first mate

Chuff, I am not aware of any regulation that requires owners to keep dogs on lead on the open fields???unless of course people are playing football or similar. The way you seem to describe it the only place one could let a dog off lead would be right around the edge of the park.

Sue, if you were on the circular road when the dog jumped at you then I can understand why you might be hacked off. However, I think your use of the word attacked leaves you open to the charge of exaggeration. I am sure that you can see that if you report this incident to the park in those terms and using that word then it can be used to skew figures on dangerous dogs incidents in the park. I am still curious as to how close the dog got to you when it jumped and did it make contact with you? I have asked you this a few times and you have not answered. All dog owners should teach their dogs as young pups not to jump up at people- that is basic dog obedience. perhaps those with ill-mannered or poorly trained dogs should be sent on a compulsory dog training course.

taper, given that the park should be for all I think it is fair that there are areas where people are asked to keep their dog on a lead. It is common sense really. For instance, I would not let my dog run around offlead where people are playing football or having a picnic (unless I knew he would recall on command every time without fail as well as walk to heel)nor do I let him offlead around the cafe areas, or on the hard paved areas or indeed in and by the children's playground. Once would hope that people don't have to be asked to do this. If everyone adopted these simple and straightforward guidelines I think we would all be a lot happier. I agree that demanding that all dogs be kept on a lead everywhere and at all times is unreasonable and draconian, it would also affect the welfare of the dogs. I think that if people are scared of dogs it would be nicer for them if they could visit areas of the park where they know people will keep their dogs on a lead.

Hearing the kind of rent being asked for it seems that the doors are being opened for more chains/intensive developments.

Steve, where is the dog exercise area clearly marked? There are no dedicated dog exercise areas. There is a request that people should exercise their dogs on around the periphery of the park/and on the fields and should keep them on a lead elsewhere but there is nothing to indicate a specific area on which to exercise dogs. I would add that use of the word 'attacked' where there has been no display of aggression and no physical contact is a little more than 'loose language'. Of course, if the OP replies and says that the dog growled or snarled at her, bared its teeth while lunging at her with aggressive intent, or indeed bit her, then I will retract that statement.

Sue, not meaning to split hairs but how close to you did the dog get and what happened when you screamed? From what you say it sounds as though the dog stopped or came no closer?

The area photographed by the OP and which includes the sign is at the periphery of the park and is known by many as the dog walk. It seems almost deliberately confusing on the part of the council. The signage was actively challenged a number if years ago and the council backed down.

Sue, sorry, need a little clarity here. Were you attacked, that is did the dog behave aggressively and physically touch you, or was the dog aggressive and close to you or did the dog simply run towards you but make no contact with you? I completely understand that you might dislike be nervous of dogs and so not want to be close to one but the word 'attack' has a very different implication. If you were attacked you would have recourse under the Dangerous Dog Act and that owner might be required by law to always have their dog on lead in a public area. If it is the case that the dog was running around within yards of you and you felt uncomfortable with that then it is a somewhat different scenario. I do agree that on tarmaced areas and areas around caf?s and so forth it would be reasonable to expect people to have dogs under greater control and unless they are highly obedience trained this probably means a 6 ft lead.

Sue, no currently dogs do not have to be kept on a short lead in the area you have photographed which is where people are asked to exercise their dogs off lead. How close did the dog in question get to you? While I have every sympathy with you it is quite difficult to avoid proximity to dogs off lead in the areas where they are exercised off lead. Those notices were installed by the council some years ago but are not enforceable. Given that the notice you show is placed at the beginning of the area where dog owners are asked to exercise their dogs off lead it makes for confusing information for both sides of the equation. That is possibly why the dog owner reacted in the way they did. I blame the council for giving out confusing messages.

I was advised by the same doctor in very jocular tones "if you are in your 50's I would hope you would have arthritis". no harm intended but slightly odd approach.

The problem is there are problems with this application, not least access and servicing. The current application is simply a resubmission of the last rejected application, with a few tiny tweaks.

Louisa, You are right. I think also that it was anticipated in some quarters that the freeholder/developer/applicant would keep re-submitting until any objectors gave up or rolled over, as you say, without making any real changes to the original proposal.

Let's not forget that detail was also late going up on the council website. It is impossible to comment in an application without the detail. The council has wittingly or unwittingly failed to adhere to process and put locals who might object at a disadvantage......this might be read as weighing the process in favour of the developer.

Anyone living in the local area has a right to comment I don't have any issue with that. My interest was that I thought that it was one of the 124 who have had letters sent out, in that they had received theirs. Cannot understand why if letters were sent out on 7th they have nit yet arrived. Also if consultation began on 28 Jan why were letters not sent until 7th and why nothing up on website...... Just seems a slapdash approach to a proposed development that has been so contentious.

Strae, that's interesting, I looked and could not find the comment in support, can you link to it?

KK, Not a thing. How odd and yet the planning clock ticks away. James had said he would speak to the Chief Planning Officer, I wonder if he did?

Most of the professional dog walkers are known and easily identified. I am sure the Park Warden will be able to put you in touch with the relevant person. They will be covered by insurance for loss or damage in the course of their work- this is a requirement for professional dog walkers. I would imagine they would want to cover the cost of replacing the damaged/lost glove. Perhaps they could leave a cheque for the amount with the Park Warden who can forward it to you. As an earlier poster stated, accidents do happen though that does not excuse the apparent negligence of the dog walker.

Tomk, if the car park is not known about then signpost it and encourage store visitors to use it, that would ameliorate parking stress as well as leaving more room for deliveries. You stated earlier that you did not feel those visiting in cars would increase significantly, have you had a rethink?

Dave R, I was waiting for the inevitable snipe about nimbyism. The line in the sand was in reference to the inference that because there has been a store long-term therefore any size store, with any associated changes/problems, is to be anticipated and accepted. I'm not persuaded by the argument that residents and employes will not use cars, but I am happy to be proved wrong- as I said though, once the decision is made there is no going back. rahrahrah, there has been no suggestion by anyone objecting to the application of an automatic right to a parking space infront of one's house. tomk, there is another 'desirable' retailer apparently ready to take on the site as is without increasing the footprint of the building, so your point about empty offices does not hold. LondonMix, absolutely agree, access and servicing details are of great concern. A visit to the site will show that a huge bollard erected to protect other properties is damaged and bent. There is a history of damage by articulated delivery lorries to property in the street because there is so little room to manouevre. If I recall planning commented last that they could not be sure what had caused that damage and so dismissed it as 'evidence' of a problem. Everyone around the area knows what caused the damage. The current proposal advocates increasing the size of the building, reducing the land in which to manoeuvre, maximising and stepping up deliveries. Factor in the car wash traffic, which frequently blocks both path and street and you get the picture.

tomk, I am surprised you cannot see how the proposed development might have a negative impact. 5-8 extra residents cars, plus a proportion of 36 employees who will not always use public transport or cycle, is quite a signifcant number, when you consider that 17 parking spaces will also simultaneously be removed. Once the deal is done there is no going back and I think a line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere. No objection has been made to having a store it is the scale of the proposal that is problematic for those living close by. Anyhow, I think unless you know the site concerned it is hard to understand the likley impact of the proposal.

tomk, The proposal is to remove parking for 17 cars- this is used by locals, by those working at Iceland and those living in the upper levels of the premises. Now add 8 two bedroom flats and double the size of the existing building where there will be more employees arriving daily to work. The proposal banks on the idea that all those new residents, as well as the employees, will use bicycles and not cars. If the residential street in question is already suffering parking stress, it can only get worse. That aside, there will be stepped up deliveries. Have a visit and see what happens when one of the juggernauts delivers. Bearing in mind that there will be less room to move and the suggestion is that those delivering should take longer to ensure safety etc..

Jeremy, The difference is the volume of deliveries within those parameters, in addition to more stress on parking, less space to manoeuvre...the total effect is more stress on less space as well as taking delievery times to the limit- something Iceland do not do. The combination of this proposed development together with with the effects of the car wash does not augur well for immediate residents. Anyhow, hardly have the appetite to go through all this again. The planners know the game and they are hell bent on getting what they want.

Louisa, I'd imagine by opting for the increased footprint as well as the residential units the freeholder will make a lot more money...that's the bottom line. As Siduhe suggests, the developers are intent on having it their way and confident that objectors (the little people) and most of all Southwark Planning, will eventually fold. I note the current application says that the upper levels are empty. I know that is untrue, at least two families live there.

Makes depressing reading. They have changed nothing really. They have argued that the proposed servicing hours should stand because since existing car park for 17 cars is being removed there will be more room for vehicles to move around...eh? This despite the fact that the footprint of the existing building will be nearly doubled. Seems they will have same amount of vehicles delivering as proposed before but they promise they'll do everything more quietly by using more modern vehicles " where possible" and asking delivery guys not to whistle or shout and to take more time doing their deliveries.....?! The developer/store seems to have given not an inch in accomodating the concerns of residents nearby...

James, still nothing up on Southwark Planning website, no letter either. Think Planning will have to revise the consultation dates to rectify this latest 'hitch'. Recall there were similar issues with the last application.