first mate

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.

When he's all grown-up he'll understand. Hope that the 'party' has now been turned off.

davidh, for the umpteenth time, it's not about the BRAND of shop, it's the size and suitability of the proposal for the current plot. Have you actually read the planning application?

E-dealer, Thanks, I'll look into that.

Robin, Again, thank you. It does not sound like a level playing field where a large organisation like M&S can call on a raft of experts to wade through and interpret these complexities to suit their ends, whereas most residents are not experts in planning law and process and do not have financial resources to mount detailed expertise/objections. Additionally, the consultation period was brief, in so far as many of us residents came to hear about the proposals. As you know, many of us living close to the site were not consulted at all. As others have suggested, a major proposal which is likely to have significant impact on those living closest to it, seems to have been pushed through on the quiet. Complexities of process appear to work very much in favour of the applicant. Thank you for the heads up about the meeting, we will watch out for news of that.

I can see how this would cause difficulties for residents on Lordship Lane. Obviously the same issues apply to Chesterfield Grove plus this is a narrow residential street, totally unsuited for delivery by the enormous vehicles that are used. Overall this just seems to be the wrong site for the scale of the proposal.

Robin, Thank you for your reply. A number of us feel somewhat alarmed that this process appears to be going on behind closed doors- though I am sure that it can be justified in council-speak. Nonetheless, given the strength of local feeling would it not be a good idea to push harder to get this to Community Council? I assume that an 'early' decision can only mean the application is rejected since any modifications to the existing application would have to be made public? I cannot imagine that the application in its current form could be okayed, in part because of the volume of detailed objections and because a very similar proposal was rejected some years ago. I will look at the link you have given. I think that residents on the roads closeset to the site in question need help fighting their corner. I am sure you will have seen the link to the photographs of the Iceland lorry trying to get out of the existing entrance, earlier in this thread- these photos say it all. The notion of reducing space but stepping up deliveries is clearly bonkers and casts doubt on the care with which the application has been developed- or they simply don't care about any negative impact on locals.

With clapping on cue.

Not just any planning application..... Yes, James Barber has suggested a range of modifications in his letter to planning. He proposes early morning deliveries on Lordship Lane.

And what do your waters tell you about M&S?

Never trust a gambling man. Only ?10...pah. What sort of dealer are you? Anyhow, I just want an update on the M&S application...... wonder if James the Barber knows?

Yep, I'm looking forward to getting that late license at the GE too ;)

This is done primarily to salve the fragile egos of politicians. Pass the bucket.

Completely unsuitable. If people want to party into the early hours then go into town. It is simply not reasonable to open so late on a residential street.