first mate

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.

Still nothing up on the planning website. Come on Southwark, you can't have a consultation without any information. Strange how no letter have arrive either.

healey, the 'fuss' at the moment is that we are already one week into a 'consultation' yet the latest application details are not available for scrutiny- we don't know what is being proposed or indeed for which store. A councillor that sits on one of the planning committees says he knows no more about the application than do readers of this forum. Whether by accident or design it is rather odd.

James (Barber), Are you now able to access the application? Would you agree that it is unfortunate that the consultation has been underway for a week without detail available to interested parties, like local reisdents?

Harris....again.

James, are you now able to access the latest planning application for the Iceland site?

KK, good to know more about this. Brightness of lights is a concern but perhaps these can be adjusted through the night. More concerning is possible removal of trees.......? I suppose one has to wonder why lights were sited so close to trees in the first place. Anyhow, thanks for solving that mystery the main question at the moment concerns the new application, one that is open for consultation and comment but that cannot be seen, not even by a local councillor that sits on a planning committee!

The consultation has started - the period runs from 28 jan to 20th Feb. it's a bit rich that consultation opened before info was available to public and residents. Just checked and the application is not yet up. Residents and neighbours may have letters on the way but do not see how consultation can be declared open until detail is available.

James, Again, many thanks. With regard to the lights, it depends how bright they are. I have to say I had not felt light was an issue, the existing lights seem fine, but understand that it might not be so for others. The pavements are certainly in need of proper upkeep and repair and wonder why this was not done some time ago. There was some work on the pavement last year and then it stopped- the workman commented that it was in some way related to the progress, or not, of a certain planning application, but this may be an urban tale. The leaves are a seasonal hazard- not sure light would make any difference, but may be wrong. The removal of trees is a little worrying- is the suggestion that the road should be tree free or that certain trees should be replaced with new trees? It appears that only one resident has suggested all of this, is that correct?

James (Barber), Another poster , Jeremy, kindly provided a link in an earlier post today ( see above and http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9553324). I wonder if the item was submitted and then withdrawn as a search of planning does not bring it up but as the earlier link shows it is, or has been, on the site...it says the application is dated 28.1.2014. It is made by a Mr M Lerner and submitted by planning specialists Planning Perspectives LLP.

James, Thanks for the links. I have scan read everything available and cannot find any reference either to a request for white lighting on Chesterfield or anything regarding a decision on spend for this. There are various references to a gate for the alley on that road. There are references to improved lighting and eco lighting on Lordship Lane. Do you know on what page and in which document the information is held?

James, In addition, do you know anything about the latest planning submission for the Iceland site?

James, Thank you. How many residents requested the brighter white lights, and were they all residents on the road in question? Is it possible to see the original submission- who was it sent to and when? I ask because having a bright white light shining into the bedroom is going to be pretty oppressive and may interfere with the sleep of some- the lights are more or less at bedroom window height, so perhaps this could also be taken into account before a final decision is made? It is the sort of issue that one would hope all the residents in the street would be asked about. It is great that the issue of paving is being addressed. Much of the existing paving is in good order, it just needs to be lifted, the substrate level adjusted and then relaid. The use of tarmac looks awful and this breaks up really quickly and does not work as a permanent solution. Simply relaying existing paving would be the best way of dealing with trip hazards.