first mate

Many NHS managers have had medical backgrounds whether as nurses or doctors, so I think the territory is a lot more grey than is made out. However, most doctors surgeries already seem so overloaded that I am not sure how they are going to manage this additional layer of responsibility. Who will provide the evidence base to CGS' on which they take decisions as to what treatments/interventions/drugs should and should not be made available to their client base?

Lu, I'm afraid it is rather more grey and complex. There is no overarching law, but there are bylaws which can be imposed by the council. It is the case that it is illegal for a dog to cross a public highway offlead.

After the last thread where a number of us made this very point all I can say is proof, if proof were needed. But, what a horrible way to have the point made. If the rest of us always keep our dog on a lead, no matter how well behaved it makes the irresponsible owner, like this boy, stand out like a sore thumb.

Is the ED forum the right place to target the opinions of the young? The lack of response may indicate one of two things: there are not that many youngsters who go on here, or there is a general intertia that prevents using the invitation. Getting young people to work for free is a problem area. I think proving yourself over a few weeks in order to get paid work is probably okay but can see it is open to abuse. On the other hand it is probably better for youngsters to be doing something with their time, like volunteering- it all looks better on the CV...surely?

BB, Indeed. The comfort that pet dogs give to folk is enormous, in particular the elderly. The amount of strangers who will simply stop and chat when you have a dog out with you is always striking. So have to disagree with the OP, with responsible ownership dogs are almost always worth it and actually have an important role to play in the lives of many.

CB, Even the most well behaved and biddable dog can have an off day. I am passionate about the offlead issue as I think it is a simple measure that could make those who dislike dogs feel more confortable walking around, it would help people with problem dogs feel more confident too and it might make the life of the status dog owner a little more difficult in that they would not so easily get away with trotting their dog offlead around the streets. I have known of a quite a few dogs and people that have been badly scared or attacked by dogs offlead. For the owner who has the perfectly behaved dog that will always come to heel no matter what, that is great and full marks to them, but is it such a big ask to get them to comply with onlead bylaws, with a view to setting an example to those whose dogs are not so reliable, but who still insist on them being offlead everywhere?

Bottom line, had the rottie been on a lead, as it should have, there would not have been a problem. Every time someone walks a dog offlead on the streets, even if it is the most well behaved and placid dog in the world, they add to the problem by example. Most dogs also hate to be approached on the lead by a dog that is off. It is good practice to stop your dog doing this, whether on the street or in the park.

Otto, I imagine it is all about setting a precedent, because even if yours were allowed to go ahead and was screened and green, as you say, it would probably open up the territory for much less neighbour-friendly developments. . I have to say that I think the skyline is being increasingly ruined by the number of appalling loft conversions that have been passed- stalinist mock-slate obelisks, atop humble terrace houses.

I think of all those narrow misses with crazy car drivers, mobiles clutched to their ears, whizzing at breakneck speed along residential streets, immune it seems to speed cameras or the not so long arm of the law. The system isn't working.

Beagles: very lovable, rambunctious and sweet tempered pets but, as you say, live for their noses and scents and recall can be very difficult, if not impossible. Can also be quite noisy as they like to give voice and do not like to be left alone as they are a pack dog.They are a tough little breed, developed to work, so a couch potatoe life is not for them. They are also very greedy. If you wnat to do lots of walking, are prepared to do lots of training and to take your dog pretty much wherever you go then this could be the breed for you. There is a Beagle welfare and you could check out the rescue pages. Be warned they do end up in rescue as families find they cannot cope with the breed traits. There is a Beagle cross looking for a home at Foal Farm in Biggin Hill (Zeus), check him out. He's a cross Beagle/springer spaniel or collie and a very handome lad- though will need work, see http://www.foalfarm.org.uk/dogs/list_dogs/page:6

Robin, given your interest in the M&S application, what would your current take on CPZ on the roads surrounding the proposed application be? It is moot, but many can stump up a good argument that demand for parking will increase if this application gets the thumbs up. Would you be pro or anti CPZ?

Okay, you wnat the brand, but the subject really under debate is the detail of the application- the brand, in that sense, is slightly peripheral, and will not be the subject of the planning meeting or objections to the application.

rch, Great to know that you'll be attending the planning sub-committee as a resident- on that basis are you able to reveal whether you are for or against the current application? As I said earlier, the applicant possibly has the advantage in that they can hire planning expertise to represent their interests- many local residents do not have that knowledge, or indeed, the time to acquire it. Given that planning is your passion and that you are also a local resident, I am hoping that you are minded to express the very real and fair objections that immediately local residents have to this application.

Well spotted ED. A slip- I meant developers, I was not implying back-handers!

Some thoughts on localism- article by Griff Rhys Jones in yesterday ES, see link below: http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/dont-let-business-in-to-destroy-unique-fitzrovia-8069360.html In terms of the proposed M&S application, we must remember that the primary aim of the application is to shoehorn much more into the same space- this makes absolute sense commercially and will no doubt mean more money for the planners/freeholders and store owners- but the impact on the community is less clear. Yes, a fave brand of convenience food is made available but what kind of precedent does the success of this application, in terms of scale and associated issues like parking, impact on direct neighbours, set for the future?

Sidhue, http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/230437_1.pdf Please also look at this link which givesa blow by blow analysis of everything that is wrong with the application, as well as photos in situ that perfectly illustrate why parking is a big issue, as well as vehicle delivery size and frequency vis avis projected size and access to site.

Another bistro, it seems. Oh dear.......

If you get a bite that is infected, easy to do if you don't normally get bitten and so merrily scratch away, you would need to visit the doctor for antibiotics. This may be a more sensible approach than letting the infection settle in to what could become a very much more costly and time-consuming emergency issue.

Oh no. Rose was one of the very first independent shop owners to make ED feel different. If true, she will be sorely missed.

LM, Yes it is and I retract that description because I don't want the main debate to go off at a tangent. However, the scale of the current application is cause for concern for many reasons. I do hope that anyone expressing strong views on this matter takes time to actually read the application.

MP, While I agree with many of your points I am sure you do not really buy the argument that because we have overcrowding that is a good enough reason to overcrowd even more. Your point that seems to suggest those who buy close to small local shops should expect the arrival of superstores next door any time soon, seems to me excessive. I guess in part this is a debate about urbanisation, do we want to maintain the feel of ED as small scale and residential with most shops being of a proportionate size, or do we throw all that out and welcome in any amount of chains and start building up and out everywhere? Many of us are clear that the brand is irrelevant, again this is about scale and balance of needs and interests.

P68, Quite. All we ask for is for there to be a balance between the needs and quality of life of those close to the site, commercial interests and the interests of the wider community. The current proposal does not strike that balance and one senses that because, as some have suggested, it possibly even breaks planning law, that there is more work to be done. I have also said before that large organisations have the money,time and will to hire expertise in interpreting planning law in order to drive proposals through. I think that local councillors who argue for the residents affected perhaps go some way to balance the impact at planning meetings etc..

MP, For the arguments to be spurious they would have to be empty, based on falsehood. It is a fact that the current lorries have caused significant damage to vehicles and property in the street. You speak about the 'lane' then let the lorries deliver on the 'lane'. Though residents living on the 'lane' would not be best pleased I am sure. The sidestreets are residential the fact that they are close to a main street with shops does not mean that they are also automatically commercially fair game and should just be treated as an extension of the shopping area. This is an argument about scale. The scale and ambition of the propposed application is out of keeping with the immediate area. I fully accept that many would like a large M&S but it is perfectly fair and right to argue that this is probably not the best site for what is proposed.

I also object to the use of the word 'nimby' or the phrase 'not-in-my-back-yard'. It's lazy thinking and the implication is that there can never be enough good reasons to object to something that is both close to you and may have negative consequences. As a number of us keep saying, read the planning application and acquaint yourselves with the proposed site. The reasons for very local objection will be clear. Have a look at the link to photos earlier in this thread that show Iceland lorries so large they can barely move in the street, and then consider that the frequency of delivery is to be upscaled if this application goes through. If for instance you object to proposed late licensing at the GE pub on the ground that it will cause late night noise and disruption then consider that those living close to the proposed site of this application will suffer very early morning noise and disruption along with a host of other issues.

If it gets any bigger or he starts to feel unwell get to the doctor pronto as it could be cellulitis which is a bacterial infection for which he'd need antibiotics. The fact that it is hot indicates it may be this.