XIX

delivery at 0625 this morning......

If you think the bags on the pavement are bad you should see the inside of the yard. Gate was left open during Christmas period. Utterly filthy, stinking, waste bags stacked 6 feet high, food spilling out, all right outside backdoor to kitchen. Disgraceful.

DuncanW, ref your point about Blah Blah's assertions - still doesn't get round that he completely dismissed DF's views as opinion, having already equivocally stated as fact something that he was simply not in a position to. I was merely highlighting the hypocrisy. As for your comment "As far as most people seem to see it....." - oh right, well as long as most people seem to see it that way, it must be fine then....... Not sure that's ever been a decent basis for establishing anything. Its not what is shown to, or goes on in public that's the issue, it's what happens out of public view that is (not just circuses, but abattoirs, farms etc etc). Anyway, to be clear, I'm not saying I think the animals are mistreated at Zippos, I'm merely one of many people joining in this debate about the principles at hand, but will happily leave it here if people want to get back on subject.

Blah Blah I'm somewhat intrigued by the absolute certainty you have about the way these animals are kept, and I quote: "The horses are well looked after and there is no harm to them or the budgies." You have a pop at DF for his opinions not being evidence. But on what basis are you able to state the facts that you have above? Surely not on the couple of minutes of seeing them cantering around inside the tent with you as a spectator???? As a self-professed horse person you will surely know very well that that is no basis on which to make a balanced assessment on the physical or mental health of an animal, or whether they are well looked after. What do you know about how they are treated outside their performances in the circus tent? And how do you not know that there are not other horses kept by Zippo who are in ill-health etc, who are not shown? Peoples' questions on here about animal welfare are perfectly legitimate, given the multitude of well-documented cases of animal cruelty in circuses, so I'm interested to know why they can be discounted so quickly in this case. And beyond all that, quite aside from the issue of whether the animals are well-looked after or subject to specific acts of cruelty or not, many might argue more broadly that a travelling circus is not a good environment for horses to be kept. It is quite different from being stabled in one place and having regular access to ample outside space etc etc. One would imagine they must spend a significant proportion of their lives in horse boxes and temporary stabling (can the quality of their accommodation ever match that of a dedicated, permanent stable?), with a lack of outside space for grazing and exercise etc etc. I for one am not convinced by the comparison with race horses - I don't think they are equivalent.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > XIX, says you who makes no valid attempt at a > rebuttal. Very yawn. > > Louisa. Ye god. I shouldn't be doing this. I should just walk away. You've literally just asserted that people join the queue outside the cheese-shop at Christmas in order to be seen to be doing it. Much like you once said that middle-class mums deliberately stand in your way on the pavement with their buggies to make themselves feel good at your expense (as opposed to just not realising or being absent-minded or something which is what reasonable people would deduce of their motivation). Seen by who? the big issue seller? its not like its an exclusive destination. I literally cannot imagine one person in ED walking past the queue and thinking 'ooooh, I just saw sarah in the queue, she must be amazing/important/cool'. The reason people queue outside the cheese shop at Christmas is because it is busy inside because lots of people eat cheese at christmas, and until recently it was the only specialist cheese shop on lordship lane, and you have to wait to take your turn to be served. Not because they want to queue outside a cheese shop for effect. And if as you say people wanted to use these places so they could put a post on instagram or whatever to make themselves look cool, why wouldn't they do it on a rainy Tuesday morning when they can walk straight in, take a photo of a slice of stinking bishop or whatever, and then go? Why would they go out of their way to inconvenience themselves by waiting? We all know why. Because its not true. Its nonsense. Nonsense that fits your usual agenda/prejudices. But its not the first time you've said something foundless. and I've no doubt it won't be the last. and I should never have written this post. and I'm sorry to everyone else for perpetuating this thread even further. That's me done.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also agree with the point Foxy makes. Some > people will of course queue on a Saturday because > they're busy working during the week, for a local > butcher or baker or whatever. Others, like those > at Christmas, will queue outside a cheesemongers > so they can be seen doing it. It's this sort of > selective shopping, doing something to get some > weird kick out of it, thats what infuriates some > of us so much. > > People who go somewhere to be seen doing it are > not really supporting local businesses, they go > along in the infancy stage of the new venture, > come on here boring us all with posts about how > amazing their experience is, then rarely if ever > return and the business goes down the plug hole. > It's a sort of strange retail voyeurism. > > Louisa. [yawn] Utter utter drivel.

The issue is that they have removed the Iceland car park which previously provided space for vehicles to turn. Anyone who walks into the rear service area of the site can plainly see that it is impossible to drive a lorry in forwards, and then turn it so that it can drive back out forwards (which was the planning condition). Even the small lorries can barely get in at all, either forwards or backwards. The developers would have well known this as they were developing the site - they have obviously sought to squeeze every single extra square foot they can out of the site for more money, knowing they would walk away once it was built dumping the problem on someone else. The delivery survey conducted at the time of the planning application showing it would be possible to deliver to the rear was challenged and questioned by chesterfield grove residents, but the council did not listen. Two days ago a delivery driver described the situation to me as an 'an absolute nightmare'. Given they cannot get into the site, they have mainly been stopping on chesterfield grove to unload on the pavement - this has obstructed the road, blocked the pavement, caused loads of noise and is clearly not an acceptable long-term solution on a residential street. The only viable option now is for deliveries to the front via lordship lane - it is up to the council to unpick the mess they have created (or allowed to be created), by re-zoning a delivery area, moving a bus stop, pedestrian crossing etc - if any of that is required. But clearly in principle it is entirely feasible and acceptable for deliveries to the front, with co-op being the obvious precedent. James, you always supported deliveries to the front - is that still the case and can you do anything to help achieve it?

I had another wonderful experience getting home tonight. The 2110 was delayed by 15 minutes and a decision was then made to cut out the first six or so stations. When I politely asked a customer services person why it was late and why they felt it was right to just miss out the stations she was very rude and dismissive, clearly couldn't care less. I explained that most people on the train weren't aware it was not calling at most stations (I was only aware by checking on the national rail app whilst sitting on the train waiting) - she replied that an announcement had been made - but when I replied that was on the concourse and no announcement had been made to those already on the train she literally just shrugged, turned away and refused to engage with me. Unbelievable attitude. I then spoke with the train driver himself - he got on the phone to someone - station manager, control room or something and said 'why am I being told to miss out these stations? I'm not going to do it. I'm going to stop at them'. The train then ran (albeit 16 minutes late) and called at all stops. First of all, to the driver of the train (in the extremely unlikely event he reads this) - sir, I salute you. Thank you. What you did was awesome and restored my faith that for every idiot out there, theres a gem too. But the thing that bothered me was a that the decision was made in the first place - was it really necessary to cut the stops? How many times in the past may this have happened totally unecessarily? That a decision is made by someone and no-one challenges it. The ease with which the driver just decided he wasn't going to do what he was told. The whole thing showed how easy it is for management to make decisions lightly about cancelling trains or cutting stops. We can never know if it was really necessary and they know it - they can almost act with impunity. It was only the decency of the driver in this case that could call them out on it. The utter malaise of the initial person I spoke to bothers me. If there were a few more people were like the driver maybe things wouldnt be quite as bad as they are.

0730 delayed en route today. Only 7 minutes late in the end, but that's not the point - this timetable change was meant to ensure reliability and timeliness. AND it was short formation - only 4 carriages. FFS. Its just a joke.

Its outrageous. Could you possibly share Helen and Sadiq's email addresses please? Thanks

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36539137

First Mate, I agree, I thought the first floor above the extended shop space was going to be balconies/terraces for the flats. Certainly doesn't look like it........

Not sure I agree with red devil and calsug that if you are buying and selling, the state of the market doesn't make any difference. If you are looking to sell and then purchase a higher value property you'd be best off doing so in a depressed market where values have dropped. based on following logic: if the market has dropped by 10%, that 10% equates to more in real terms on the more expensive property you are buying than the less expensive one you are selling, as follows - the property you are selling was worth 500000, but is now worth 450000. ie its lost 50K value the property you want to buy was worth 1000000, but is now worth 900000. ie its lost 100K value. ie, in real terms the more expensive property has lost more value and you stand to 'gain' 50K. However, of course this is a principle based on an even market where rises and falls apply equally to all properties, and does not take into account local/individual factors that may influence prices. I'm not saying this is an easy game to play (and other factors may dictate that you are unable to wait until the market is right), but it is a general principle to bear in mind and shows that understanding whether the market is rising or falling is relevant in a decision to buy and sell.

For anyone intending to object to M&S's application to extend licensing hours, below is the response they sent me after I sent an objection. So, RCH, Walworth Road hours irrelevant and wont work as an argument. Likewise the fact that opening hours granted as part of planning permission are shorter also irrelevant. "Your representation cannot be considered in its current form. All representations received must directly relate to one or more of the four licensing objectives which are: ? the prevention of crime and disorder; ? the protection of public safety; ? the prevention of public nuisance and ? the protection of children from harm Any representation must state specifically which of the licensing objectives it relates to. The fact that the current planning consent in respect of premises may not correlate to activities sought in a premises licence application is not a relevant concern as licensing legislation and planning legislation are separate. Therefore a premises licence could be granted even if current planning permission does not correlate to the activities sought in the application, and similarly, planning consent could be granted to allow activities that would require a license at premises even if a premises licence hasn?t yet been granted. It is advisable that suitable planning consent is in place prior to a premises licence application, but not obligatory. Although the applicant has applied for hours in respect of the premises licence that are outside the trading hours permitted by the current planning consent, a breach of planning legislation would only be being committed if the trading hours permitted by the current planning consent are not complied with ? the premises licence application in itself doesn?t comprise any breach of planning legislation. For your information, the planning department are consulted in respect of all premises licence applications. In addition to the above the operating hours sought in an application are not in themselves grounds to object to an application unless it is posited that the proposed operating hours would undermine any of the licensing objectives. Although this service cannot influence the content of any party?s representation in regards to an application, you may wish to amend your representation and submit it in respect of the prevention of public nuisance, further explaining what you think the effect of the proposed licence may have in respect of causing nuisance."

Fazer, Londonmix, enough! you've had your fill. this thread is meant to be about M&S. Please start an alternate thread on affordable housing if you wish. There are still people who want to engage on M&S and each time they post a question it gets lost amidst your increasingly lengthy debate. Thanks

Charlie, thanks for your message. What was the council's response on the issues you raised? What was their rationale for granting the application? Many thanks

Penguin, your assessment is a beautiful sweeping generalisation that conveniently glazes over so many issues and seems, if I've understood it right, to suggest we should all put our faith and trust in the hands of southwark and developers and businesses to develop the borough in the right way. I wonder, how do you think the Heygate residents feel about that???? What about abuse of processes by developers? eg getting round their obligation to affordable housing in underhand ways? What about the malaise/incompetence of the local council/planning department? Should we all just accept that in the vain hope that any development that happens is probably good, because it is change, as you seem to suggest above? Surely we should aspire for better. Decent planning policies, well managed by a competent planning authority. your comment about centre point is not fair either - it is an exaggeration and misrepresents what has happened. A handful of very local residents have some entirely reasonable reservations about the extent of what is proposed and the conduct of the developer and southwark, and are trying to counter-act some of those excesses before they are set in stone. People should stand up and object to things they don't feel are right - isn't that what our democracy is about? this is not, as you and others have suggested so many times, because people are simply 'wedded to the past'. In your assessment you suggest that southwark have a better vision for the future of the borough, implying therefore that their approval of this application is a deliberate part of a grander design. Again, this shows a profound misunderstanding of the history of this case, with its mismanagement (southwark's own admission), the council missing its own deadlines, and being fearful of the applicant taking it to appeal and the council having to fork out for costs. Your vision sounds lovely, but I fear bears absolutely no resemblance to reality. Letting developers/companies do what they want in the knowledge that 'there are remedies to be had' is so na?ve. there is no guarantee any such remedies will be available, and may have to be extremely hardly fought for. An example is the agreement fought for by local residents and eventually put in place with Iceland on deliveries with the help of Tessa Jowell. So much time and effort. When actually with a dose of sense and balance such things could be easily decided at the planning stage with the needs of developers, businesses and local residents all considered. So much time, energy, anguish etc etc could be avoided.

Thanks for attending and for this update James. To re-assert and follow-up on First Mates comment, my concern, now that the final extent of the building has been decided, is that the next step will be the gradual erosion of any conditions agreed before around opening hours (the licencing application shows clear intent) and delivery schedules (which would, I imagine be brought earlier in the day if they now intend to open earlier). Can the council do anything to prevent former agreements/conditions being ignored? Or perhaps the more pertinent question is, would they have the will to do anything? I know this is hypothetical, but I'd also appreciate your thoughts on what will happen if, as FM and some others suspect, the project is bigger than the plans indicated and it turns out that they are not able to get lorries in and out of the back entrance for deliveries? Is it likely they'd seek to stop in the road (Chesterfield) and offload everything onto the pavement before manually pushing it in towards the back entrance? Would they be allowed to do so? Or would the council forbid this and enforce that they deliver on Lordship Lane and through the front door (which should have always been the original solution anyway)? Many thanks

I would sign up to see sherpa

James you mention calling in planning applications. But what happened when you called in the M&S application? I've asked you the question 3/4 times in the last month or so on both this and the M&S thread, and you have not responded to me at all. To re-iterate a point I made earlier, it does seem as if you have distanced yourself from this issue. Previously you were extremely vocal and involved. Not any more. What's changed? Anyway, I don't consider this a personal issue at all. You represent the council, and therefore people direct their questions (and sometimes frustration) at you. Moving forward...... 1. Have the planning department been made aware by you or anyone else, of this contravention (the 10 flats)? Do you know if they plan to do anything about it? 2. I'm sure you can appreciate that it is extremely concerning for local residents that they can just do this (and likely get away with it). It makes me think to the future when M&S are in - will they too disregard the delivery conditions implemented by the planning committee? and if they do, will the council have the ability and will to do anything about it? Many thanks

Good one DaveR. Theres nothing like paraphrasing and misrepresenting a whole of group of people to make your point. Your post above is so petty. James is not being lambasted (at least, not by me). He chooses himself to come on to the forum as our ward councillor to engage with the local community and address their concerns/questions. We've met several times and spoken about this issue. I have asked him some questions online; I have never been rude nor unreasonable. It really is as simple as that. And actually he has taken a very keen personal interest and involvement in this for which I and others have been very grateful. So to continue to engage him on it is perfectly natural, given that the planning process is on-going (it is not over as you imply), as it is to ask him why his involvement/interest seems to have waned, particularly at a time when there is so much uncertainty about a host of follow-on applications, local consultation not happening as it should, and even the promised call-in of the decision being missed. And your impression is simply wrong anyway. The issue was not considered 'entirely properly' first time round at all. The council have admitted it was dealt with poorly. The situation is now changing on a monthly basis and people in the immediate vicinity are rightly concerned about the impact the development might have on them. So I really don't understand you and others who get so frustrated by those of us who air concerns on this thread and make an issue of it. Of course we are engaged and trying to protect our interests against a cowboy developer who has an extremely bad reputation to say the very least. We all accept M&S is coming and now just want to moderate the impact it has on us. Why shouldn't we? I suspect most people would. If you don't want to read about peoples' concerns about it or need 'light relief' (as you say), then just don't read the thread (a reminder - it is actually meant to be about the M&S planning application). Likewise, if you want to have your 'harmless semantic chat' I would suggest that is EXACTLY what the lounge is for.

Seriously, can you take your conversation on what constitutes a high street to the lounge? This is a thread about the M&S planning application, and there are people (regardless of what you think of them fazer) who want to have genuine engagement with James Barber and others on this subject. Your meanderings (and petty sniping fazer) lessen the chance that James will see questions asked of him, and generally detract from what most want to be a constructive conversation. And before anyone says it, yes, I know its a free world, free forum and anyone can state their opinion etc etc. Of course. I'm just asking people try to control their urge to dive in and divert conversations that others are trying to have seriously. Thanks!

Hi James, I'd really appreciate a response; in case you've missed it because of the idiotic nonsense above, here's what I asked: Many thanks for your response James. But is that it? just, 'that's what happened'? I'm sure you can appreciate that for those affected by this development these things are extremely frustrating. It feels like your response above is pretty dismissive/uninterested and its a surprise for you to be so unforthcoming, given that previously you have been so vocal/active/helpful on this issue. And what about the letters of consultation that were seemingly never sent? Has any explanation been given as to why this did not happen? Thanks

Hi James, Grateful if you could also respond to a couple of questions I've posed on the M&S thread - many thanks indeed.

Hi James, I'd be grateful for a response to my questions above. Thanks