first mate

Penguin, I think resistance to change is usually about perception, if something appears to be working the view may be why is it necessary to change..., so yes talking is good and perhaps I have in my cynicism too hastily dismissed the motivation of the architects in coming onto the forum. My greatest concern is about setting precedents and glad you agree. Beyond that, from what I have gleaned, I would not want these built next to me, nor, long-term would I want to see our city gardens slowly eroded by ever more developments. Jeremy, Absolutely. London can also become another Hong Kong...completely feasible.

P68, I don't think it is a matter of finding change difficult. Many of us embrace change when it feels right and of benefit. Those next to the proposed development are already involved and those further are probably only affected by it in terms of precedents it sets. I'm most interested to hear the thoughts of those closest to the development.

I guess I just feel sorry for those who have for years looked at a garden next door to them but may now have to look at other properties. In isolation the buildings do look okayish- not my cuppa but tarted up with all the foliage they could be worse, however I am most concerned about the precedent of building on garden land to make more residential buildings, when the existing buildings are all so close together. Yes, I can see that the architects coming on here is a great way to drum up support from those not close by. I just think would I like it next door to me.

I don't know the detail of either application but building on garden land is worrying for the simple reason that if any of these gets passed then it does set a precedent. Interesting that the architects have been sent out on a firefighting/charm offensive mission. This shows the location and relationship of site to to other buildings http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/394632_1.pdf All too close for comfort in my view. Note the developer is a Mr Cotton from Wimbledon, no local interest then.

ZT, what you mean owners are put in the stocks and pelted with their own dog's poo?!

DaveR, I'm not Will Self's biggest fan either but I imagine many of us are taken in by marketing the whole time, it is not always possible to stay abreast of every company takeover and were marketing and advertising unpersuasive I doubt so much time, money and energy would be invested in any of it.

Bawdy-nan, Thanks for that. I didn't know they were part of Cineworld. I had thought it was a small chain...now we find out it's the biggest cinema chain in Europe..nice.

James, I do not mean this as a personal slight against you, however are you really saying that only a handful of people on planning would have had a sense of these three developments (M&S, Cinema, Harris primary)until only very recently. That is slightly stretching the bounds of credulity. It is hardly rocket science to work out that the three together is going to have a major impact on traffic and parking and I am sure that these big developments would have been known about within planning committee circles well before decision time and yet, it seems, the cumulative effect of the three was not raised or considered?

Development does not have to equal packing more into a space, sometimes it does mean that, for instance where there is a necessary choice involving change of use (Harris perhaps) but sometimes, yes, I do think it might be necessary to say a building or patch of land can be updated or refurbished or 'improved' but that it might be imprudent to try to pack much more into that space (M&S plus new residences). Part of the problem is that planning, despite what we are told, does not seem to be done in a holistic way but is more piecemeal. So on its own merits each of these new developments might seem a good idea but having them all so close together? I'd just like to have a sense of what the long-term vision for the area is? It is only those that sit on the planning committees who have that kind of overview and yet they ask us what solutions for parking we can come up with. My point is, wouldn't someone on planning have been thinking about that some time ago when all these developments were just at the ideas stage?

James, I'd imagine to stay afloat the cinema will have to do daytime screenings and I'd imagine a proportion of those attending will come by car, so not only evenings I would think. Yes, M&S plus a wodge of new residents, minus the large car park, but with increased juggernaut deliveries, is going to have quite an impact. I do wonder sometimes how the road surface will hold. The Harris will be a big school in terms of students attending. Parents tend to like to drop their younger kids off by car for safety and convenience reasons, especially in the winter months, so that'll be a lot of traffic around early morning and late afternoon, not to mention teachers and any servicing/supplies. For reasons I've already stated cannot see the utopian state of cycling/car-free teachers, all wedded to public transport, being a realistic proposition. Meant to say also that I'm sure Harris will have weekend and evening acticities won't it? M&S will be open all hours and as for the cinema only producing traffic at night, well aside from what I've already said, it is in the evening that residents need to find somewhere to park for the night otherwise they are a bit screwed. For sure the cinema will probably interfere with that on roads close by.

Otta, great when it works, but at the end of a tiring day you don't want to be standing in the rain for the bus that is too full and does not stop or the train that is cancelled. If transport was great it'd all be fine but it isn't and there lies the rub. No good saying if more of us use it it'll get better. Until it improves people will always choose a car if they can. RRR Well I do agree with you there, 'tis an unforunate aspect of human nature in some and another reason why increased parking pressure may result in CPZ- those people will ask for it. My view has always been that as long as I could park somewhere along my street or another close by, all was dandy and I thinak there are many who feel the same. However,parking pressures really are changing and can only get worse; if the M&s parking survey was anything to go by they are a farce and cannot be relied on.

RRR, You've stated that a number of time on different threads. My expereince is that it is not code for parking outside ones house but refelcts the ability to park on one of the streets close to one's house. I couldn't care about parking outside my house and never have done but it is increasingly difficult to find a space on one of the roads close by and that is before Harris primary, the Cinema, M&S.

??? Don't Harris do Saturday school?

James, re CPZ- we'll see but the notion that the combination of three big new developments in the area will not impact heavily on residents' parking is disingenuous. Others are right, the notion that all will magically take to cycling or less than reliable public transport, is a rather large sticking plaster but one councillors seem prepared to accept without too much thought. Cycling is a great option for those who are physically fit and who like cycling. On cold dark mornings and evenings, perhaps with torrential rain, it just doesn't seem a realistic, or indeed safe option, for the majority, especially if you are coming in from Kent, laden with books for marking.There are of course hardcore cyclists who will take to their pedals come what may, but for most this is a summer option, not for winter.

Councillors know fine well where this is going and it is what they want. I should also have added that in the same small area we also have the weekly market and the car wash. CPZ on the way folks, job done.

The Parking issue is significant but some will be happy to allow pressure to build short term as it makes introduction of ED-wide CPZ much more likely- a cherished dream of certain councillors on this forum. Imagine, the combined effects of the new school, the new cinema, and the new M&S. That is going to be a heck of a lot more traffic on one small section of Lordship Lane and surrounding streets.

There are many that think design and aesthetics do have an impact on children, even very young children. Moreover, therte is a view that schools should not be plonked into communities, rather the school is an extension of the community http://www.archdaily.com/213438/community-oriented-architecture-in-schools-how-extroverted-design-can-impact-learning-and-change-the-world/

A number of weeks ago someone- sorry cannot remember who- posted a really insightful Guardian piece about developers and the very real threats they pose. I think it was penguin68 who commented that the latest Harris shenanigans on the Hospital site has the feel of a Tesco-style land grab. Harris' relentless march and expansion across London seems to be about getting as much available land as possible under the Harris brand, whether the community wants that or not, and then throwing up a recognisably Harris building for as little cost as possible. i don't really know how this is meant to increase choice or education options.

A well designed building should be able to provide a pleasing aesthetic as well as functionality- isn't that what an architect is for.

All the Harris academies look much the same...legoesque. Ghastly, unimaginative, cheap tat.

Please no too. Can any Councillors who sit on planning committees, and who therefore might to have some awareness of such an application, comment?

sorry guys, did not mean to sound all gloom and doom and Perhaps the scenarios are rather different. i wish you well and do stay positive.

And expect resubmission after resubmission. The whole M&S debacle teaches us that developers know that if they can reach a ceratin point where appeals are likely the council buckles for fear it will lose thus setting a precedent- plus costs, that is the curious logic. I have seen this happen a number of times with residential developments where something totally and utterly illegal and in clear breach of planning regs, is allowed to go ahead ahead and council planning are too frightened to ask for it to be torn down/stopped, in case they lose. The fact that they even felt they might lose gives one considerbale insight into the powers of developers now or ways that experts can work the planning game to their advantage.

James, can Southwark override the existing NHS remit for any surplus land to be sold for housing? If so, can they do this without permission of NHS England and or the Sec of State for Health?

LM, and I am sure an application could be 'unapproved' if it is shown it was not done according to strict process.