intexasatthe moment

IME objections re parking and increased traffic will carry little weight . There is a need and desire to reduce use of cars and the site has great access to bus and trains . So I wouldn't devote too much time to that in objections . In the covering letter there is discussion of what constitutes a building .I don't understand ( and haven't tried ) to understand the point being argued but assume it's significant and a grey area . Copying below for those with more knowledge to comment "Two question arise: a) The first is whether the word ?building? contained in paragraph P.1(d) includes part of a building. If it does, the fact that the ?building? being proposed under Class P is part of a larger building would be irrelevant; in these circumstances, so long as the part being considered is below 500 metres, the criterion would be satisfied. b) The second issue is whether, if the word ?building? means only a single, whole building and not part of it. Whether ?building? within paragraph P.1(d) includes part of the building In my view, the phrase ?building? in paragraph P.1(d) includes part of a building. It requires, therefore, that the part of the building being proposed for use under Class P be below 500 metres. As a result, in this case, paragraph P.1(d) is not contravened. My reasons are as follows. First, paragraph P.1(d) must be read consistently with both the 2015 Order as a whole and the permission granted by Class P. ?Building? is defined in the Order (as it is in s. 336(1) of the 1990 Act) as including part of a building. On the face of it, therefore, Class P is capable of applying to part of a building. There is nothing within the wording of the permission in Class P to suggest that a different approach is taken in that Class. Indeed, that is consistent with the position on an application for planning permission under s. 62 of the 1990 Act. Applications for a material change of use can made to change the use of part of a building (for example, a dwelling house or flat into two separate flats). Moreover, other classes under Part 3 (see, for example, part M) patently allow for applications to be made which would change the use of part of the building; they use the phrase ?the development (together with any previous development under Class M) would result in more than 150 square metres of floor space in the building having changed use under Class M?. Part 3 clearly envisages that a permission will extend to part of the site. Since the permission itself is granted in respect of part of a building, paragraph P.1(d) would have to be 5 construed as applying a different and more restrictive definition of ?building? to the main provisions within Class P. In my view, that is unlikely. Indeed, the definition within the 2015 Order of ?building? specifically excludes the inclusion of part of the building in respect of certain Classes and did not take that opportunity in respect of either paragraph P.1(d) or Class P as a whole. An alternative would have been to make clear that the paragraph related to a whole building only rather than part of the building ? that step was not taken. Class P?s provisions are, therefore, capable of operating in respect of changes of use of part of a building as much as a whole building (e.g. the use for warehouse and storage for a particular period). As a result, in my view, if the change of use in question relates to part of a building, paragraph (d) applies its restriction to the part in question. "

If I were you I'd look through Southwark's Residential Design Guide Supplementary Design Guide http://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/supplementary-planning-documents-spd/spd-by-planning-topic?chapter=5 It contains lots of requirements which I think are not met in this application eg For major residential development (those over 10 units) does the development? ? Have at least 60% of units suitable for three or more occupants containing two or more bedrooms)? ? Include studio flats? If so are these limited to 5% of the total number of dwellings? Note that studio flats are not considered suitable for affordable housing provision. ? Include a minimum of 10% of units that are suitable for wheelchair users in line with guidance set out in section 2.10 of this SPD? ? Provide the minimum amount of family homes with direct access to private outdoor space as set out in sections 2.3, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4? I always find it difficult to find the most up to date Southwark documents but think this still applies . Feel sure that this application won't succed in it's current form but will be signficantly ammended .

AZH looking at Southwark's planning portal it seems that the Nutbrook St application for 3 houses was not rejected but granted . See the decision notice here http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=16/AP/5181&system=DC With regard to access for fire engines IME this is routinely accepted by planning depts as not needed if fire hydrants and sprinklers are installed . So installing a fire hydrant near the building means that the fire brigade can deal with a fire even though they can't get an engine next to the building . ( my understanding ,happy to be corrected by those more knowledgeable )

I noticed a sign at the junction of Bellenden and Peckham Rd ,near Lidls ,last week . But I'm guessing this wouldn't have been seen by people using Lyndhurst Grove /Lyndhurst Way to join Bellenden Rd further south by Ganapati . So possibly poor signage rather than unplanned works ? Certainly caused major problems on Peckham Rd .

The nos 12 buses were in a pickle earlier this evening - it took 3 seperate 12s to travel from Lidls to beyond Nigel Rd as all 3 had their destinations changed and curtailed . Plus lots of police activity .

I have heard that it more effective to take anti histamines daily throughout the /whichever pollen season . So prophylactically as opposed to popping one when in the throes of itchyness .

I've avoided asking this as I fear highlighting my stupidity in some areas but...if you're looking at car A and car B and thinking "gosh what a big gap" how do you know that when car A ( or B ) was first parked they were close to an adjacent car which has subsequently driven off ?

Ilona I feel your pain . Odd to have flying ants when it's been so cold ,but I guess if you them indoors they presumably are coming from a source indoors . Google suggests peppermint oil for spraying on the flying ones Make a natural peppermint spray.[2] Peppermint oil kills flying ants via suffocation. You can mix peppermint oil with water and soap in a spray bottle to create your own natural aerosol insecticide. Combine one part liquid soap and with two parts water in a spray bottle, then add several drops of peppermint essential oil. Mix well to combine. Spray this solution on any flying ants you see, either at rest or in flight. or just washing up liquid Spray the ants with dish soap. Dish soap alone is effective against flying ants since it sticks to the ants' bodies and dehydrates them to death. To make a solution that you can easily use to attack flying ants, dilute the dish soap with water inside a standard spray bottle. Fill a bottle with water and add a few squirts of liquid dish soap. Mix well so that the soap is evenly distributed throughout the water. Spray winged ants in flight or at rest when you see them. and these methods for getting to the nest Set a trap using baking soda and powdered sugar. Baking soda is another material that can kill ants. By mixing it with powdered sugar, you mask the odor and cause flying ants to take it back to the queen and to the nest. The ants that eat it will die. The baking soda reacts with an acidic substance ants naturally carry around inside for the sake of protection. When the baking soda mixes with this acid, a violent reaction develops and kills the ants as a result. or Kill the ants with artificial sweetener. Certain types of artificial sweetener are extremely toxic to ants, yet the sweet scent is often enough to lure them in. The artificial sweetener gets carried back to the queen and to the nest, and all the ants that consume it die off. Aspartame, in particular, is known for acting as a neurotoxin to ants. Mix a little artificial sweetener with some apple juice, adding just enough apple juice to form a paste. The ants will eat some of this paste and carry some back to the rest of the colony. Once consumed there, the ant population will dwindle. Go girl ,you can do it !

RPC - I couldn't work it out either .Odd to go to the expense of producing and distributing when ,as you say ,it seems unlikely that anyone could or would complete it .

Pretty sure it's St Aidan's Rd near junction with Underhill .

From Soutwark council London Borough of Rabbit 10236 Charing Cross Rd Los Angeles and it's dated Nov 17 so how silly would you be to respond to this circular ? Except it looks very convincing .

Louisa I can't face the vagaries of the planning portal . What was the gist ?

It might be easier to saw it up with a hand saw . I'm a pretty feeble 67 year old female and an old saw and I've surprised myself at how possible it is to saw through slim tree trunks .And yours is dead and rotten .

Whoops ,posted twice !

Will be sorry to see Chener books close .Hope a lovely independent book shop replaces it .

Numerous honey bees in my garden drinking water from a crock with stones in it .

Apparently mixing equal amounts of baking powder and icing sugar produces an ant killer .

That's my experience muffin ,the limescale makes them noisy . If I want a quiet kettle I have to descale every week . Currently trialling those little wire mesh bundles that you drop in . But don't seem to help . Wonder if the plastic kettles reduce the limescale build up and are quieter as a result ?

One of the things that drives me mad is that if you figure a way to sneak up on the site ( like entering the application number as opposed to clicking on a link ) you can sometimes squeeze some information out . But only sometimes ,and I think a lot of stuff is archived .

I wonder who would be the appropriate person to ask about this ? I find it so annoying ,it sort of teases you ,you think it's going to work ( and sometimes it does ! ) and then it doesn't . Sorry ,not v good description .Don't know any technical terms ! Broken seems a good one though .

Have just come back from Lidls and it looked to me that the damage has been mainly confined to nos 62 and that the rest of the group ,58 and 60 are ok...

Is there a reason why this site so often doesn't work properly - why these Error Unable to perform this task. A remote exception occurred. messages are so common ? Why things take so long to load and then time out ? Could it be a problem at my end or do others experience the same ? I find it so frustrating ,half the time it's pointless wasting time trying to look something up .

I think by the time the appeal was heard ,much had changed .Including the ratio of retail shops . My point was how tenacious and succesful large businesses are against planning authorities .

With regard to reassurances re Londis not becoming another coffee shop because planning ensures a balance is retained on the high street ....wasn't Costa's initial application for 8 Lordship Lane to move from a retail shop to become a coffe shop refused ? And then didn't they apply on basis of only doing take away coffee ? And weren't they finally succesful in getting the change of use retrospectively ? I could be mistaken as I don't remember the details and there's not much on the planning site to refresh my memory only an old application 06/AP/0667 where change of use from retail to coffee shop was refused .

I don't think that's necessarily the case Rendel. RPC hasn't posted frequently on this thread and hasn't responded to various comments and questions raised . Perhaps they're doing their best not to get too drawn into an exchange and are focussing only on some aspects ? I don't know of course ,so probably pointless to speculate .