Goose

We have been on Vodafone for years, and never had any problems with signal in East Dulwich - with full signal phone coverage and 5G coverage. For the last few weeks, the signal has been really poor where we live making it difficult to make phone calls from home; and often flipping between 3G/ 4G. We are right in the heart of East Dulwich close to Lordship Lane / Co-op / M+S. Not a phone issue as works elsewhere and on 2 separate phones/ SIMS. Anyone having the same issues or know of antenna / mast issues ? Having pressed send, I thought I would check via Vodafone (sorry should have done this first), and it does seem there is an issue with the mobile mast on top of Co-op. Been going on a while though.

Well that's a dry old read. I could have this very wrong but scanning down to pages 50-51 looks like proposal for trains through East Dulwich is: 6 trains per hour Mon-Fri peak times (route SN3.9 *2/hr from Beckenham Junction; route SN3.10A *2/hr from Croydon but to Selhurst; route SN3.12 *2/hr from Sutton) Mon-Sat daytime: 4 trains per hour: (route SN3.9 *2/hr from Beckenham Junction; route SN3.10 *2/hr from Caterham) Mon-Sat evenings: 6 trains per hour (route SN3.9 *2/hr from Crystal Palace; route SN3.10 and SN3.10A *4/hr from West Croydon(2) and Caterham(2) Sunday: 4 trains per hour (route SN3.9 *2/hr from Crystal Palace; route SN3.10A *2/hr from East Croydon but to Selhurst) If that is what happens probably about right (if they are reliable!!)

Any idea when re-opening? Another summer has been and gone and still closed! I think the Shard was built in quicker time than re-furb of a pub!!

Indeed great news. And the new concourse is great. Next question: When do we get the full service back and some services stop terminating at South Bermondsey ? Is it now the station is half open or 2018 when it fully opens ?

James. Thanks for the support (I think). It still begs the question as to why we are not being informed of all the different planning applications being put in for this site. I hadn't seen the one mentioned above by Abe_froeman - someone at a very high level in the planning department needs to get to grips with what is going on here and sort it out. Multiple applications ongoing - cynically maybe to overwhelm the system and so the developers get their way. Could we also have a clear answer on what is happening with the Penthouse application ?? Is there a decision?; what is it?

James. I note your comment above on Nov 18th about the M+S Power substation. The current application I have found is here: http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=dates&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9563354 How is it possible that yet another planning application about this site has failed to be notified to the neighbouring properties. My property borders the site and the substation would be directly behind my fence. This has been a recurring theme with all applications for this site. This failure has to now be more than just incompetence from the council. Thanks anyway for the indirect link that led me to find this. Can I assume you will be supporting neighbours objections for this application?

They already have permission for 8 flats. Now they say 8 offices but add two flats. Then suddenly they build it - 10 flats appear and they probably have permission for all of them. If they are to be offices why do they have to have the outside walkways/ balconies which is one of our biggest gripes as local residents - why not internalise it all. This is clearly a game people ... and we are being played. And please remember they already have permission for M+S, so this is not an M+S vs Iceland debate.

... Or more likely that the developers have adjusted their design for levels 1 and 2 only for this application so that people will think (as above) " oh well only 2 flats, that's not so bad". Then when permission is granted they revert to the 8 flats on levels 1 and 2 (using permission already granted). I think that is the most likely scenario as the 'office' layout is all rather odd and remember they argued that there was no demand for such office space in there previous application.

I was also at the M+S planning meeting and I have to say the whole thing was rather pointless. The councillors had clearly made up their mind and overall seemed to be rather scared of the council being liable if they were to go against anything the inspector had already decided. So they played out a 2.5 hr meeting, admitting there have been numerous uncorrected errors in the proposal from the start and then accept it anyway. What I also don't understand is that if the planning permission was rejected then the developer can go to appeal but we have no leave to appeal? Overall I get the feeling that the company applying for this knew this would be the outcome when they started with their first proposal and played the game. First couple of applications rejected. Make minor modifications to the bits that were criticised only and everyone seems to accept that the rest of the application is fine. Eventually they back the council into a corner of accepting it with the fairly open threat of expensive legal appeals if they don't. And even more clever, you badge it as M+S so quite a lot of locals (except those in immediate vicinity) support it even though there is no binding agreement for M+S to take this forward (although I guess it seems likely as they have been paying the costs). Wouldn't everyone look silly if M+S now decided this is not what they want anymore and don't take up the option but the planning permission still stands. Oh well. At least it might end this thread!

To be honest we should keep a log of how many times Iceland does have deliveries. My impression is first is about 0900-0915 and a second one in early afternoon. Am not really aware of any others. We should really know that information.

Sometime today. Was in the postbox when I checked it tonight. It really contains very little of interest. Just informing of the application and asking for any comments by email. Single sheet of A4. No detail or plans etc. Only thing has different dates for beginning/ end of consultation. Will scan it in and post it on here if doesn't arrive tomorrow.

So after all the waiting ... finally a letter arrives. Disappointingly nothing we didn't already know. But at least we have finally been consulted !

Hmmm. I smell a rat here - a particularly large 'M+S branded' rat... So the clock started ticking 28th Jan - yet no documents available to view. 124 neighbours consulted - yet no one has received anything 1 week on. ... and it all closes on 20th Feb. How can a consultation have started when no documents available to view and no one has been consulted !!!

One of the problems with publishing is "Publication Bias" - where only positive trials (e.g. of a new drug) get published and trials that show disappointing results don't for various reasons. Aren't we at risk of similar things if certain businesses ask for their name to be removed when they are mentioned in the forum ? (see recent post on Lordship Lane Services (http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1207906) and this removed one previosuly (http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1184753)). Admin - surely unless a comment is malicious or defamatory then the post should remain - alternatively the business in question agrees that all references to it anywhere on the forum (i.e. all the glowing reports as well) are also removed. This would then remove this potential bias where negative reviews are elimated and positive ones remain giving a skewed opinion of that business?

Rahrahrah - I think resident's have a reasonable expectation to park in their road (except where restrictions exist e.g. Lordship Lane). You could argue, why do shoppers have an expectation to park for free on residential roads? I am local to Iceland and used to be in favour of the M+S application. However the longer this has gone on, I really am not so sure now. I would def. use it more than Iceland but it is expensive and good for sandwiches or last minute dinners but not regular shopping. Also concerned the effects it would have on local cafe's etc - equally I am totally opposed to Starbucks and would much prefer to use local shops for coffee etc. I also feel the greed of the land owner/ developer doesn't help their application. Why put 8 flats with balcony's overlooking the neighbours on top of the development? They are not concerned about local housing just making money for themselves. Why not use the upstairs for storage for the downstairs store and keep the small car park. If I were the developers I would involve the local community in their plans for design etc. If they had their support it would be much easier to convince the council planners. Whilst they quote the car parking issue for rejection there were so many problems with the application I suspect it was always doomed. I bet we are still having this debate in 2 years time!