first mate

But if an application is dealt with "expeditously" isn't it fair to speculate that this might be more to the advantage of the developer, particularly if they have had a pre-application meeting (though all perfectly above board) to iron out any problems on the prior application that was rejected? Who does the time limit on objections and the positing of the application over a major holiday period work better for, in this case?

The point about the pre application talks was that the applicant asked that the processing of the application be speeded up and dealt with more 'expeditiously' than was the last application. As noted, the application has been entered over a busy, holiday period...'the oldest trick in the book', as other have said. No doubt this is all above board and 'legal' but it does seem to tip the balance in favour of the applicant- it is probably in the interests of the developer for the application to be sped through. It is probably in the interests of a number of locals to have the application slowed down a little, to give time to digest the content, to seek advice, and to mount objections, if relevant. To have to have objections in by 3rd January gives little time to do anything- especially as for most of us planning matters are not our profession and we do not spend all day delaing with applications. Residents adjacent to the proposed site were only informed of the application two days ago. The application has been in planning since 22nd November.

I'd still like to know when councillors were first aware of this new application? The new application is very detailed, as I said the process seems to be weighted in favour of the application in that there is little time to object and what time there is falls over a holiday period. Moreover locals have not been alerted, until now- the application was in planning on 22nd November. We also know that there were pre-submission talks between the developer and planning, where it was agreed that the application would be processed more quickly this time round....whatever that means.

Outright denial is a classic human defence. So sorry this happened to you, those ladies ought to be ashamed. I'm sure that that you are simply venting and have no intention of bashing anyone with a stick. There are various areas of dog law under which you would have a case, the problem is the real culprit is the owner and not the dog.

London Mix, actually you are spot on, planning have no interest in the brand of shop and this will have no bearing on their decision on the application. The only objections they will consider and weigh in the balance, are to do with the detail of the application. For these reasons I would urge people to read the application and to comment, having considered its implications.

Chillaxed, Of course I am, but I do not assert that my view is of greater importance, though I will try to argue why it is important.

*Bob* :)

charles26, It is just that you spoke about a personal preference for an M&S, ergo it suits you. The point is that the potential impact of the TOTAL development on those living closest to it weighs in at rather more than a yen for some quality,M&S grub. The development is more than just a shop....

Clearly Dul-witch should have a coven, so if not, please do start one.

James (Barber), When were you first aware of this second application, and on what date did you receive it? The applicants have had as much time as they needed to prpeare this application, so why is there so little apparent time for locals to object and why have those close to the development not been alerted other than by this forum? I'm sure its all in the planning fine print and technically it is all in order...but the process seems weighted in favour of the developer.

charles26, do you live in the street right next to the car wash? Just wondering? Most people in the street affected are aware of cars being badly damaged as well as residential property (garden walls have been knocked down) by delivery vehicles. Again, no objection to M&S it is the overall development which seeks to squeeze much, much more into the same space.

Just to underline, immediately local objections are not to M&S per se. The issue is with the size and footprint of the overall development and the inevitable knock-on effect on parking. There are also concerns about the delivery schedule and frequency. The last application was proposing more deliveries in a smaller space. Delivery vehicles have caused a fair amount of damage over the years to residential property and cars. There are also concerns about noise and there is this processing plant to consider too...what is that? So please... this is about the detail of the overall proposal not M&S.

James get to grips with the detail of the application and the site and you'll see its a bad fit. Anyhow, been through all this once- it's all in the earlier part of the thread. How's Bellenden;)

Actually, just to be clear, it looks like Southwark Planning received the application on 22nd November (the letter by the applicant is dated, 20th Nov) but the application was only scanned in by Southwark on 6th December. And the deadline for objections is 3rd Jan!

Because I can't access all the docs I cannot see if there is detail about vehicle delivery times and schedules, nor for types of delivery vehicle. I do see that opening times for the retail area are 7-10pm, with slightly shorter hours for bank holidays. London Mix, I am sure you can make intelligent comments. Actually having sight of the docs is a bonus!

Sidhue, It definitely needs someone with planning knowledge to read it and that is why I hope the architect who raised many of the detailed (and valid) objections last time sees this sooner rather than later. I have had some difficulty accessing a number of the documents and keep getting a message that there is insufficient data to read it- so get a blank page. Don't know if this is my computer or a problem with the site. Would like to hear from others, since if there is a problem with the site that would stop interested parties from accessing key info.

I thought the date applicatioin was received by planning was 6/12. Anyhow, it says there was a 'pre-application meeting' between the developer and planning in July where promises were sought that this time round the application would be processed more 'expeditiously', last time people were off on maternity leave and so forth. Not implying something wrong in this, but it is some indication that people in planning knew the application was probably on its way and some councillors are much more involved with planning than others.

Locals need to move fast and I hope the architect who made the last detailed set of objections might be prepared to do so again. Presumbaly councillors who have anything to do with the planning side of things would have been aware of this application some time back?

Wow, that was quick...First I've heard of this. Consuktation ends 3rd January?? That doesn't give much time for objections. Again, the level playing field argument. Those behind the applications have the money, time and muscle to work on the application 100% We locals do not have that luxury. Yes, it sounds like they are trying to sneak it through. This is going to upset people. Having had a quick look the footprint of this new application looks even larger than the last. They are suggesting removal of existing bollards at the entrance to increase room for the delivery vehicles- those bollards were pu in to protect private property from damage by delivery vehicles. It is really cynical to present this application in the run up to Christmas, the developers know that significant time and energy of locals is necessary to mount objections. I note that "pre-application discussions" were underway with the council for this second application back in the summer, so the council knew this proposal was on its way. Why have none of us heard of it until now?

I'd forgotten what a great voice 'Arty' has...really distinctive, that light tenor and fast vibrato.

Strawbs, Quite. Parents are an important part of the community but lets not forget all the other members that may also require Seldoc and similar services. I am in little doubt that a goodly part of the land should continue to be used by the NHS. What about the needs of the elderly and the disabled?

Annette, Perhaps the "Twent-aaaaaaaay" is the result of an American pretending to be British, a la Dick Van Dyke?

H, But they only blur faces and so on don't they...not the whole of your house? Don't you have to give them an email address in order to get them to do this too..no biggy, but all extra info for the google meisters. Feels a bit like being the little animal at the watering hole and knowing you are being watched by the great, big hunter..

I was alarmed by how close google maps can get to your window- they can't quite see through....yet. How marvellous for local crims to be able to study exteriors from the comfort of their 'puters. I hear other maps will be even more detailed, surely this can't be right? Who will be the first to invent some kind of gadget that shields you from these corporate spies.

Beware of first time posters asking what ED needs. Actually, one thought is how to turn dog poo into a useable household fuel.