first mate

Sorry to get in late on the discussion. Just to be clear, my only 'interest' is that I live in the area. Along with other locals, I have followed the progress of this application quite closely and I am mildly puzzled that no decision is yet forthcoming, despite statements that a decision has been reached. So, if my persistent strikes you as odd chillaxed, be assured, I have no hidden agenda.

Has a decision been made yet?

Hi James, Another two weeks has gone by and still the M&S planning application is "pending", according to the website. Could you kindly give an update on whether a decision has actually been made yet, not an intention to make a decision but an actual decision, and why the delay in posting the decision?

James, I've put another question for you on M&S site.

James, Another week passed and still no sign of a decision on the M&S/Iceland site application (target decision date was early March it says on website). I have still been unable to open the document dated end Feb, Amended Plan AA. I followed your instructions but to no avail. It is odd that you keep being told that the 'intention' is to refuse but nothing appears. Is this a case of weasel words? I'd love to know what the Feb document is also, as this must have been submitted by the developer after the consultation period.

Dodgy person working for estate agents, assuming you have bought or rent your home?

James I asked you the following on the M&S thread, but decided to post here as you had not replied: James, Thank you. Do you know what the amended plan AA is? I have tried and failed to access this document several times. This document is listed at the top of the apllication as follows: Amended plan 1121/P (--)154 REV PE - PROPOSED SECTION AA 2013-02-21 Please noet the date for this. Still no sign of a decision.

James, Thank you. Do you know what the amended plan AA is? I have tried and failed to access this document several times. This document is listed at the top of the apllication as follows: Amended plan 1121/P (--)154 REV PE - PROPOSED SECTION AA 2013-02-21

James, I've asked you a question on the M&S application thread.

James Barber, Despite your assertion that this application has been refused, according to the website today a decision on the application is still pending. There is also a documentent for an Amended plan A dated 21/2/2013. Since you sit on the planning committee and it is stated that the decision rests with the planning committee, can you please tell us what is going on? Can you also explain what the Amended plan A document is?

James, I am only posting here in order to get your attention as soon as possible. But please reply on the relevant thread. You recently stated on this forum that the most recent M&S application had been turned down, or gave that impression anyhow. I see today that a revised application has appeared dated 21/2/2013. I haven't been able to get into the document. I also see that according to the website, no decision has yet been made and is pending. Can you please calrify the status of both the existing and the revised application.

Penguin68, Oh come on, if people want an M&S that badly they'll be prepared to walk, or as is equally likely in my view, drive, a few hundred yards up the main drag. BTW James Braber's assertion that the application has been turned down may be a complete red herring. That result does not figure on the planning website and I have just seen that a revised application has suddenly appeared- dated 21/2/2013- but you cannot get in to read it. I sanyone else able to access it I can they notify us of what it says? The road next to the entrance of the planning site and car wash is currently being resurfaced. A number of months ago some residents were told by road workers that resurfacing and smrtening up of the street would be done to coincide with M&S opening. James, you sit on the planning committee so presumably you have some idea of what is going on? Can you please tell us asap. Is there any requirment to let residents know about a revised application?

I do wish people would actually read the application and the objections to it, rather than making vague statements about the nature of the objections. The application as it stands fails to meet planniong requirements on a number of levels. If you wnat to blame anyone, blame the developers and their consultants who haven't done their homework properly. The issue isn't loss of parking its about significantly increasing overall traffic pressure on a street that is not designed to take it. This includes deliveries which would be stepped up significantly from the current schedule, also delivering at much earlier times daily and where the same size of vehicle will be made to manouevre in a very much smaller space, creating all kinds of potential hazards. They also want to massively extend the footprint of the overall building,in height as well, in order to accomodate living space for 8 households, but where parking provision will not be made. The assumption is that everyone will do their M&S shopping on bicycles and that the households will not need or want cars. There are also more complex issues to do with noise and waste disposal, ownership of curtilage, threats to mature trees. Part of the plan indicates that it needs to encroach on and use private property in order to succeed. It's a very badly thought out application and there is a sense that they thought they could somehow will it through on the might of the M&S name.

If the footprint and height of a new application was the same as the existing building, so that attempts were not being made to squeeze much more out of the same space, and the amount and timing of delivery/ vehicles was no different from those for Icleand, then I don't think residents would care who the shop brand was. Goose what is your motivation for a vote??? The application has not been turned down on the basis that it is M&S.

puzzled, you may not yet have gathered that the application is not about the brand of store...that is certainly not an issue on which it could or would be rejected by planning. It is the detail of the application, things like health and safety, boundaries,the size and scale of the buildings mooted, that have resulted in the rejection of the application. It fails to meet planning requirements.

rahrahrah, your perusal must have been very brief indeed.

Calsug, If you scroll down the same page that has the application you will see neighbour consultation replies. Each link carries batches of replies. The second to last link carries a particulalrly detailed objection. http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=9547620

Calsug, Have you read the application and read the objections?

James, thank you. I also hope the freeholder does not appeal. The existing application is not fit for purpose.

chillaxed, How do you know?

I also like Sue Perkins but did not enjoy the new comedy last night. It just wasn't funny. Although the vet character is clearly meant to be uncomfortable in her own skin, it felt like Sue Perkins was uncomfortable full stop and I found much of it a bit cringeworthy.

Well, the domesticated dog certainly helped keep the wolf at bay, same principle (tongue in danger of getting stuck in cheek).

LD, my point was that feeding and taming wild rats is entirely possible. In the 1800's, in only a few generations, wild rats were selectively bred to produce the domesticated rat. It might be possible to select and breed from tamer foxes to produce a domesticated fox- this was done from a population of wild silver foxes in Russia. Tame foxes might be the answer ;)

LD, Taming rats has already happened- hence the pet rat.

I don't want to have a pass me the smelling salts moment, but I do think the title is a bit OTT.