first mate

Mssterblsster, Well of course. You are slightly cherry picking on the points though. I think, in this very specific instance, there is a fairly strong case to be made that all considered there will be an increase in parking. There is little point looking at just one aspect of the application (in your case residential units) the thing has to be considered in its entirety.

Motorbird, No problem- fair question. The car wash is well used- especially at the busiest shopping times, because that is when people like to leave their car to be washed, shopping at the same time. At these busy times cars waiting for the wash are parked on the street or in any other areas available. If those other areas are removed then that means even more cars from the car wash out on the street. As an aside, the car wash seems to be very lucky with the local wardens in that they never ever get caught, even when parking cars on yellow lines ;) One caould also say if there were no pressure on parking at these busy times (as you suggest) why would they even try to park on yellow lines? Additionally,under the proposals while spaces to park will be signifcantly reduced the aim is to put a minimum of 8 more residential units whose car-owning occupants will also need to park...on the street. An increase in traffic and deliveries by huge articulated lorries is not to be taken lightly either. Each and every arrival blocks the whole street for quite a time as there is so little space to manoeuvre them, the aim is to reduce this space but increase the lorries.

London Mix said "The impact of losing the car parking spaces should be considered carefully as part of the planning application but given that several people have reported back to the forum that they have not seen the parking full (neither during the week nor on the weekend), the impact of losing what is a nominal amount of spaces shouldn't be overstated. Also, those who seem to be claiming people will be driving for miles to buy convenience food to load into their cars seem to be misunderstanding the concept of the store". LM: The main issues for those living close by are: the loss of all parking space the addition of 8 residents who will need to park more car wash clients parking out on street (the car wash also likes to mend cars on street) An increase in deliveries to proposed new shop (as detailed in plans) inlcuding very early in morning. There will be no change in size of articulated lorries which have very loud parking and reversing sensors (BEEP' BEEP, BEEP- all at 5am). The use of these lorries has long been a bone of contention between residents and Iceland. Resident property and cars have all been damaged by the lorries. Bollards that protect the sides of the current entrance to Iceland car park are clearly damaged. The plans propose to make this overall space smaller. That is more lorries delivering and moving around in a much smaller space. The massive delivery vehicles, of which it is proposed there will be more throughout the day, frequently block the street. The street is also blocked by car wash clients. More residents to the street but a big reduction in parking- and the application says it is eco-friendly. On top of all that, yes, M&S/Waitrose/any shop that attracts more customers than Iceland, may also want to park.

Local residents, If anyone has concerns please get them in here...before it is too late. There is only a tiny window to voice objections email: planning.applications@southwark.gov.uk with your name,address and application no: 12/AP/1340 Do particularly consider how the development may impact on your everyday living if you live close to the proposed development, parking, noise, deliveries, etc Positive comments can also be submitted! It would be good if local businesses as well as residents respond to the consultation too.

Carrie, Thanks- I now see what James meant:) The developers are making such a big deal about the application being eco friendly that had thought the issue of car ownership could be covered by a clause written into the leasehold. I am clear that we don't want CPZ.

James, Just to clarify, it is currently the case that the council will only allow designated car-free addresses in CPZ zones? Is there a legal barrier to having designated car free addresses outside of CPZ zones? I am not sure what point you are making about the DVLA and registered cars? I am quite sure that all the owners of cars using the car wash are leaglly registered. Such is the demand that the business can only run if it parks waiting cars up and down the street.

e-dealer, I rather agree that the shop is not really an issue and parking from that would generally be dissipated- however, it is what happens at the back of the development that is more significant. As I have said before, there is already pressure from the car wash at the very point they also want to add in 8 residential units and step up deliveries, all in a smaller space and with any currently available parking space wiped out. There are solutions- to make the proposed residential units car-free and very early morning deliveries to the front of the shop.

Gedwina, I fear you are attributing my comments to gsirett. I don't think Giles is playing politics he is merely responding to what might be viewed as a distorted account of the meeting on CPZ back in January. I feel there may be some kind of relationship between the effect of the proposed plans for Iceland and the long-term aims of the pro CPZ lobby. I'm keen to know if James would actively lobby for the proposed 8 residential units to be car-free tenures, give that the application makes a big point of being eco-friendly.

James, What about the area behind the police station- can that be opned up for use? Additionally, would you like to see moves to make the proposed 8 residential units behind Iceland car free tenures?

gsirett, Nor me. I remember a couple of residents in support of Cllr Barber's idea, but there were also some residents from that street who were inittailly in favour of CPZ, but having looked closely at all the evidence changed their minds and came out roundly against. I do hope this new proposed development is not used as a way to ratchet up support for another stab at CPZ, but I've a feeling in my waters.

The major problem with this application is the increased footprint vis a vis increased deliveries. More large vans moving around in an already tight area, in the early hours. The parking sensors on these make one heck of a racket- that means a lot of noise for residents. Of even greater concern is the 8 new flats and complete lack of parking space for them within the development. Existing space on the road closest to the proposed development is already heavily used by the adjacent car wash. This area also carries yellow lines. Even an additional eight cars will place great parking pressure on the street and this does not even address the possibility of an increase in cars wanting to park up for a new shop. If the new flats could be dedicated as car-free this would help. In the development proposals much is made of it being and eco-friendly development, but the developers do not say where 8 new cars will go, or what impact they might have. I do think that certain pro CPZ'ers will be rubbing their hands in glee as they see yet another opportunity to ramp up support for parking controls. I don't understand how the powers that be can propose that we all reduce car use on the one hand, but try to shoehorn in 8 residential units with no consideration given to parking in that instance, in a project that is likely to massively increase parking pressure in one fell swoop.

jenny, It has been done...some would say to death. If you read the old, but not that old, CPZ threads you'll be able to see all the various arguments pro and anti.

e-dealer, Yes, it is rather early, that was my concern too.

bemusED, Good to have informed input. To my uneducated eye it looked as thought the overall footprint of the proposed development would be larger than the existing development. The application states that the same type/size of lorry will be used for delivery (up to 6 a day, with some very early morning and night deliveries on the adgenda). The beeping sound these lorries make when trying to park is very loud. They will also, it seems, be trying to park in a much smaller sapce than before- this is likely to take more time. Assuming each of the residents has a car that is 8 more cars on the street (the application states that parking for residents and for retail traffic is not factored in). There already exists a very busy car wash which parks client cars along the street to wait to be washed. This allows clients the marvellous service of going off and shopping while the car gets moved in and off the street for washing. Sometimes this includes yellow line parking. The carwash appears to have a 'special' arrangement with wardens with reference to parking on yellow lines. Factor in the liklihood of those who will want to drive in and park to shop at a desirable shop like M&S and I think this amounts to an enormous pressure on parking on the surrounding streets. The street also services those who like to visit and park to go to Northcross road market. CPZ is not the answer long term and that debate has already been done to death. My solutions would be to put a clause into the 8 resident leaseholds for the proposed development to say they will not own cars. The development is being sold on the basis of eco credentials, so this does not seem unreasonable. The carwash cannot park client cars on the street. They have an enclosed space- use it and if capacity does not meet demand then perhaps they need new premises. Deliveries by articulated lorry to be made early morning and late at night to the front of the store on LL- we are talking before 5am so it should not be a major problem for traffic on LL. This would mean residents are not disturbed in the early hours by noise.

kalamitykel, Yes, given the size of the proposed planning application I am surprised there has not been a huge heads up to residents on the surrounding streets. All this must have been underway at the time of the CPZ consultation.

Gedwina, It is not apparent the site will include residents parking for eight, if it does then that is okay. If not that is potentially 8 more on the street, plus trade from the car wash, plus deliveries. Iceland lorries have always been a problem for residents on the street in question. Nonetheless would not want CPZ and would hate to see this proposal used as a reason to try shoehorn it in again.

Gedwina said: I think the parking angle is being slightly overblown. 8 spaces as mentioned above is a drop in the ocean, if you are worried about parking from people shopping at the store then surely the answer is a CPZ? At least 8 spaces (some families have two cars), plus cars that park up waiting to be washed by car wash (loads), plus regular deliveries by extremely large lorries- all in less space, as proposed.

Does anyone know how high the proposed structure would be and if it would be higher than the existing structure? Is the plan for some of the land belonging to the carwash to be used? I'm still interested to know whether it is considered this will have a significant knock on effect on parking? The planning document suggests not.

The increase in footfall is all well and good, but people will want to park, as will the 8 plus families that will live in the proposed new residential development- that is a massive increase in traffic and then, yes, frequent deliveries by huge lorries too. If you read the planning appilication the developers are under the delusion that people will all cycle!!! The garden centre is another big development waiting to happen. Perhaps this is why there were such huge efforts to push CPZ through. It doesn't seem like this has been thought through at all.

This could have a huge impact on Chesterfield, Ashbourne and Melbourne Grove parking, and not in a good way. The carwash puts enough pressure on the street as it is. If this development goes ahead it'd open things up for the CPZ lobby all over again. The other point is for a large shop like M&S where is the loading on and off lorries going to happen and what are the access points? Iceland juggernauts already cause enough of a problem; resident walls as well as cars have been badly damaged over the years. The development looks to be huge too. If there are any architects around could they say how much higher than the existing structure the proposed development is? Would there be parking for the proposed 8 plus residents as well as shopworkers on the existing site?

I've had a few odd ones recently- one guy at 10.30pm wnating to know if I needed any gardening done; another, similar time, syaing he was just doing his "annual rounds, but not to worry"....??!!

Hmmm, you'd think with a development of this scale that all the street would be consulted- only a handful it seems. It's been kept very low key. The rationale is that since all the existing parking behind Iceland will be removed this will reduce pressure from cars parking in the area. Not sure that makes sense? Where will the residents in the new units park? There is a carwash next to the proposed development and they regularly park cars waiting to be washed up and down the street- Southwark Wardens are awfully obliging about cars on yellow lines where this business is concerned;) Do we need an M&S? It is not clear to me how much higher than the exisiting structure this building will be?

Now, now Hugo, no need to get personal. You leave my haemorrhoids alone. Sooooo cruel to play on my paranoia too!:)

Will do. This was not meant to be a criticism of you just a question about the process. I have looked at the links and the information available online and it seems to me to be incredibly vague and loose. We are told that only necessary information will be taken, but not what that is. It is also implied that only people that need to know will have access to the information- again pretty vague. Oh well,one for Information Governance then.

I would go towards the end of a class and wait and then book for next class. It is likley that those who have managed to get in each time are able to book for the next time. This seems the only explanation otherwise there might be some cozy insider stuff going down. It'd be worth checking to see if the same people are there each week. Either way it is symptomatic of something deeply wrong in public sector services and needs to go right up to the top to be sorted. Leisure is a service industry- anyone with attitude should be given the boot pronto.