first mate

James, what further actions will you be taking as local rep to ensure M&S adhere to planning conditions? Edited to say meant servicing conditions re time of delivery etc...

John L, The Council already has a range of enforcement measures available which it chooses not to use. Some think the real reason for DCOS is it gives the council opportunity to completely ban dogs from more areas of public park space than would currently be possible. It has been said that there are some extremely anti dog folk at Southwark Council HQ.

James, I know of many, many cases where planning have chosen not to enforce clear breaches of policy for fear of legals etc, both residential and commercial cases. Therefore, little point in planning, it is a complete farce and paid for by the taxpayer. Glad M&S will be pursued and hoping, this time, for a result after 5 years of stating what was wrong with the development seemingly falling on deaf ears.

edhistory, So are you saying that the developer/M&S or both, have managed to avoid paying tax?

edhistory, Can you explain?

Thanks James and I do have to agree with you that the mighty M&S have behaved very badly indeed and, like many, I am really beginning to wonder if there is any role for council planning.

James, Do we know how much CIL was raised from this development and what" strategic issues" it has been spent on? What are strategic issues, it would be good to have a few examples and useful to know how funds like this are spent by the council? Do local residents benefit in any way whatsoever, given they carry the burden of the impositions from the development?

bargee99, Exactly. James, Could any of the CIL on the M&S build be used to improve paving on the residential streets close by?

I dug around and remembered this. Does this have any bearing on the M&S desire to open earlier? Perhaps James Barber would know? James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Marks and Sparks have also made a licensing > application. > they wish to sell alcohol 6am-midnight 7 days a > week. > > BUT the site only has planing permission to > operate as a shop Mon-Sat 7am-10pm & 10am-6pm > Sundays and Bank holidays. > > You can see the application here - > http://app.southwark.gov.uk/licensing/LicPremisesA > ppliedDetails.asp?systemkey=851512 > > You can tell council licensing officers by 31 > March 2016 whether you support or oppose such > opening hours via [email protected] and > please copy me so I can see how things are going.

James, I see no evidence of Robin asking for personal favours. You do seem to go after her quite a bit. If Lordship pavements cannot be easily fixed then why not use the money to do residential streets? There always seems to be some byzantine issue of process that stops the obviously necessary from happening but little problem with installing things like bike hangars on the basis of one or two requests in a street. How crazy is that? Everyone uses the pavement. Can we please call planning, the developer and M&S to account on how the bloomin' obvious was weazled around for so long? You were closely involved with the gamut of applications from day one, so how come resident objections, oracle like in their accuracy, were not heeded by anyone in a decision making or influencing capacity?

Hi rch, You may well be right. The only thing is that if the shop is, as it were, up and running at 6 am I just don't see how the noise won't permeate to the back. Don't forget the back is where deliveries are stored and no doubt there would be much clashing of steel trollies etc.. they use to move items around. I am not convinced yet. And once permission is given I would not be surprised if things slide around to the back too. After all who will police it and M&S have already shown how they have asked for a bit more and a bit more over time. The other thing is are they also asking to extend closing hours? I had thought that was also on the agenda. Ages ago they wanted to extend hours in line with licensing, but may be irrelevent here.

Hi James, I guess a few of us might be wondering why you have not answered Abe_froeman's request. Is this because you genuinely do not know?

Sidhue, Many thanks for finding this and explaining. It does look as though planning are caught out nearly every time and I think many have very little faith in their ability to get a fair result. The Developer and M&S have behaved badly and you are right the long fought planning process, where they cycnically played the system with a long game will have cost us.

rch, Thanks as ever for your considered response. I think you seem to have a real handle on the issues. If there are real dangers to pedestrains then certainly worth looking at but, and I think you are in agreement on this, the pavements are in an appalling state round here and repeated calls for a remedy seem to fall on deaf ears while councillors throw money at bike hangars and needless yellow lines. Bad pavements are a trip hazard and also a big problem for residents. It is such an obvious thing to sort out, it benefits everyone not just a few so why do the local reps seem so slow out of the blocks?

ed26, I think that many modern owners need more training in how to manage their dogs properly. More education of owners is definitely needed. Certainly there can be no excuse for not bagging poo and no excuse for dogs jumping over or chasing toddlers in any situation. Nor should more than the legal limit of dogs be walked together and I am a great believer that dogs should voluntarily be put on a lead in certain sections of the park including paths and fenced off garden areas, by the ponds and so on. Indeed, putting dogs on and off lead regularly should be part of daily training, especially for perfecting a recall. However, all that said I would not want to see a situation when all dogs must either be kept on lead all the time or indeed where dogs are completely banned from large areas of parkland. Dog ownership would then cease to be a realistic option as many dogs, especially young dogs, do need to be able to run free for some of their daily exercise. So there is a problem. Young dogs, like all youngsters will make mistakes and try their luck. Food left unattended in a park, albeit for a short period, will present an almost insurmountable temptation to many young dogs and even greedy older dogs - not the same as snatching food from human fingers I hasten to add, that is unforgiveable. If we want to continue to own dogs in London we have to find a way to compromise. If there are sections of the park where owners must keep their dog on a lead then, if we want to give city dogs any quality of life, there need to be other spaces where dogs can run off-lead. Once running free and even with lots of training I do not think it would be possible to guarantee no dog would ever help themselves to unattended food. I understand that some will not want or accept this compromise and may well wish to see a wholesale ban on any dogs in parks or at least that dogs are on lead all the time. I hope you agree that would be a shame. Should also say though that if my dog were to steal anyone's food at any time I would be very apologetic and perhaps a difference in attitude by these dog owners would have made all the difference.

Hi James, Increasingly confused by your answers. 1. The issue about speeding is contentious, and not everyone agrees there is a serious speeding issue on this junction, so not really a reason to spend 15,000. 2. As you say, M&S are no longer using this route for deliveries and won't ever unless they knock part of their building down to create a larger delivery area. So no reason to spend 15,000 on blocking their lorries. 3. You cannot say for sure that there will be a tiny improvement in parking, so hardly a reason to spend ?15,000. What is the real reason to spend all this money on changes to the junction?

Great James, glad to see you state parking will be slightly increased by the normalisation of the junction but can you confirm normalisation will NOT change the junction in such a way that greater lengths of yellow lines will then be applied, in effect actually reducing parking overall? You say there are other allocated funds available for fixing pavements. In that case how much money is available to fix and renew the paving on Chesterfield and Melbourne and could you give dates for start and completion? Is it as much as ?15,000? Please note this is a request for proper paving, not the current trend for digging out the old paving and then shoving down a load of tarmac, which soon cracks and disintegrates and is unsightly. Great efforts were made to improve the paving around the entrance and opposite side of road to M&S...It would be great if council funds could be also be used to improve residential streets close by.

Hi James, Good to know our local Councillor will seek to block M&S and Planning reneging on a very clear and hard negotiated condition re the M&S application and operating hours. Didn't take them long to go back on the agreement though did it? Illustrates perfectly the cynical way large organisations seek to manipulate the planning system entirely to their own advantage, ignoring the wellbeing of local residents and holding planning over a barrel as they do so. On the use of ?15,000 to block Iceland lorries. I have not, as you say, brought this to your attention, I read about it in your article in SE22 magazine. Will the proposals for normalisation of this junction reduce parking? If so, not a great idea- there is already too much parking pressure on these streets. It is also my understanding that it was already agreed that M&S will not use Chesterfield to access the servuce entrance; why would they if the service entrance is too small for umloading? That is not going to change unless you are party to some new information we are unaware of? M&S will continue to deliver to the front of the shop. The issue is whether they should be allowed to do so an hour earlier than was a clear condition of agreeing the planning application. Don't think normalisation of the Chestefield/Melbourne junction should be conflated with the M&S issue. It might be politically expedient but is misleading. As stated, I would prefer the ?15,000 normalisation funds be reallocated to mending the pavements on Chesterfield and Melbourne...a much more useful way to spend that money.

James, I see from your article in SE22 magazine that M&S have now applied for 6 am deliveries. The reason, you say, is because they have finally admitted that not even their smallest delivery vehicles can negotiate the delivery yard, so they have to deliver to the front. 1. As I recall, delivery times were a clear condition of planning permission being given for the huge M&S/ flat build. 2. Residents repeatedly said that the massively increased footprint of the M&S building meant the delivery yard would be too small for delivery vehicles, yet we were shown numerous fancy computer generated models telling us we were imagining things. Could we somehow extrapolate an explanation for the above farce from both M&S and Planning who seemed to have colluded in a massive lie in order to get the application through. They must be held to account. On a separate note I see CGS funds to ?15,000 are to be used to 'normalise' Melbourne/ Chesterfield junction. Did you make this decision and, if so, on whose behalf? What exactly does it mean and where was the idea first generated and why? It's a lot of money. Personally I'd rather see those funds spent on 'normalising' the pavement around here. It is uneven and a massive trip hazard. Large areas also collect and hold detritus and rain water/ deep puddles. Fixing that would help everyone not a select few whose shutting off streets agenda will be helped along nicely by this 'normalisation' idea.

Nxjen, Yes it would be a lot of space but if Southwark really has no interest in a total ban in some areas why offer it as an option? Anyway, I think people need to be very careful how they answer the survey as I really do think it is skewed in favour of getting as tough as possible on all dog owners as a means to try to control a few.

nxjen, I really hope you are right and that the council is genuine in simply getting people to be more responsible dog owners but if so, why offer complete exclusion from certain areas? All you need is a few people that hate all dogs ( they do exist)to say yes and it may give the council the ammunition they need for wholesale bans. A total ban is easier to enforce than a variety of controls. Case in point, options already exist to fine etc.. To be clear the survey states 'near' children's play areas. That could mean anywhere children play and remember parks are used by schools for various activities, so how near is near?

DandySandy, The behaviour of the owner of the Lab was inexcusable and I would be the first to say that dogs, especially young OTT dogs, need to be better controlled. I am glad your son was not badly injured ( as you say the dog was not intending to bite but misjudged where its teeth were when it was stealing food, but being allowed to steal the food from a child's hands in the first place was really bad). You would have been entitled to report this to the police under the DDA and action could have been taken where the owner would have been compelled by court order to keep the dog under close control in future. I am not however under the impression that you want all dogs put on a lead in the park all the time or that you want all dogs permanently excluded from public spaces all the time- this seems to be the aim of the council and its survey.

Yes, they could do dangerous cyclists and 20mph motoring violations together. I am soooo sick of being regularly nearly rear ended, simply for keeping to the speed limit.

Hi Lollipop, Perhaps those with knowledge of research methodology can reply, but the way the survey is designed seems to ensure that these DCOS get put through because the only options are to choose greater controls or outright bans. There is no option to use existing legislation. For instance wardens can already issue fines for failing to bag and remove poo. I have never seen or heard of a fine issued though. The only way to avoid the skewing in the survey is to tactically lie and choose the option that says dog poo doesn't bother you etc, etc. The fact is there is already law in place to cover all the issues, but it is not enforced. My hunch the Council would simply prefer the simplicity of outright bans. My other point about dogs offlead on streets is this does present dangers to children, people and other dogs. In this situation most other dogs will be on the lead and being randomly approached by an offlead dog can lead to all sorts of problems. I simply cannot understand why the council with its fleet of community wardens on mopeds does not crack down on this real issue- but they will be too busy policing parking offences, I guess.

Rendel I know that and really was not having a go. It is as you say but and 'tis a small but, I guess that a declaration with DVlA that one is disabled enough to require a class 3 MS, might be used as evidence in some way if for whatever reason the MS was involved in something untoward. I'd imagine a false declaration to DVLA mught carry a heavy penalty...well that's the theory. In regard to cycling canot ever see on the spot fines working..who would do it and how funded?