cl

RCH - I'm a chesterfield resident and live right up at the M&S end of the road. The issue for us is not deliveries - they happen at the front. Its the removal of rubbish etc from the back. At the moment it happens at 6am - they push their wheeled steel trollies full of rubbish out onto the pavement - the noise of them rattling over the pavement is significant - wakes us up every time, and can last for an hour. Happened over bank holiday weekend. So my concern is that if opening times are earlier, will this activity at the back also be made earlier still? Its bad enough as it is. On that basis I will be objecting strongly.

Charlie, (and james if you know the answer) I support abe_froeman's request for further details on the consultation please. What does 'informal' mean exactly? Who is going to be consulted and what is the selection criteria? If, as you are suggesting, a) a yes/no opinion is sought, and b) whatever the result, that vote is actioned by Southwark, it sounds quite formal to me.... I think we'd all agree this whole process has been poor so far - I hope Southwark will sort it out now and run this consultation properly to ensure people and views from across the spectrum are represented. Really grateful for some clarification please.

Jeremy, I suspect (though FM will have to confirm him/herself), that he is meaning proportionate in relation to the space and immediate context in which it is located. In this case, I would imagine that he feels that 10 flats with no parking provision, on top of a new highly attractive and substantial food store which is double the size and will attract much higher footfall than Iceland, on top of the removal of the car park that was previously there, represents over-development and will likely have an impact on the amenity of those living in the immediate area. And I don't think that is an unreasonable assessment (if that's what he means, of course!)

Tickets are still available for the one-off screening of 'Meru' at ED Picturehouse tonight (9pm), that I originally proposed through Ourscreen (see separate thread in the Lounge). Its not on general release so this is one of the few chances to see it in a cinema in the UK. The film, which won an award at the Sundance film festival last year, is a documentary about a team of mountaineers attempting to climb Meru, an incredibly difficult mountain in the Indian Himalayas. Taken by them during their weeks of hardship on the mountain, it promises stunning Himalayan scenery, drama, and an amazing tale of human endurance and spirit. You can see more about the film here: http://www.merufilm.com/ Tickets no longer available from Ourscreen - you have to go through the picturehouse now. Administrator - I know there has been a thread on this in the Lounge, but I figured as the film is now a confirmed showing it would be ok to do one final plug and 'Whats on....' would now be the right place! Please don't delete!

I got that letter recently as well. tbh I was slightly confused and assumed it related to the original instance of Southwark missing their own deadline. Please don't tell me this has happened again?...............

The screening is now confirmed!! Thanks to those that have booked tickets. There are more available for anyone else interested. I can't wait..........

Only 4 more tickets to sell! come on, lets bring this film to ED!

Mick Mac, I think it depends on the venue and the day/timings chosen. I think for the less popular timings they lower the threshold. If you go to the ourscreen website and have a look around at some of the films being proposed for various venues you'll get a sense.

Seriously? You are assuming I have an 'interest' in the film based on the above? Disingenuous? Really??!!...... The only interest I have in relation to this film is my general one in films and mountains, which both meet here. Hence why I want to see it. I'm really hope enough people buy a ticket so it shows. Do I really have to declare that I am not in any way connected to this film or its makers? (groan) If so, then take this as that declaration. Im just a normal bloke who wants to see a film that is not on general release in the UK. This is what 'ourscreen' is for - its a fantastic thing - you propose a film, location and timing and then have to generate enough interest to guarantee it will show. That's all I'm trying to do, and if it's successful then people in the area will get to see something that would otherwise not be on. Satisfied?!

Through 'Ourscreen' I am trying to organise a showing of an amazing film called 'Meru' at the East Dulwich Picturehouse on Monday 22nd Feb at 2100hrs. The film, which won an award at the Sundance film festival last year, is a documentary about a team of mountaineers attempting to climb Meru, an incredibly difficult mountain in the Indian Himalayas. Taken by them during their weeks of hardship on the mountain, it promises stunning Himalayan scenery, drama, and an amazing tale of human endurance and spirit. I for one can't wait to see it! However, it will only show if enough people buy tickets for it - we only need 8 more to be bought - so please go to the link below and sign up - I PROMISE you it will be better than a dull wintry Monday night on the sofa in front of eastenders. (* in fact, if eastenders is a thing for you, you can see it anyway before coming to the film!*) https://www.ourscreen.com/screening/41042 You have to input payment details to reserve, but if not enough people sign up and it doesn't show, you won't be charged. You can see more about the film here: http://www.merufilm.com/ Please help me in bringing this amazing piece of independent film-making to ED!!!!!!

No!

Erm, lets not kid ourselves that it will all be sorted at the planning committee meeting. They didn't sort it last time. In fact, they mainly acknowledged how badly it had been dealt with by the council...... But then decided to approve it anyway. I remember quite clearly one of the counsellors who voted in favour turning round once it was a done deal, looking me in the eye and offering me an sympathetic shrug as if to say 'I'm sorry, there's just nothing I could do'. Which clearly was not the case. She could have voted against. James are you able to do anything in advance to encourage them to grow some balls this time round rather than just rolling over again?

Monkey, please do share these details if you get them. The service provided by Southern at the moment is absolutely shocking, and I see no reason why people should have to pay a full fare for continual cancelled, severely delayed and severely congested trains. I too will contact him about this. Thanks

derwentgrove, Given the way this has been dealt with by the council (which can leave objectors justifiably aggrieved), I'm not sure pushing the focus/responsibility for failure onto the objectors is reasonable. To do so is essentially absolving the council of their responsibility for this. Objections only form a part of the considerations and decision-making process for the council and the imposition of conditions would have been an option that was very apparent/obvious to planners regardless of what objectors asked for, and to therefore suggest this is a failure on behalf of the objectors is not really fair. and also misses the point that many objectors did ask for conditions rather than outright refusal anyway.

Lousia, The delivery timings themselves will not be under review - it will purely be the degree to which M&S is sticking to the proposed schedule that will be.

Thats the problem Jah1 - you are presuming and were not there. As per my original post, the councillors discussed a number of issues with the application, and considered actions such as imposing an amended delivery schedule/plan which would be more in favour of local residents, such as not having deliveries at 7am or 10pm at night, or having early or late deliveries to the front via Lordship Lane - all agreed that this would be possible, reasonable and exactly as other stores such as Co-Op or Sainsdburys on lordship Lane do. However, after discussion and advice from their lawyer they decided that they could not do this as it would go against the Inspectors appeal decision and conclusions (despite the fact they have the right to over-rule or push the case back to him again). The issue was raised about the financial implications for the council if it was pushed back to M&S again and M&S appealed again - apparently they would then be in a position to claim financially against the council. So actually this was not a case of the councillors not being pursuaded about the objectors case at all. They explicitly recognised that the issue had not been dealt with properly early on and resulted in the position we are in now - essentially an unsatisfactory situation, but felt their hands were tied by the Inspector's conclusions. So when I saw 'rolling over' what I mean is that the freeholder (with M&S behind them) has got away with an application that was riddled with inaccuracies (15% of customers arriving by tube for example!) for an over-development of a small site with an obvious impact on the local residents, and in the end Southwark has done virtually nothing (other than change the sunday delivery time by one hour) to protect the local residents.

For those not aware, planning permission has been granted, with the additional condition of a formal process of review of the delivery arrangements at 6 and 9 months to ensure the rules (timings/conduct etc) adhered to. A depressing process. Council admitted the case had been dealt with poorly early on, with full implications not considered properly, and the councillors making the decision clearly did not agree with the inspector's previous appeal decision and conclusions, but ultimately they felt they could not go back on them. So Southwark rolled over and M&S and the freeholder got exactly what they wanted. Despite all of the inaccuracies in their studies. Why on earth Southwark could not approve the application but also extract some basic concessions from the applicants (for instance on delivery times) is absolutely beyond me.

James, In addition to First Mate's question: We have met on Chesterfield Grove and discussed the M&S proposal. You said that you could see little reason why it could not take deliveries from Lordship Lane, just as Co-Op currently does. This would alleviate many of the problems associated with the planning application. As you have a seat on the planning committee, will you be pushing for this to be seriously considered? Many thanks

Exactly. Loading from Lordship Lane is an issue that I and others on chesterfield have raised already, and is apparently supported by James Barber. James, will you be pushing this during the upcoming planning meeting?

A recommendation for Tony (you can find him on the EDF under the name Barney Rubble) - he collected a large amount of waste for us today (old shed, bags of turf and garden waste). Did a great job, polite/friendly, reasonable cost. Recommended.

Just get it from SMBS. and much better service there too......

Sorry James - have I understood you right? I am suggesting that it is within the Council's gift to place conditions upon new developments. So for instance, where twenty new flats are being developed or with the new M&S proposal, the council can demand that a certain amount of parking provision (ie physical spaces, not car club memberships) for the new occupants be incldued in the plans. Are you saying that the Council could/would only do this where there is a CPZ in place already?

Jamees, even though its only for 3 years, and recognising that there is not any guarantee that one person would take up membership of it? Surely a better way of mitigating the impact of developments is for Southwark to limit/place conditions upon them at the planning stage, rather than relying on this very flimsy scheme?

James, Back to my question (a general one, not specifically related to this development): Do you REALLY believe that the offer of a 3 year car club membership is an effective means of mitigating some of the negative effects of development?

worldwiser, This is not about trying to stifle 'all development' at all (well, at least not from me). I am pro development - it is essential for the future of our area. I just think that development should be sympathetic. Freeholders/developers will usually try to wring out as much value from their property as they can (who wouldn't), so ourselves and the Council should act as a natural counterpoint to ensure that they are not given complete free reign to over-develop and cause problems. I think the CPZ argument is a separate one (and one I've never been involved in and dont intend to get involved in here) to the issue I was raising. James suggests that Southwark can't do much because the majority of locals are in opposition to CPZ. But developments can be limited by the Council and conditions placed upon them to ensure they include parking provision. I can't see how limited duration car club membership schemes would be effective in any way, and suspect they may be an easy way for the Council to approve development whilst also showing (the local population) that they have done something about the parking issue. So, I would like to repeat my question: James - do you REALLY believe that the offer of a 3 year car club membership is an effective means of mitigating some of the negative effects of development?