first mate

Soyamocha, Going back to a much earlier post I am unclear how far the new structure at its widest point will be from yours? If I have understood they want to build up to the boundary but not on it? If it is a party wall structure I would think you would have a say in the finish your side. Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To Worldwiser > > Thanks for that. > > We are not inclined to do the extension ourselves > because we only put in a brand new kitchen last > year. In addition, unlike our neighbours, we will > be in occupation - they are living elsewhere, so > you can imagine what having that work going on in > our house would be like and living in the > property. We cannot move elsewhere we have way > too much stuff. > > The measurements on your planning permission are > about what we would hope to negotiate. Unless > the wall straddles our > property, we will not be able to touch it, paint > it, hang anything on it etc. We did try and > console ourselves that we could paint it white and > make is appear lighter but that would appear to be > out of the question. > > The reason I would like my own surveyor is that he > will be acting for me and me alone. When I call > him, he will call me back first not the other > party. Obviously I don't want them to hate me > but I am not feeling the love for them right now. > > > To be honest, we will have endure months of > builders, noise, disruption, moving our three full > sheds, paperwork, calls, emails, dirt, dust, lack > of privacy, lack of security and possible damage > because we have quite a old pipes in that area > under the paving - all to eventually end up with a > brick wall right outside our kitchen window and an > additional 40cm of brick is quite a bit when it is > directly in your face. If all they have to do is > find ?1k, I don't think that is much to ask.

Yesterday I was assured by one of the staff that they are definitely not closing.

In my experience Brickhouse too clinical, Cafe Jade LL similarly characterless and, in my experience, indifferent service.

SueJ, Please let us know how your dog is and please see a vet.

SueJ, Thanks for reporting this. If you have not already please get your dog checked at vet. Puncture bites to neck can be more serious than they seem. Please also report to police. A smaller dog might be killed, a person or child could get in the way and be injured. I hope you and your dog are okay.

Alex K, Well I embarassed to say that I do see your point, made me chuckle. However, I am genuinely perplexed as I cannot recall a really poor experience. Also was not aware of the ban...when was that? Anyhow, I am now thinking I either have very poor taste in coffee and cakes or gave just been very lucky. Met owner only once and she was also pleasant too.

I had no idea this place was so unpopular I do not understand why. I must have been extraordinarily lucky on multiple visits to experience good service, good coffee and cakes and, in my view, the decor is lovely. I so dread somewhere like this disappearing to be replaced by a sterile chain or something less interesting to look at. I have always felt it was like a little but of Paris in ED.

Thank you James for highlighting what these proposals are really about. Driving through CPZ is what the Council want and junction safety is a useful eyecatching peg on which to hang a mass reduction in car parking spaces.

Fantastic news. I do hope that locals continue to be vigilant about developer actions. This case highlights the lengths necessary to get a positive result.

If trye it is going l'll really miss it. A real little oasis, lovely atmosphere. Best coffee and tea shop around.

Healey, I doubt even loss of light will cut it. You can see lots of local developments where there is loss of light as well as views but those developments are still being driven through. Think of the studio flats that are being built on small strips of grass on the Dog Kennel Hill Estate. The underpinning rationale is this is the city and homes are needed, so cram 'em in and build 'em high. You may even find play areas are viewed as a luxury if instead homes could be built on that space. Healey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Perhaps not, but loss of light might be an issue > since all the flats face that way. > > In any case, kids facilities should be supported > in inner cities. > > > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > No doubt there will be a few who argue that > this > > is the city, so what do you expect? I'd object > but > > a number will say we need more housing at > whatever > > cost. I'm not sure that having "views stolen" > is > > an argument that cuts it these days.

No doubt there will be a few who argue that this is the city, so what do you expect? I'd object but a number will say we need more housing at whatever cost. I'm not sure that having "views stolen" is an argument that cuts it these days.

Looking at the consultation for various roads at the last Community Council meeting there seems to be very little support for cycle hangars, with the majority against.

Mark T, thanks for outlining the totally random nature of this latest intervention by Southwark. How much will all of this be costing? Mind you I suppose the revenue from CPZ will more than balance the books- after all, that is what this is really about.

XIX, Ok so it sounds like those conditions of hours of operation need to be checked and set in stone.

Rch,Let's not forget this process has already happened once and spun out over 4 years, as the orginal permission for 8 flats was made on the basis that their was no demand for offices. It's like groundhog day.

Post removed as inaccurate.

Like Ed History, I'm keen to know who was on the planning cttee, which wards they rep and which way they voted.

Robbin, Objections were not against M&S but overdevelopment of the site by the developers in breach of Southwark Planning policy, attendant health and safety issues, and apparent attempts by developers to circumvent affordable housing quotas. The brand is a red herring.

rch, A helpful and informative post, thanks. If CS did object to this it shows he is prepared to put local interests before what might be a party line and that takes guts.

Charlie, It sounds like you objected. If so, thank you. If all the local Councillors of whatever party objected it feels worrying that those considered views could so easily be overridden by the opinions of those who do not know the area as well. As requested earlier, can we have the names of those attending and who voted for what?

P68, I don't think the majority of objectors were against change, it has always been about degree. Those closest will inevitably note the downsides, those further away are more likely to see the benefits and dismiss the former as a sort of collateral damage, and the latter will almost always be the majority view. Yes, for most people having a convenient liquor and fast food store, open 7am 'till 12pm every day of the week, will certainly be seen as handy. There will always be customers for that. For those close by increased deliveries/ opening hours may impact on sleep etc.. presumably the rationale for earlier conditions. But hey,as you suggest, for the greater good.

James, how likely do you think it is the proposed licensing application will also be nodded through, because this would completely undermine earlier agreements with M&S about trading hours.

James, Many thanks to you and the other councillors who attended snd objected. It is now clear that the whole system is a farce when, as you say, the Council's own planning policy is consistently ignored. Developers rule. Someone attached to that site commented to me that part of the problem was the planning officers did not have the "bxxxs" to make a decision. Given your comments about planning committees appearing to be 'whipped' by the ruling party, that comment has a new layer of meaning.

So not just developers playing with the system but M&S too.