first mate

It would help if one of those closely involved with the campaign and knows the detail of the application could come up with wording and pertitent points in planning terms, that could be posted on this thread and cut a pasted. Sorry to sound lazy, I will object but won't be able to get across the detail.

James, to be clear, do the developers at the M&S site now have permission to build 10 flats? Do they have permission to build two penthouses on a fourth storey (their appears to be structures in place for a fourth storey)? Can you confirm status of each? If permissions for above are not in place what actions will Planning take? If the Developers go ahead and build without permissions and in contravention of planning policy, what will be done? Can you also confirm if permission for a sub station is in process/ likely to be granted? If not, what happens next? If we find out that large delivery vehicles cannot turn to exit from the site, but instead have to reverse out, what actions will be taken? Multiple planning applications were passed on the basis that there would be room for vehicles to turn on site. You advised residents to write letters of objection to M&S. Have you, or will you, be writing to M&S CEO on residents behalf? I am sure you will agree that the above are important questions, we cannot accept that developers are free to operate in direct contravention of planning policy. Finally, please don't make this into a party political thing. You are our elected representative and therefore the most appropriate person to engage on these matters.

James, I am sorry you feel that way and have little doubt that many will rush to your defence and probably attack me, but the fact remains that in terms of this particular development we, the residents affected, have been badly let down by the system and those who operate within it as our representatives. As a matter of interest, and assuming you have followed your advice to us, will you share the letter of objection to the M&S CEO and his reply?

rch, "dropped balls" love it... though something along the lines of an impotent alliance of Planning and Councillors might be more apt? Yes, agree;something/anything, just not defeatism of the dice are loaded against response.

Chazzle, the very best of luck, you will really have to be on your toes but I do hope you get a good result. A view expressed in another thread is that the govt have made it impossible for planning to do much to protect residents interests, the dice are loaded against us.

James, One application got through on a technicality that, allegedly, had not been anticipated/ understood by anyone in planning or those that sit on planning committees, leaving anyone with a decision making capacity with "tied hands" then, more recently, after a further application was called in, another vital deadline was somehow missed by all those with the power to influence proceedings, thereby enabling the developers to proceed...that is what I mean. And I feel sure that if one were to dig deeper we might find other areas where ther have been "butter fingers" episodes. Oh well, blame the govt and loaded dice if you will.

ITATM, Think those with valid concerns about the Railway Rise development would do well to note the MO ( both of developer and of Planning and councillors) in the M&S site case.

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Children cycling to Harris school I somehow > cannot see that happening. > > > Why not..? Forgive me if I also share this doubt. On warm, balmy days I am sure a fair few will cycle, but rsiny days, cold days? Not convinced at all. This does seem like more needless meddling.

James made his announcement in The January edition of SE22 magazine. What were local schoolchildren doing visiting the building site??? Anyhow, that is an aside I am still interested to know how the info got out, where and when? What is Planning's reaction to this clear breach flouting of policy. Are we really meant to go begging for the ear of M&S' CEO? Is this how local planning decisions are now being made? Robin, thanks for your reply and thoughts. Even approaching from the Lordahip Lane end is going to cause major issues with traffic, especially as we suspect there is no room on the site for vehicles to turn, meaning they will have to reverse out. Isn't it extraordinary how many times planning/ councillors have managed to drop the ball on this one...what slippery hands they must have. BTW, I don't think the Council own the carwash, the land is privately owned and eventually surely a site rip for another massive four storey build...after all, precedent will be sent and councillors will wring their hands exclaiming there is nothing they can do.

James, I see that you have announced that the developers on the M&S site have, to quote you, "Admitted" they are building 10 flats in contravention of planning policy. How and when was this admission made? What other contraventions are underway? Not long ago, on this site, you said you saw no problem with the build and that the developers were adhering to submitted plans. Has there also been scrutiny of what appears to be a lift and stairs structure for a fourth floor? what about sufficient room for large vehicles to turn on land owned by the developers, are we sure there is enough room? In your view, is there sufficient scrutiny of this build? You say that you are pleased that M&S are in situ but advise that residents should write to the Chief Exec of M&S to object to contraventions in planning policy. Is this a tacit admission that Planning and Councillors are toothless and that we are all at the mercy of developers and supermarket chains, who can do pretty much as they please?

Charles, many of us share your frustration but let's be clear it is not change for the sake of change but carefully calculated to put as much pressure as possible on parking space. At the same time one lot propose lots of double yellows another lot wants to actually close the whole road. All this when we have two new large schools, a large supermarket and a range of residential developments all guaranteed to increase parking pressure. The calculation that all Councillors have made is that there will be a tipping point where residents beg for CPZ. They all want it, it's just they each have their own pet traffic pressure methods. Objections from one political side about the preferred parking pressure methods of the other sides is disingenuous rot.

James, given that you have been closely involved with the M&S build all the way through ( albeit the preference you pushed for in the early days was a Waitrose) can you reveal why an alleged three storey build seems to have the structure for stairs and a lift that go up to four stories? Is this for the fourth storey and penthouses? What news of those? Are you aware of the current state of play? Guven the size of the build and its new footprint, can you confirm that M&S are confident that their lorries will easily be able to roll into the loading bay and turn to come out again? If this is not the case what action will planning/Councillors take? The ability for delivery vehicles to manoeuvre safely and in the normal way was a central plank of the planning applications. Please note it was never proposed that vehicles move in and then ever so slowly reverse out, especially not when deliveries will be more frequent than those made when it was Iceland.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > sheff wrote on December 11th As it happens I've > just seen someone get hit side on in there car > attempting to pull out from that junction. > This lunchtime. > > Mr Barber writes on December 12th The good news > dramatically were crashes at this junction than > the past. > > Really? Ditto.

davidk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This would stop if Southwark made any attempt to > penalise illegal parking in this area but they are > clearly not interested. Davidk, there is a lack of transparency in the way S'wark implement traffic management and then 'police' it. It seems to be the be case that certain developers, and the builders they hire, can park wherever they want, wreaking whatever havoc they choose, with no fear of penalty from S'wark parking. On the other hand, your average, council tax paying resident is treated somewhat differently.

Well said James. I think that the very same mindset that motivates high speed reckless driving is the same for the speeder cyclist, ultimately just very selfish. Cyclists that weave in and out of traffic are also a menace( including motorbikes). When driving it is simply impossible to monitor both sides of the car simultaneously.

I recently came across a builder/white van man who was pissing in the street. Nice. HP Saucey. I imagine you are objecting to dog owners in PRP failing to bag up, rather than the fact that dogs go in the park?

Aandl, So sorry for such a horrible experience. There seems to be a major surge in burglaries in the area. I hope you are fully compensated for your losses. Neighbours need to stick together and keep an eye on each others properties. It's a way older and retired folk can really help, when younger families and homeowners are out at work.

Angelina, sorry, didn't pick up on the sarky bit as many posters in the past have made similar observations and meant them. At least you will then be aware of some of the very real problems with the build. Not least, the giant displaced bollard at the entrance. Displaced, because there is not enough room for large vehicles to manoeuvre, a fact planning at first upheld but in later applications decided to turn a blind eye to.

Angelina, for those not directly next to the build I am sure you are right. But your observation underlines how in some discussions self - interest is only allowed to cut one way.

DaveR, where planning issues are concerned those closest will suffer most or benefit most, so I don't really know what point you are trying to make? Those who are affected are pursuing the matter because to paraphrase you, they do not believe that the processes have been considered "entirely properly". By "first time round" to which application do you refer? There have been many. Local politics and issues that crop up are often parochial and small scale and easily dusmissed by those not directly affected as petty nimbyism, as you are doing here.

DaveR, okay perhaps I am being a bit harsh...pure frustration at how various things keep getting through and shoulders are shrugged because, apparently, there is nothing anyone can do.

DF, of course there will be but this will lead to CPZ which, let's face it, is what our Councillors have always wnated, so the whole thing has played out very nicely from their perspective.

James, you sound so defeatist, as though there is absolutely nothing you can do, and I find that hard to believe. What planning decision has been taken re the penthouses? In the last hour a structure has been erected that looks as though a fourth storey is to go up. Where is the permission for this? If permission has been given locals have been kept entirely in the dark about it. If you knew why have you not said? The substation has been moved, as has the lift. Where is the permission for this? When was permission for the substation give, when was the consultation? This is decisions behind closed doors and you seem to know about them. The whole premise on which the build went ahead was if deliveries could be made into the yard. Yet, it looks as though the only way this could happen is if lorries slowly move in (blocking pavements and road as they go), and then reversing out, even more slowly beeping away and, again, blocking road and pavement as they go. Given that M&S want deliveries stepped up that means the road and pavment are going to be blocked, a lot. I very much doubt that the fact deliveries are so difficult would stop Chesterfield being used. Imagine the chaos on Lordship Lane if traffic is constantly stopped so deliveries can be made at the front? It might seem a win win for the cycling lobby but I doubt it will work. The only way is if deliveries had to be made at night, but that would also disturb a lot of people. Is this what you are asking for James? Why is planning not monitoring such a large development-they should be? This development should never have been allowed at its current scale. You knew that and yet have seemingly not done anything to halt it or, indeed, to check progress. You make the right noises but seem utterly laissez faire in reality. Residents around here feel really let down by you. Edited because I misread a comment by James.

James, on that note can we revisit the issue of how the huge delivery vehicles are to access the M&S site when a whole range of builder vehicles have been unable to? The footprint of tbe actual build is massive, much larger than it appears on the plans. Have you physically visited the site in the last few days to see for yourself? Can you say how often Council planning visit the site, and when the last visit was made? You should know that workers on the site also say that cannot see where delivery vehicles will be able to turn...it will, quite simply, not be possible. You are our Councillor, you have been involved in this development from the get go, yet you seem no more than a helpless observer in terms of actually getting results for residents.

Worldwiser, good, please keep the pressure on.