first mate

It's not single factor. You have to look at the impact of this development combined with all the others: the two new schools, the medical centre, the proposed 10 m double yellows everywhere and further proposals to reduce parking spaces on Melbourne. None of these large developments have factored in parking, the assumption has been made that people will walk, train or bus it to all the various venues. The street outside M&S was chaos this morning, as one of their delivery vans tried to access the entrance.

Edh, the total development footprint seems larger than expected and we certainly know it is higher, but that is a subjective view and others, including James Barber, have said that it all seems to fit with the plans submitted and available for scrutiny. Are you suggesting that the valuation records will show otherwise? You seem pretty clued up so could you elaborate please?

Lois, I think you make some good points. I would be interested to know what reason has been given for putting Sydenham Hill back to 30 mph, if true? I would support it though. Like you I am all for the bulk of roads being 20mph but main routes better at 30mph. I have never seen such aggressive driving behaviour on a regular basis since 20 mph was introduced.

EDH, TBH I've no idea. There have been so many applications with bits authorised here and there that I think it would be diffcult to know. It certainly seems large enough to be a proper supermarket and that might fit with the much later request for an alcohol licence. Once I realised that objecting to planning was akin to objecting to the winds that blow I rather gave up trying to keep track. The alliance of developers and supermarkets is all conquering, councils and councillors bow to their might and we residents are as flies to wanton boys.

Looks enormous inside...as big as co-op.

my perception is that fewer people are adhering to 20mph than they did 30mph, leading to a less predictable journey in terms of driver behaviour. National stats are all very well but study of a few key roads may be more revealing. Again, if everyone or even most adhered to 20mph it would be easier but in my experience this is simply not the case. Drivers have quickly learned where the few cameras are and speed up and slow down accordingly. Those who do not want to drive at 20mph can become very aggressive in their efforts to make drivers in front of them speed up or if that does not happen they overtake in a risky way. In my experience this is the reality and I do not feel that the roads are safer. Please note the issue is not speed per se but unpredictable driver behaviour, oh and that includes motorbikes and some cyclists.

Gloves fine, but if people are ignoring it then it is possible the risks increase. We need to see RTA data for particular roads since 20mph introduced and also look at the whole issue of enforcement. If the data proves that accidents have reduced since 20 mph introduced on certain roads then fine, but my perception is that the roads in some places feel more hazardous not less, because many are not adhering to 20mph. Just my perception though.

I find driving more hazardous since 20mph was applied to main roads. I believe this is because it is self enforcing and so while a few people try to maintain it many more ignore it, leading to more erratic and unpredictable behaviour. Those who ignore the limit, other than slowing temporarily for the odd speed camera, are also prone to get angry and frustrated when stuck behind a 20mpher and attempt to overtake at speed or tailgate, lights flashing. Far from being bored I find it unnerving trying to stick to 20. At this speed it seems motorbikes and cyclists are also more likely to take risks in terms of weaving in and out of traffic.

Abe, That's the one. So 8 flats at ?670 with the penthouses on top at, presumably, much more. The developers have pretty much got everything they want and more, will wait to see combined impact of the whole.

James, You may know more about current state of play of flats at M&S site. Have all those offices now become flats...each at arounf ?670? You may also be interested to know that lorries delivering fridges etc.. for M&S have been having great difficulty getting in and out of the site, frequently having to park up adjacent to houses and blocking the footpath. The drivers said the M&S regular delivery vehicles will be even larger? Any comment?

I may be misreading or misunderstanding estate agent info but they seem to be marketing a flat on the first floor at over ?670. This will have access to a communal rooftop garden, inducating other flats to be sold on this level. So have all those offices on the first and second floors, the ones that allowed the last application to go through, now been converted to 'affordable' flats? Or is the information incorrect and what they are refrring to is the Penthouse flats on 4 th floor?

Well, if those last guests darken your door again....

I agree, I really cannot imagine that Louisa's guests would have been open to this sort of thing at all. However, if Louisa could manage to get Jay Rayner over for supper or dinner (oh no, which is it now) we could trial the art of eating a slap up british meal, using only fingers.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not sure about eating steamed pudding, mash and > gravy with fingers... Oh nonsense, you just get small amounts of the pudding and/or mash Between your fingertips and roll it into a ball and use this to scoop up the gravy and other bits and bibs and swiftly pop the combo in your mouth Think of eating southern indian dishes where rice is used to scoop up daals etc.., or african polenta based dishes with rich, gravy stews ( some types of polenta being quite like mash). Of course, the host would have to ensure the mash is reasonably thick and stodgy and the gravy is similarly full bodied -think 1950's Bisto. If you finished off with a real 'old fashioned' milk pudding- school dinners style tapioca or semolina- you could easily eat that with your fingers too.

Yes, but they have been pushed out of the right spot opposite the park by a bloomin' developer supermarket combo, so glad they will have somewhere and not be forced out of the area altogether. Also looks like they will keep integrity of HSBC building for most part. Would hate to see yet another homogenised brick and render bland-build a la M&S and Harris.

Yes, think the PR site was being scoped for the usual, a supermarket with flats above. Ah, that'll add character.

Perhaps monies set aside for feasibility studies on road closures might be better spent on fixing stuff like this?

Fair play to you and others might agree with you. Open, civilised discussion, 'tis what the forum is for. (Edited for typos).

Bottom line, it's a small park so activities on foot will always take precedence, annoying if you want to cycle but cannot see cyclists ever getting right of way, even voluntarily. Dog walkers may prefer to walk dogs on lead in tarmac for a variety of reasons - to avoid other dogs that are off lead on the grassy areas, to reduce distractions of smells on grass, to avoid distraction of football and other games, to avoid picnickers; sometimes tarmac feels more comfortable to the human foot and in some level we may just automatically follow roads and paths.

But a worthwhile cost if it encourages people to walk to tbe station?

Sorry, with NX on this. In my view too many fast cyclists in parks already, anything that deters them is a plus, dedicating tbe 'road' in DP to cyclists would be a disaster and encourage speed cycling. I do however agree about those pesky extension leads.

Oh goodness yes, we need homes for young people so all for that. Happy also for parking not to be increased but not for it to ripped away almost overnight by bonkers suggestions like a wholesale increase in double yellow lines everywhere when in reality two new schools and a sizeable self proclaimed 'destination shop' are opening and underway. THen the further bonkers suggestions to close off streets thereby funnelling yet more traffic onto LL in the hope that more people will cycle or use public transport. Let's face it, current reports about rail and bus services do not inspire confidence. Anyhow rant over.

LM, re flats and occupancy, let's wait and see. Hope you are right. On the M&S point, I think you are being very generous. Yes, they wanted the ground floor extended, knowing the size of the site and knowing that the developer would build above, extending by another floor. M&S, knowing the size of the site, the size of the delivery entrance and service area, now much reduced at their stipulation, have also made it a condition that deliveries are stepped up thereby creating much more traffic and congestion on the street. M&S, knowing the history of damage to residential properties made by Iceland delivery vehicles, have forged ahead and, if anything, made further issues more likely by reducing the service/delivery area and stepping up deliveries. AS I said, yesterday there were two men clearly discussing large delivery vehicle manoeuvres into the site, trying to figure out how this could be done. They did not look happy.

My concern has always been with the scale of this development and M&S is simply shorthand for the site. Nonetheless, I do not think the shop would be oblivious to local objections to what the developer has managed to force through and in that sense they might be viewed as having colluded. On the subject of flats and car ownership- I do so hope you are right. Indeed let us hope that the flats are affordable for young buyers and actually occupied. LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't personally know anyone living in a flat > without kids that owns a car in London. The > people I know with a car have kids (and not all of > them, just some). > > I know that's anecdotal but its why I find some of > the parking pressure arguments a bit crazy. Young > people living in 2 bed flats in zone 2 London > aren't car owners. With uber and zip car, owning > a vehicle makes virtually no financial sense until > you need to haul kids around and even then its > more for convenience factor / car seat issue > rather than because it makes more financial > sense. > > Maybe Southwark and certain residents want a CPZ > but M&S isn't to blame for Southwark's political > aims. There is an M&S in Brixton and I just don't > see why one here is going to generate all this > crazy extra car traffic. > > I am concerned that the developer (not M&S) > appears to have skirted affordable housing > requirements and that delivery access may be a > challenge. The rest though just seems over blown. > Its one chain shop replacing another chain shop.

LM, I don't think it's a conspiracey theory, it is fairly clear that council and local Councillors want CPZ. I think what the estate agent meant was that there is an expectation that parking pressure will increase on streets close to M&S which will result in residents asking for CPZ some time soon. Don't forget that development also includes over ten flats, a proportion of which, if not all, will own cars. Double yellow lines are to be extended and ee may get some cycle hangars. Melbourne us also set to lose some parking spaces. As you know, if a number of roads get CPZ the rest of the area will follow, as parking is displaced.