense that they thought they could somehow will it through on the might of the M&S name.

If the footprint and height of a new application was the same as the existing building, so that attempts were not being made to squeeze much more out of the same space, and the amount and timing of delivery/ vehicles was no different from those for Icleand, then I don't think residents would care who the shop brand was. Goose what is your motivation for a vote??? The application has not been turned down on the basis that it is M&S.

puzzled, you may not yet have gathered that the application is not about the brand of store...that is certainly not an issue on which it could or would be rejected by planning. It is the detail of the application, things like health and safety, boundaries,the size and scale of the buildings mooted, that have resulted in the rejection of the application. It fails to meet planning requirements.

rahrahrah, your perusal must have been very brief indeed.