first mate

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.

Thinking on, If there is a clear, govt directed remit for use of 'surplas' NHS land, I do not see how LA directives could necessarily override that. The LA housing zone element really does seem to be a red herring, unless some wise soul can shed further light on this, unlike the former police station this land is wholly owned by the NHS, we are not comparing like with like.

James, are you saying that Harris gets part of the site, if available, simply because they were first past the post on process, irregardless of real merit or popular support/ need? Indin't think NHS property are stealing land, if I have understood, everything they do is in the gift of the Sec of State for Health. The remit for NHS Property clearly states that any land not used/ required for health should be sold for housing, that is a govt decision is it not?

James, you seem to suggest that at the moment, because of the process of approval, a Harris primary would take precedence on the hospital site, should another site not be found, because it cannot be'unapproved'. As LM suggests, you are mixing separate issues. We can all agree that the hospital site should be secured for health and education purposes, but you seem to make that result dependent on Harris getting a slice of the action.

Thank you LM for your useful and informative outline of the key points. I would not be at all surprised if developers were circling and looking for opportunities, that is why it would be helpful, in my view, to get statements from other parties on how they intend to ensure this does not happen.

ITATM, Great points and as you so rightly indicate, it is amazing how a completely opposite position to one formerly taken can be used when it suits. Admin, no councillor bashing simply stating how sick many of us are of spin and obfuscation. I have asked for other councillors to come on simply as a way to get past all the political claptrap and get to the bottom of what is really going on. I am not partisan at all, simply interested in ensuring we have a good secondary school that people and voters want and most of all a decent health centre that delivers what is required. Anyhow politicians have to have thick skins and get on with it, no-one is forcing use of this forum for debate, though I for one am glad it is being used for this subject.

Perhaps one of the labour councillors can come on this site and tell us in greater detail about proposals for the hospital part of the site, how it will be resourced and what services will be offered, perhaps they can also answer James' assertions about Southwark's alleged refusal to rezone the land. Can someone state what sort of footprint will be available for the proposed secondary school and at what cost for that land? The public really tire of this being used to score political points so James please resist the urge to spin a reply and let's see if any of your colleagues in other parties can come back with a straight and honest response.. I think after Heygate etc.. If there was even a whiff that much valued community space would be sold off to developers, based on some convenient technical planning/council speak hitch there might well be trouble on streets.

James, on the contrary it seems that it is you that is blindly pushing for a second primary school on the site, or at least trying to ensure the land is secured for this in future, using whatever argument you can. Let go of your very obvious ties to Harris and then we can all focus on ensuring this land is secured for hospital services and a decent secondary school. People do not want another school on that site. You have not answered whether the new proposed health centre will supply all the services that the hospital used to, nor how many dedicated doctors on site. A really good service is vital for the area, it just all seems lost in the push for a primary school nobody seems to want.

James, as you know very well, the current hospital service has been decimated. It used to offer a range of specialist services including x-ray, remedial care for the elderly and many other things. Will the new centre really be offering all this and more? Additionally, your loyalty to a cause should be secondary to listening to what the public want. Did 250 people really sign up, in full knowledge, to two Harris primary schools in East Dulwich or were they hoodwinked into it, thinking they were only signing up in support of one? As another poster has stated this feels all a bit stinky.

One does get the sense that some are, for reasons that may not be totally transparent, totally hand in glove with Harris and will try to push this through by any rationale possible, spurious or otherwise, despite it being clear that it is not wanted by the local electorate. It is as though some know better what is best for us all. My concern is for the health centre which seems to have become a secondary concern in the fight for school space. Given the proximity of the centre to at least one very large school, what will be the demographic that centre serves, primarily? With local GP practices seemingly getting worse as well as struggling to meet demand, what services will this health centre be offering, how many doctors, how many nurses, what facilities and so on? None of this is clear- we are only told it will be 'fab' and 'super-duper'. All the energy seems to go into promoting Harris.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James, > > Again, "Can you disclose if Harris make any > financial contributions to you or your party?"

James, Again, "Can you disclose if Harris make any financial contributions to you or your party?"

I sometimes wonder if the Waitrose suggestion was put out there as a kind of urban myth, simply to garner support for the developer's submission (lots of housing in a tiny space). I guess councillors that sit on planning committees know all the little tricks of the planning game.

"Can you disclose if Harris make any financial contributions to you or your party?" James, Please answer London Mix' question?

A decent health centre is vital, after all this is a hospital site. A necessary public resource should not be squeezed because of the overbearing ambitions of one private concern. Harris is everywhere and getting too powerful, it would seem. I thought Harris were opening a school at the old police station site....how many Harris' are we going to end up with and what happened to choice?

Hi Mustard, some dogs appear to be more prone to developing serious sound phobias than others and it becomes fear of fear. I feel for you. People need to get a better understanding of how much pets, and by association their owners, suffer as a result of unrelenting firework mania. I really think it should be controlled. I have even been made to jump when some have gone in the early hours...2am...why?

Mustard, if your dog is scared of the noise then check out the Dog's Trust website on guidance around fireworks.It is too late now but, if you haven't already then buy a sound desensitisation CD- this will come with instructions on how to use it to counter condition your dog to fireworks noises. Many dogs are also scared by the lights and flashes and the combination of noise and light can cause the pet to panic and run. If kept inside you can use curtains, bright lights and TV/radio noise to reduce the impact. Making your dog a covered den in which he can hide if he chooses, can also help. Finally, for very bad sufferers the vet can prescribe medication. It us clear that all this requires thought and planning and that us why people should alert others in the area before letting off fireworks and I would prefer for every event to require a licence- but that us because I have seen the severe and long term behaviour problems that some dogs develop after exposure to firework noises.

I too wish there could be more control about this. Random, unexpected bangs are annoying but where pets are concerned the effects can be immense. At least with organised events you can prepare and make sure pets are kept in. You also hope that those who want to do fireworks in the back garden have the decency to alert neighbours well in advance. IMHO the types on sale seem to get louder and louder- surely the delight us in the visual aspect, not to make the loudest noise possible?

The dog sounds as though it has serious separation anxiety. If this is going on for any length of time it would be best to try to locate and contact the owners, they may not be aware. If once told they appear indifferent or the problem continues then it should be reported asa noise disturbance- that is probably the best route to a solution. Have to say that any person that shuts their dog out in thunder and lightning is not only a complete idiot but deserves to have the dog confiscated and a ban on owning any dog ever again. The person who mentioned fireworks etc.. Is right to be so concerned.