first mate

The problem is terrace houses and light. The properties are so close together that even merely extending to the side and not beyond the depth of the house, is going to affect your neighbour and the light that they get in their kitchen as well as their living room. Similarly, extending beyond the depth of your house is bound to impact on the light your neighbour gets in the garden closest to their house- often where people have a patio. So your gain is probably going to mean your neighbour's loss.

So.. the upshot is we're all in favour of banning dogs?...Yes? Errr, no!

I'm slightly puzzled by James' statement that architects 'believe' the current Dulwich hospital building to be of poor build quality. James could you elaborate? What is thought to be wrong with the building, is it structurally unsound and in danger of collapse? It seems to me that it may be easier for various vested interests to do what they want with the site if the entire building is demolished and they can start from scratch, in that any attachment to the past has been erased and objections subsequently weakened. I'd hate to see that bulding entirely disappear, especially if the rationale that the existing building is of 'poor build quality' turns out to be a 'belief' born of some political agenda and not a reality.

Robin, Thanks for the information. Does this mean that other roads will be done by Thames Water in the same way? I thought that the bulk of terraced houses had shared sewers...?

TeriG, Please let us know if there is any more news about these thugs and whether the police manage to find them. It seems reasonbaly clear that had it not been for the awful human on human violence you probably wouldn't have posted on the matter. I hope your b/f recovers and is able to continue to enjoy a jog in the park in future.

Borderlands, Not at all, I intend to get involved, just wish that campaigning organizations would think a little more about information gathering and the like, nicely couched promises to 'just keep your details, but we won't do a thing with them' don't wash with me I'm afraid. Back on thread, this is such an important issue. Had a quick look at consultation questionnaire and there seems to be no way of circumventing the design. It feels like any way you answer can be used to support one of the proposed options. There is no opt out.

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?