first mate

bemusED, Good to have informed input. To my uneducated eye it looked as thought the overall footprint of the proposed development would be larger than the existing development. The application states that the same type/size of lorry will be used for delivery (up to 6 a day, with some very early morning and night deliveries on the adgenda). The beeping sound these lorries make when trying to park is very loud. They will also, it seems, be trying to park in a much smaller sapce than before- this is likely to take more time. Assuming each of the residents has a car that is 8 more cars on the street (the application states that parking for residents and for retail traffic is not factored in). There already exists a very busy car wash which parks client cars along the street to wait to be washed. This allows clients the marvellous service of going off and shopping while the car gets moved in and off the street for washing. Sometimes this includes yellow line parking. The carwash appears to have a 'special' arrangement with wardens with reference to parking on yellow lines. Factor in the liklihood of those who will want to drive in and park to shop at a desirable shop like M&S and I think this amounts to an enormous pressure on parking on the surrounding streets. The street also services those who like to visit and park to go to Northcross road market. CPZ is not the answer long term and that debate has already been done to death. My solutions would be to put a clause into the 8 resident leaseholds for the proposed development to say they will not own cars. The development is being sold on the basis of eco credentials, so this does not seem unreasonable. The carwash cannot park client cars on the street. They have an enclosed space- use it and if capacity does not meet demand then perhaps they need new premises. Deliveries by articulated lorry to be made early morning and late at night to the front of the store on LL- we are talking before 5am so it should not be a major problem for traffic on LL. This would mean residents are not disturbed in the early hours by noise.

kalamitykel, Yes, given the size of the proposed planning application I am surprised there has not been a huge heads up to residents on the surrounding streets. All this must have been underway at the time of the CPZ consultation.

Gedwina, It is not apparent the site will include residents parking for eight, if it does then that is okay. If not that is potentially 8 more on the street, plus trade from the car wash, plus deliveries. Iceland lorries have always been a problem for residents on the street in question. Nonetheless would not want CPZ and would hate to see this proposal used as a reason to try shoehorn it in again.

Gedwina said: I think the parking angle is being slightly overblown. 8 spaces as mentioned above is a drop in the ocean, if you are worried about parking from people shopping at the store then surely the answer is a CPZ? At least 8 spaces (some families have two cars), plus cars that park up waiting to be washed by car wash (loads), plus regular deliveries by extremely large lorries- all in less space, as proposed.

Does anyone know how high the proposed structure would be and if it would be higher than the existing structure? Is the plan for some of the land belonging to the carwash to be used? I'm still interested to know whether it is considered this will have a significant knock on effect on parking? The planning document suggests not.

The increase in footfall is all well and good, but people will want to park, as will the 8 plus families that will live in the proposed new residential development- that is a massive increase in traffic and then, yes, frequent deliveries by huge lorries too. If you read the planning appilication the developers are under the delusion that people will all cycle!!! The garden centre is another big development waiting to happen. Perhaps this is why there were such huge efforts to push CPZ through. It doesn't seem like this has been thought through at all.

This could have a huge impact on Chesterfield, Ashbourne and Melbourne Grove parking, and not in a good way. The carwash puts enough pressure on the street as it is. If this development goes ahead it'd open things up for the CPZ lobby all over again. The other point is for a large shop like M&S where is the loading on and off lorries going to happen and what are the access points? Iceland juggernauts already cause enough of a problem; resident walls as well as cars have been badly damaged over the years. The development looks to be huge too. If there are any architects around could they say how much higher than the existing structure the proposed development is? Would there be parking for the proposed 8 plus residents as well as shopworkers on the existing site?

I've had a few odd ones recently- one guy at 10.30pm wnating to know if I needed any gardening done; another, similar time, syaing he was just doing his "annual rounds, but not to worry"....??!!

Hmmm, you'd think with a development of this scale that all the street would be consulted- only a handful it seems. It's been kept very low key. The rationale is that since all the existing parking behind Iceland will be removed this will reduce pressure from cars parking in the area. Not sure that makes sense? Where will the residents in the new units park? There is a carwash next to the proposed development and they regularly park cars waiting to be washed up and down the street- Southwark Wardens are awfully obliging about cars on yellow lines where this business is concerned;) Do we need an M&S? It is not clear to me how much higher than the exisiting structure this building will be?

Now, now Hugo, no need to get personal. You leave my haemorrhoids alone. Sooooo cruel to play on my paranoia too!:)

Will do. This was not meant to be a criticism of you just a question about the process. I have looked at the links and the information available online and it seems to me to be incredibly vague and loose. We are told that only necessary information will be taken, but not what that is. It is also implied that only people that need to know will have access to the information- again pretty vague. Oh well,one for Information Governance then.

I would go towards the end of a class and wait and then book for next class. It is likley that those who have managed to get in each time are able to book for the next time. This seems the only explanation otherwise there might be some cozy insider stuff going down. It'd be worth checking to see if the same people are there each week. Either way it is symptomatic of something deeply wrong in public sector services and needs to go right up to the top to be sorted. Leisure is a service industry- anyone with attitude should be given the boot pronto.

Is this to do with the summary health care records and what if you had opted out of those. I'm still no clearer exactly how relevant/what information is taken from the pateint records. Presumably practice staff do not have time to do this, so who would physically be putting info together and how? Is nature of info, name, age/DB , gender, address and whether surgery used in last year, or will more information be taken for 'statistical' purposes at same time?

If others recall, there were moves in the last year or so to widen access to patient records. I am not trying to muddy the waters, I just want to be clear as to exactly how this 'statistical' information is gleaned?

First question, just how do they get to 'pull' details from patient records? Will they have access to full records or simply a list of names and addresses supplied by you? I feel deeply uncomfortable with the idea of any LA personnel being able to 'pull' stuff off my records- just on principle!

Plus some children can find clowns really scary!

boosboss, Absolutely. This garden is clearly meant to be a quiet, tranquil spot. There are plenty of other spaces in the park for youngsters to run and burn off energy. All of us, single people; OAPS, parents, children and dog owners need to cherish this special area and to respect the massive amount of free time and labour that has gone into its creation. If that means we all have to police it to protect it too, then we should.

Microchipping is all well and good but the vast majority of owners already do this. Even if the ne'er do wells are in some way forced to microchip, who, in these times of austerity, is going to be tasked with carrying scanners to do spot checks? Remember also that chips can and have been removed by the same dodgy types, who have little compunction in visiting pain on their dog. I do so wish that having dogs on lead was enforceable on the streets, this seems to me a far more practical solution for less cost, a dog on the lead can be both avoided and controlled.

Thsmes Water is part owned by Kemble Holdings and the Chinese! It seems to have an incredibly complex financial and investment structure so I wouldn't be surprised if left hands do not know what right hands are doing. Do the inevstors care that much about the quality of service? Obviously they care about profit, but as seems to be the case thus far, making a profit does not have to be justified by the quality of service- they charge you anyway.

Heron was out in Japanese Garden in Peckham Rye today- enjoying the sun. Saw three rats too- very busy.

You can trust the Murdochs to try to exploit anything and anyone they can to their advantage -which one of them is running SKY now? As an aside, I've been told that other than HD most digital pictures will be inferior to good analogue. I must admit, I put on my new HD TV expecting a revelation and could see only a small difference. I'm already getting loads of dropout, picture freezing/ breaking up, so no better than analogue and possibly worse. Trying to remember the point of the switchover- oh yes, room for many more channels offering more choice..........? Has it all been a big money spinning con?

I second Razors. The extension over the outrigger can put your neighbour in shadow.

tallulah71, yes, the monitoring is really important and we should all do it, whatever the interaction.

beckyg, You make some fair points but it is noteworthy that 'Blue' has formerly had 'nice' games with dogs of a similar breed type- the problem was engaging with a smaller breed. One can only conclude that the owner's knowledge of his dog was not perhaps as rounded as it needed to be. It sounds as though he was not monitoring his dogs closely enough and was very slow to intervene. It is good that he has agreed to muzzle his dog but people have every right to be angry at what happened. Sad to say it also tells us something that dogs of very similar type (blue staffs) have been involved in other serious attacks on dogs. Either the dogs have been poorly socialized/inadequately trained, or they have a strong genetic predisposition to this behaviour.

LD, You misunderstand, David mech shows that wolf hierarchies are rigid. Wolf packs are rigid- but they are built on family units where the parents are boss and keep the kids in line. On the other hand, dogs though genetically related to wolves, do not form rigid hierarchies. Feral dogs may form loose packs but there is no hierarchy that reflects wolf behaviour. As I said I do believe that you get more confident dogs and more pushy/assertive dogs but somehow dominance implies a broad agenda that motivates actions which I do not believe really reflects what dogs are all about- I think they live much more in the moment. I agree about socialisation. Dogs have such an incredible range of morphologies and massive differences in behavioural thresholds that they really do have to learn about each other. Those differences almost amount to 'cultural' differences between breeds and types and this can cause poor communication and misunderstandings to occur. As I said, I do agree that owners can ratchet up a fear reaction but owners should not have to get to that stage. All of us have to read canine signals better and not just base all dog interactions using our dog as the measure. My dog might desperately wnat to get to the little dog over there- but she is cowering away- perhaps she doesn't feel well today or perhaps my dog reminds her of a dog that attacked her a few weeks ago- who knows. Bottom line, I should call my dog away and quit bothering the other dog. At the very least this will help to build the others dog's confidence. As a final note all it need take is one bad experience to make a fomerly confident dog fearful.