That is more than the development on Tyson Road, more than a small nursery, and probably more than the swimming pool. I can see why neighbours might object!

The problem is that this equates with about 200 people wanting their pizzas delivered from Dominos. Assuming there is that level of demand, there needs to be takeaways somewhere. But perhaps a limit to 4 mopeds in a single unit would not be unreasonable, except when located away from residential areas (i.e. Lewisham town centre).

I just tried to get onto to link you posted and it doesnt work is there another one .. I so dont want another pizza place..

Forest Hill Society objection to this application can be read at http://www.freewebs.com/foresthill/plann...20Road.pdf

I am not an avid supporter of this application.

However as the Forest Hill Society is a self professed "local civic society for the SE23 postal district" this report does no credit to the required objectivity in its assessment of the wider needs of SE23 civic society whether that be defined in terms of compliance with Lewisham's Planning Policies or the principle that the borough needs to present itself as a positive, competitive and welcoming environment for new business.

An objective report would have to embrace a balanced analysis of benefits and disbenefits of the proposal in a wider context than narrow compliance with that policy. It is evidently clear this short report does not achieve this.

There is no pretext here. However the development is effectively facing on to the south circular route, is opposite Plumbcenter, is virtually adjacent to a specialist retail outlet and is in close proximity to a major chain electrical shop, a thriving garden centre and the local fire station. It is also an a major bus route.

Any impact on the type of increased traffic as proposed that would be introduced here by the development would be negligible to the point of being vanishingly small.

If this site is not viewed in an objective fashion as being suitable for this kind of operation, from where is any reasonable view to emerge or be proposed as to what other location within the borough confines such a development can it be located.

I have heard the argument before from society members that it can only endorse or reject a proposal. I remain unconvinced as to the merits of this type of approach for a civic society. It is suitably empowered to consult on specific issues associated with proposals.

I am certain that the society is sufficiently principled as to resist a narrow populist approach but it remains a fact that this case may be a "best fit" scenario.

It cannot always be the case that it will be a win-win for everyone.

The fourth last para should read:

If this site is not viewed, in an objective fashion, as being suitable for this kind of operation, from where is any reasonable view to emerge or be proposed as to what other location such a development can be located within the borough confines.

jgdoherty,
You make some valid points and it would be nice if there was a more consensual approach to planning applications, but that is not the way it works. There have been 131 objections so far to this application, mainly from direct neighbours adjacent to and backing on to this site. That does not necessarily mean the FH Society needs to back them, but our conclusion was that this will have a significant negative impact on the amenity of neighbours, not because we object to pizza delivery business, but to the scale of the operation and the specific concerns regarding the use of up to eight mopeds in the evenings.

We spoke to residents affected by this development to better understand the impact of this application. And I must admit that it was only after these exchanges that I personally appreciated the specific concerns from this application. At present the entrance to this private lane is gated outside normal working hours for the security of the businesses and residents in the lane. The shape and hard surfaces in this lane amplify noise, so mopeds starting up every 2 minutes will have an impact on these residents and those backing onto this lane.

If the mopeds were able to be stored on the South Circular this objection probably would not be valid, but that is not possible on a Red Route with no parking in close proximity, other than behind the gated entrance to the lane. In the case of the application at the Old Bank site it was the impact of moped and the concerns about parking that led to the council officers, who are 'suitably empowered to consult on specific issues associated with proposals', rejecting the application and this was upheld by the planning inspector. Much the same issues apply in this case and residents deserve the same consideration, even if they live close to the A205, rather than the B238.

Beyond these critical concerns you are correct, that the Forest Hill Society should welcome new businesses to the area whether they be take aways, supermarkets, bars, churches, or most other businesses. This is the reason that our objection to the supermarket in Honor Oak Park was not about including a supermarket - it was minor issues with the residential units above, that have, in the main, been addressed in revisions by the developer. Having received the objection to 120 Stanstead Road, it is perfectly reasonable for the applicant to adjust their plans to make them more acceptable for local residents.

One final point I will make is that we deliberately publish the contents of planning objections (or approvals) by the Forest Hill Society, and refer to them if there is an appropriate thread on SE23.com, so that members and other local residents can make their own decisions and submit their own views on the application. It will continue to be the responsibility of council officers, elected councillors, or even the planning inspector to decide what is the 'best fit' for the site.

Is it my imagination or did Dominoes not used to have an outlet on Dartmouth Road years ago - where Wok is now, I think?

To be honest, I would welcome very much a Domino's on Dartmouth Road. I dont understand why they're not looking into one of the empty units there!

As I said in my response I am certain that the society is sufficiently principled as to endeavour to adhere to its Articles and maintain such an objective view as can be defined in these sets of circumstances.

It is encouraging to know that the society consulted with neighbours and it is very informative to know that there exists such a substantive body of objectors. It will oblige Lewisham's Planning Officer to analyse and to take full cognisance of those objections that validly apply to this proposal and to apply proper weight to them, not least of all because of the volume, in the considerations that must be made for inclusion in the Planning Report to members.

Whilst Michael and I may have to agree to disagree on what may be the best and thereby most effective approach for a civic society to adopt in the consultation phases of the planning process, it is de facto the case that Lewisham has frequently acknowledged issues raised in the society's reports, given them due cognisance and has incorporated caveats in conditions attached to planning consents. On balance this in itself underlines the merits and qualities of these reports.

I would return to Michael's point on noise and its amplification in the lane. It would be entirely reasonable for the society to effectively apply proper pressure on Domino's Pizza to undertake to deploy Electric Zero Emission Scooters at this location. This would be attractive to the company as at a stroke it would validate its environmental credentials and negate any concerns on the part of neighbours about the importation of additional noise into the lane as the vehicles start and run virtually silently. It might be argued that a balanced report would have incorporated such mitigation proposals.

For those of us on major routes and in the receiving areas where deliveries are made, it would have the added advantage of not having to tolerate the high-pitched buzz of the current bikes that sound so much like demented wasps.

This light hearted piece highlights a serious point that Domino's Pizza have successfully deployed such vehicles in Europe:

http://www.tecca.com/news/2012/04/19/dom...nds-video/

That idea had not occurred to me as a possible solution although I'm sure it would significantly reduce the disruption for neighbours. It is certainly a good idea but I'm not sure if it is the responsibility for the Society to create such solutions, although I agree it is sometimes worth suggesting them when appropriate.

There is a possibility that a planning condition of this nature could be challenged in appeal as being commercially non-viable, and this might allow the change of use without proper consideration of the noise of vehicles.

If Dominos feel that a revised submission with electric vehicles or pedal bicycles met their commercial objectives then I am sure it is something that would be carefully considered by everybody involved.

Since this application is likely to be referred to a Local Meeting, due to the number of objections, it is a possible solution that can be put to them at that time.

I'd just like to reiterate my original point. Everyone else is talking about roads and traffic and noise. I just want to be able to walk home.

The Plumb Center has numerous vans parked on its forecourt - at time, the only way to negotiate it with a buggy is to walk on to the South Circ.

The South Circ has a lot of traffic. But it doesn't stop me from walking along a pavement! Mopeds zipping across it every minute (it's on a red route, so this is what they are going to have to do somewhere unlike the pizzeria across it who do park on the main road) makes that much more hazardous, especially with young children.

Had a quick look at Forest Hill Society's Constitution as published on their web-site.

In Section 2 titled "Objectives" these clauses appear:

"In furtherance of these objectives but not otherwise the Society through its Executive Committee shall have the following powers;

...

(ii) To act as co-ordinating body and/or to co-operate with the; [sic] Local Authorities, Government Departments, Transport Authorities, Public and Private Companies, Charities, Voluntary Organisations, neighbouring Societies, and persons having objectives wholly or in part similar to those of the Society."

I must fully concur with michael when he states the Society has no sole responsibility for creation of solutions of the type discussed. Furthermore the Society is to be commended for its many successes and for the many hours of work its members contribute toward achieving its stated objectives.

However that is not to say that the objectives and powers that the Society sets for itself have been met by reason of the lack of objectivity in its short report on this application.

It's Constitution could not be clearer in that it chooses to act as a co-ordinating body with many parties with seemingly only one caveat - that these parties must have objectives that are similar to those of the Society.

Given that any reasonable view would conclude that Domino's Pizza have expressed no views or made statements that demonstrate any negative objectives or makes any proposals that counter those of the Society, perhaps they still can benefit from the Society's professed role as a co-ordinating body.

Honest mistakes can be and do get made. Taking action to correct them immediately they have been identified is imperative. The Society's web-page identifies two out of three of its main objections as being noise and parking of mopeds - both of which would be mitigated by the deployment of Electric Zero Emission Scooters

It can be argued that, in light of the report's absence of a statement about the acceptability of mitigation measures, an amended report should be submitted to the planning authority without delay and if procedurally this is not permitted the Society must consider writing to the authority advising that the report is withdrawn.

Silent scooters might be good for residents but surely they would increase the danger to pedestrians? The scooters would be crossing the pavement going in and out of the lane and the absence of engine noise wouldn't give warning to approaching pedestrians. It also wouldn't solve the issue of congestion in the lane and across the pavement.

And by the way, the Forest Hill Society doesn't write 'reports' on planning applications - they're letters of objection, which by their nature focus on negative points.

Whilst these words seem to mean different things to different people and groups, a culture shift from consultation to dialogue is the current coin in the definition of best practice for the development of new Neighbourhood Plans.

But it is noteworthy that current Planning system adheres to the terminological use of Consultation and in no dictionary will one find the definition of that word to mean solely a process of “objection, which by their nature focus on negative points”.

For the future should a civic society want to have a particular shop or to have specific conditions apply, it would be advantageous do so through the inclusion of such needs in a neighbourhood plan.

However before we reach that stage, micro considerations can be negotiated through consultation and the reaching of agreement and securing of commitments from developers and new businesses and perhaps most importantly of all, the local planning authority.

London Assembly documents articulate that “it’s not possible to define units down to that detail in local authority policies.” The document went on to say, “…that in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, a Tesco was only allowed in the High Street if it included an existing post office…”.

Securing that category of commitment by means of consultation and dialogue seems much more attractive and productive than adopting a singular and ultimately negative mode whereby only statements of rejection are made to the planners.

Although the Society is listed as a Consultee, their report does not appear on the list of documents on Lewisham’s Planning Portal.

So why can’t we do a Hammersmith and Fulham ?

Let us deploy our consultation and dialogue skills and negotiate commitments from the applicant and the authority to secure the delivery of these mitigation proposals.

This post was last modified: 18-07-2012 11:01 PM by jgdoherty.

I am but a layman......?

Apologies - it could and possibly should have been stated more simply.

Government want us to participate in making local neighbourhood plans.

This means that they want us all to form and join bodies and state what we want to happen for future plans for our neighbourhood. This should then be written into a plan.

There is an argument about whether the best means to do this is by consultation or dialogue.

Government believes it can educate us to understand how best we can engage in dialogue.

blushingsnail states that FHSOc, " only writes letters of objection, which by their nature focus on negative points.".

I disagree - Forest Hill Society members have remained silent on this point.

I think what happened in Hammersmith and Fulham where a neighbourhood body engaged in dialogue and successfully secured the addition of a post office in a proposed development was a spectacularly good outcome.

Can we do this type of thing in Lewisham ?

Yes - if a responsible body tells the developer and the planning authority about the need to use Electric Zero Emission Scooters on this site and if the applicant agrees to it, grant them planning consent.

I didn't say the FHSoc 'only' write letters of objection. I was pointing out that they don't write reports.

Yup - we are taught never to editorialise - I added an only where there was none stated.

I am also prepared to stand corrected, in part at least. I have found no example of when FHSoc refers to its objections as reports.

But then I cannot find them referring to them as letters either.

That part may be put down to semantics but what is important is the quality of the content of these objections.

This post was last modified: 21-07-2012 02:35 PM by jgdoherty.

A belated thought.......

It would be entirely regrettable if unconditional Planning Consent were granted by LB Lewisham because steps had not been taken to secure advance agreement with Domino's Pizza about the deployment of the Electric Zero Emission Scooters or to advise the Authority of this positive mitigation.

The potential to have the worst of all outcomes increases with prolonged inactivity.

An updated transport statement is now available at http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/ACOLLATEDOCS/88245_6.pdf

Most notably after 7pm (the busiest time) up to 8 mopeds will be parked in front of the shop rather than behind the locked gate. This should significantly reduce noise to neighbours living behind the building in the evenings.

You can see the space for the parking of up to 8 mopeds on streetview http://goo.gl/maps/4risI, it is the darker area behind the pavement but in front of the shop.