first mate

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.

Huguenot said: "BTW - I do want to point out that he has not been convicted of being a paedophile: watching child porn doesn't make you a paedophile any more than watching CSI makes you a murderer. Obsession can be a little further down that line, but that would make the average teenager playing Medal of Honour for 20 hours a week a psychotic". That is a clever argument and though you might be technically correct in terms of law I would submit that those who obsessively look at child porn are more likely to be paedophiles or to have some kind of paedophile impulses- what other reason would make you want to look at it over and over again? Additionally CSI is fiction, ditto Medal of Honour. Child porn is real life, the children being exploited and abused are real. The definition of a paedophile is that one is sexually attracted to children- it is not necessary to act on those impulses for the definition to be relevant.The interest in chid sex can co-exist with an interest in adult sex. Aside from detective/enforcement work or academic research, what would be the point of looking at child pornography, downloading and keeping it?

It is man who has created the environment in which these urban foxes thrive- with fewer feeding opportunities they would not breed and thrive so easily and the need for food would force them to compete for and protect much larger ranges. There is no need for this as the city is replete with waste and litter- all those discarded bones, overflowing bins, waste outside and at the backs of shops. Foxes have never had it so good or so easy. The new, bolder fox is simply filling an evolutionary niche, courtesy homo sapien. No cull will ever get rid of foxes, not unless we stop providing the food and that won't happen because humans are just, well too self centered. Culling would have to be done every year. I wonder what method would be used in the inner city? Poison...way too cruel and dangerous for other animals, including pets. Traps? Ditto. Shooting, too dangerous. Darting and then euthansia- think of the expense. Please god don't let some bright spark think of introducing a fatal disease like a fox version of miximatosis(sp). The only real solution is for humans to manage their litter properly, oh and not feed wildlife- it's a win, win approach surely.

Until the results of this application are published. The decision was meant to be made more qickly this time (at the request of the applicant). That's why everyone had to get their responses in just after xmas.

There's that recently reported human excrement too.

If it's to be raised it should address all litter- food litter is a nuisance and a health hazard, broken glass is dangerous and there is far too much of that around. Loads of spat out chewing gum too.

Lead strugglers probably need a little correction. Ahem!! Anyway, back on thread, I don't think that a dog license will cure all the problems of poor dog ownership but it is a start. Microchipping is also useful but all these things fall down where enforcement is necessary. There are simply not the personnel or resources to monitor those that break existing laws and Orders, let alone new ones. Southwark no longer have a proper dog warden, it's all managed by environmental officers who have little specialist knowledge or training. A number of the community wardens I have met in the park are absolutely terrified of dogs and don't want to go anywhere near them. Southwark will not help to provide premises or space in the park for dog training- something which could be offered at near zero cost to the borough and which would help to educate more people about repsonsible doig ownership. This is something that is done on many parts of the continent very successfully.

Perhaps a sporran, or even trews? (BTW ooooh, you are awful...)

Lowlander, Arf, arf, you are a wit. On the subject of brains/IQ, and continuing the theme of your moniker, do you keep yours below the belt?

And to other serial litter fiends.

Yes, it is disgraceful not to pick up dog poo and there should be fines, no excuse for it. In similar vein, I do wish people would stop scattering the pavements with broken glass which I happen across daily as well as wretched cooked chicken bones, chewing gum and chocolate. Many a dog ends up in the vet having ingested all three, why people/children have to throw this stuff around I don't know, there are plenty of bins. The glass is hazardous to people, children and animals - it must be the product of a similar mentality to those that litter with dog poo- anti social.

Alec John Moore, I'd politely beg to differ with that dog trainer- biological washing powder will not completely remove the smell. Saila, If this has been witnessed it is truly revolting. Sounds like someone with a mental health problem.

Bowl of hot water and domestos will sterilize but not remove smell- so animals will return and overmark, whether foxes or dogs. Remove smell by finishing off with surgical spirit which removes smell (we cannot smell it but animals can).